Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 11 2018 Called_Board_Meeting_Agenda_Packet _(FireRescueStudy) AGENDA CALLED MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2018 5:30 P.M. 107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VA Call to Order Adoption of Agenda Presentation by Fitch & Associates Adjourn May 2018 Executive Summary Report Frederick County Fire and Rescue, Virginia Prepared by: FITCH & ASSOCIATES, LLC 2901 Williamsburg Terrace #G Platte City Missouri 64079 816.431.2600 www.fitchassoc.com Frederick County, Virginia TABLE of CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY __________________________________________________________________________ 1 CDS ________________________________________________________________ 1 OMMUNITY EMANDS FOR ERVICE HP_______________________________________________________________________ 1 ISTORICAL ERFORMANCE EDPFFSA _________________________________ 2 STABLISHING ESIRED ERFORMANCE AND UTURE IRE TATION LTERNATIVES Figure 1: Optimized Station Deployment Plan - 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time _______ 4 Figure 2: Optimized Station Deployment Plan - 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time ______ 5 WCRRR __________________________________________ 6 ORKLOAD APACITY EINVESTING OR EALLOCATING ESOURCES Figure 3: Station Level Unit Hour Utilization ____________________________________________________________ 6 Figure 4: Probability of Overlapped Calls Occur by Station Serv ______________________________________ 7 CRA ____________________________________________________________________ 8 OMMUNITY ISK SSESSMENT Figure 5: Occupancy Level Risk Matrix ________________________________________________________________ 8 Figure 6: Summary of Station Fire Demand Zone Risk Concentration Matrix __________________________________ 8 Table 1: Summary of Station Service Area Risk Concentration Rat _______________________________________ 9 R-AAR________________________________________________ 10 ISKBASED PPROACH TO THE LLOCATION OF ESOURCES Alternative 1  Risk-based Engine and Station Staffing at 8-Minutes Urban/Suburban __________________ 10 Table 2: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alter 8/13 All 11 Fire Stations _____________ 11 Alternative 2  Risk-based Engine and Station Staffing at 10-Minutes Urban/Suburban _________________ 11 Table 3: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Altern 10/13 All 11 Fire Stations ____________ 12 Alternative 3  Partially Autonomous EMS Layer with Risk-based Engine Staffing ______________________ 12 Table 4: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alter 10/13 All 11 Fire Stations ____________ 13 Alternative 4  Partially Autonomous EMS Layer and 2-Person Engine Staffing ________________________ 14 Table 5: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alternative 4  10/13 All 11 Fire Stations ____________ 14 Alternative 5  Partially Autonomous EMS at 12 Minutes and 2-Person Engine Staffing _________________ 15 Table 6: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alter 12 Minutes All 11 Fire Stations ________ 15 Alternative 6  Peak Load Ambulance Program and 2-Person Engine Staffing _________________________ 16 Figure 7: Average EMS Calls and EMS Transports per Day by Hour of Day ____________________________________ 16 Table 7: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alter 10/13 All 11 Fire Stations ____________ 17 Fiscal Comparison of Alternative Staffing and Deployment Models _________________________________ 17 Table 8: Comparison Table of Alternatives Utilizing Average Salary for Personnel Cos ____________________ 18 S,S,O _____________________________________________________________ 18 TAFFINGCHEDULINGAND VERTIME Staffing and Schedules _____________________________________________________________________ 18 Table 9: Comparison of Various Work Schedules and Staffing Dema ____________________________________ 19 Overtime ________________________________________________________________________________ 20 Measuring Total Response Time and Dispatch Center Performance _________________________________ 21 NON-DEPLOYEMENT OBSERVATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS _________________________________________ 22 DSSN _______________________________________________________________ 22 IVISION AND UPPORT TAFF EEDS FV,G,OFG____________________________________________ 28 UTURE ISION OALS AND BJECTIVES FOR UTURE ROWTH Evaluation of Projected Future Growth ________________________________________________________ 28 Figure 8: Projected Service Demand Growth of 4.02% ___________________________________________________ 28 Figure 9: Annual Population Change 2016-2021 ________________________________________________________ 29 Developing a System of Standards to Guide Performance Management _____________________________ 30 Frederick County, VA Page i © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Figure 10: Summary of Recommended Baseline Service Objectives ________________________________________ 31 Frederick County, VA Page ii © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Frederick County contracted with Fitch & Associates to objective departments operations, deployment, and staffing. The Frederick County Fire Rescue Department is largely motivated to evaluate the current response model and the risk-based, data driven staffing and deployment plan based upon the sue profile of Frederick County. Comprehensive data based quantitative and geospatial analyses were utilized to objectivel the historical county demand for services by type and severity. Occupancy level data were obtained from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) and Frederick Countys utilized to assess occupancy level risk within the community. Ultimately, occupancies were categorized as low, moderate, and high risks and geocoded to the respective existingstation service area boundaries to establish an efficient and objective risk-based strategy for resource allocation. Additionally, the Fitch team made several visits to the organiza internal and external stakeholders. A series of structured inte occasions with members representing all levels and functions within the organization. This comprehensive report consists of an executive summary repor coverage and community risk assessment report, a comprehensive d report. The Department leadership staff has reviewed and approved the dapart of an iterative process. Overall, the firms strategy is to provide administration and th group with sufficient objective data from which to establish policy. Therefore, all alternatives and recommendations are grounded in the data analysis and best pract process from potential biases. In total 34 recommendations were provided for the departments c executive summary will provide a brief overview of the substantiommendations and observations. Community Demands for Service Commensurate with most communities that provide integrated fire (EMS), requests for EMS are the vast majority of community driven incident activity. EMS acc for 79.3% and fire accounts for less than 13.5% of the incidents. The Frederick County answered nearly 10,250 unique requests for service in 2016. Historical Performance The Frederick County Fire Rescue Department currently operates from 11 fixed facility fire stations and has a travel time of 10.3 minutes overall. EMS related incidents have a 10.1-minute travel time or Frederick County, VA Page 1 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 less and fire related incidents have an 11.7-minute travel time or less for 90 percent of the incidents. In other words, 9 out of 10 times, the department will provide t The Commission on Fire Accreditation International affords accre- minutes at the 90 th percentile in rural communities with populations of less than 1, mile.1 Therefore, the response performance by Frederick County is meeti accreditation allowances. Establishing Desired Performance and Future Fire Station Alternatives The fire departments current performance is defined as a travel of the incidents. The evidenced-based research in emergency medical services and fire behavior s agency cannot respond to the most critical of incidents within 5-minutes or less from onset, the outcome is not strictly correlated to the response time. Theref latitude in establishing the desired service. This study provides several alternatives for consideration primarily in 8 and 10-minute travel times, respectively. Results suggest that for the county to improve tr performance of 10-minutes to 8-minutes, it would require the relocation of the majority of the 1 fire stations. The current station configuration can respond to appr 8-minutes travel time. In other words, the long-term strategy of rebuilding stations in optimized locations, as they need replaced can improve performance by 2-minutes and 10% over the existing configuration. The recurring costs for personnel, apparatus, and equipment woul by the station locations. The mapping for an optimized 8-minute urban/suburban and 13-minute rural travel time is provided below in Figure 1. Recommendation: If the desired service level is to improve to an 8-minute travel time, it is recommended that the County consider a long-term strategy to relocate fire stations when they are due for a or replacement. Once fully implemented the county would have the same number of fire stations as today (11). Similarly, an optimized station location plan at the current per-minutes urban/suburban and 13-minutes rural would need a total of 7-stations to continue to provide services in 10-minutes in the urban/suburban areas at greater than 90% and a to within 13-minutes. Therefore, a long-term strategy could be adopted to relocate stations, as they need to be replaced in optimized locations and reduce the capital and offsetements once fully implemented. CFAI. (2016). Fire & emergency service self-assessment manual, (9ed.). Chantilly, Virginia: Author. 1th Frederick County, VA Page 2 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 While the cost of new stations vary considerably by the clients footprints, it is reasonable to utilize $4,000,000 as a planning placeholder for capital costs. If the assumption holds, then this option would have a long-term net capital reduction of approximately $16,000,000 in todays dollars. A mapping illustration of the optimized station locations for a -minute urban/suburban travel time and a 13-minute rural travel time is provided below in Figure 2. Recommendation: If the desired service level is to maintain the current 10-minute travel time, it is recommended that the County adopt a long-term strategy to relocate fire stations when they are due for a major refurbis replacement. Once fully implemented the county would have reduc offset personnel requirement by redistributing existing personned. This is estimated as a long-term capital savings of approximately $16,000,000 dollars while maint Frederick County, VA Page 3 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Figure 1: Optimized Station Deployment Plan - 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Frederick County, VA Page 4 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Figure 2: Optimized Station Deployment Plan - 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Frederick County, VA Page 5 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Workload Capacity  Reinvesting or Reallocating Resources The department is currently operating within the boundaries of nationally recommended best practices with respect to workload. Overall, the department is performing at approximately 0.15, or 15%. We grouped cross-staffed units together and conducted Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) analyses at the station level. Greenwood Station has the highest workload at 0.45, followed by Ste station at 0.24, Round Hill Community at 0.19. North Mountain, Tannery stations all had UHU less than or equal to 5%. FITCHs position is that workloads greater than 0.25 are not optimal on a 24-hour shift and should not exceed 0.30. The addition of a dedicated Medic unit at the Gree-distribute the workload across the singular crew that cross-staffs each of the units. An additional Medic resource should be considered for the Stephens City station in t nearly at our recommended threshold to begin planning for a new should have a moderating effect on some of the other stations, reducing the UHU for multiple units responding from surrounding stations. The UHU analysis is provided below. Figure 3: Station Level Unit Hour Utilization Unit Hour Utilization 0.5 IAFFFitch 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 In addition, a second measure for overlapping or simultaneous events is utilized to identify areas that are challenged to respond to incidents in their own first due service area because of multiple calls Frederick County, VA Page 6 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 occurring at once. Overlapped calls are defined as the rate at which another call was received for the same first due station service area while there were one or more ongoing calls in the same first due station service area. For example, if there is one call in station Stephens Citys zone, before the call was cleared another request in Stephens Citys zone occurred and those two calls would be captured as overlapped calls. Some studies also refer as simultaneous calls. Understanding the probability of overlapped or simultaneous calls occurs will help to determine t station. In general, the larger the call volume a first due station overlapped or simultaneous calls. The distribution of the deman chance of having overlapped or simultaneous calls. The duration of a call will also have major influences, since the longer time it takes to clear a request, t to have an overlapped request. Station Stephens City had the highest probability of having over highest demand at 2,216 requests in 2016, and the average duration was Greenwood had the second highest probability of overlapped calls the second highest demand at 1,990 requests in 2016 and the averration was 65.9 minutes. Figure 4: Probability of Overlapped Calls Occur by Station Service Area Therefore, the combination of both the workload indicator UHU an or simultaneous events influence the following recommendations. Recommendation: It is recommended that a dedicated Medic unit be added at the Gr Frederick County, VA Page 7 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 resource should be considered for the Stephens City station in t Recommendation: It is recommended that the workload, reliability, and call concu in Greenwood, Stephens City, Round Hill Community, Millwood, Gaiir relatively higher workloads. Community Risk Assessment In addition to the historical demands for services, a prospectiv jurisdiction was completed. In total, 924 occupancies were eval fire flow, the number of stories, the square footage, construction class, and the b class. In addition, the presence of passive mitigation strategies such included to moderate risk ratings where appropriate. Figure 5: Occupancy Level Risk Matrix Occupancies, or commercial buildings were rated as high, moderate, or low risks and geocoded to each fire station first due service area utilizing the following occupancy level risk matrix. Next concentration risk matrix was utilized to help identify which stservice areas were of high, moderate, or low risk utilizing the following risk matrix. Figure 6: Summary of Station Fire Demand Zone Risk Concentration Matrix Frederick County, VA Page 8 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 This analysis provides direction for the allocation and concentr stations relative risk rating. The analysis suggests that both Stephens City and Station 18  Greenwood are high-risk station areas and the Station 13  Clear Brook, Station 15  Round Hill, and Station 21  Millwood Station are of a moderate risk. All other stations wer classified as low risk. The results are provided below. Table 1: Summary of Station Service Area Risk Concentration Ratings Station Service Call Sum Total Risk Area DemandRisk ConcurrencyScoreScore Risk Rating 11 55 102,812.553.03 High 12 21 6 929.59 Low 13 33 8 616.524.83 Moderate 14 11 3 9.53.08 Low 15 42 10103232.12 Moderate 16 11 7 49.57.04 Low 17 11 2 4.52.12 Low 18 53 101,812.542.57 High 19 11 5 25.55.05 Low 20 11 5 25.55.05 Low 21 33 7 481.521.94 Moderate Frederick County, VA Page 9 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Risk-based Approach to the Allocation of Resources Following a risk-based approach to managing risk in the County, two fire station service areas were categorized as high-risk station service areas and three station service areas were categorized as moderate. All other stations service areas were categorized as low-risk stations. Within a risk-based approach, the system is designed to have a higher concentration risk versus lower risk. In all developed alternatives below, it is assumed that the Battalion Chief will continue as currently deployed and that would bring the current minimum staffing to 27 intended that every station would cross-staff an ambulance, preferably at the Advanced Life Support (ALS) level. Alternative 1  Risk-based Engine and Station Staffing at 8-Minutes Urban/Suburban Alternative 1 contemplates a risk-based deployment strategy that utilizes all 11-current fire stations and seeks to achieve an 8-minute travel time for urban/suburban areas and a 13-minute travel time for rural incidents. As previously discussed, it is understood -minute travel time may only achieve approximately 80% of the incidents within the urban/subu be to achieve 90% of the incidents. However, it should not be discounted that the vast major the incidents would be responded to within 8-minutes or less. This alternative would increase engine staffing from 2 to 3 pers moderate and high-risk station zones (11, 13, 15, 18, and 21). All other stations would c staffed with 2 personnel on the primary fire apparatus. This is fire suppression and first responder EMS incidents. Staffed ambulances would be provided at stations 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 21. A would be assigned to stations 11 and 18, both high-risk stations. Stations 14, 17, 19, and 20 would continue to be staffed with 2 personnel and cross-staff an ambulance consistent with current practice. This alternative would have all ALS ambulances and wo-staffed ALS chase vehicles. Station 16 is allocated an ALS ambulance and the associated 2-person staffing due to an analysis the evaluated the balance between call concurrency and call volume. For this report, i that any station service areas that have greater than or equal to 1,800 (<5 calls per day) and than or equal to 15% call concurrency that each unit is staffed han continuing to cross-staff resources. Therefore, all additional engine staffing was allocated due to t The recommendations for staffed ambulance placement is allocated requirements to achieve the greatest contribution to response tierformance. Station 16 is the Frederick County, VA Page 10 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 only exception. This alternative would have all ALS ambulances - staffed ALS chase vehicles. Table 2: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alternative 1  8/13 All 11 Fire Stations Station Risk Rating Service Area 11 Engine ALSALS47High 12 Engine ALS 24Low 13EngineALS25Moderate 14 Engine 22Low 15 Engine ALS 25Moderate 16 Engine ALS 24Low 17 Engine 22Low 18 Engine ALSALS47High 19 Engine 22Low 20 Engine 22Low 21 Engine ALS 25Moderate Total117226 2 45 Note: Apparatus are restricted to the recommended primary staffed unit additional apparatus staffed by volunteers. Alternative 2  Risk-based Engine and Station Staffing at 10-Minutes Urban/Suburban Alternative 2 contemplates a risk-based deployment strategy that utilizes all 11-current fire stations and seeks to achieve a 10-minute travel time for urban/suburban areas and a 13-minute travel time for rural incidents. As previously discussed, it is understood that-minute travel time will accomplish a minimum of 90% of the incidents within the urban/su should not be discounted that the vast majority of the incidents- minutes or less (80%) if all 11 stations continue to be utilized. This alternative would increase engine staffing from 2 to 3 pers moderate and high-risk station zones (11, 13, 15, 18, and 21). All other stations staffed with 2 personnel on the primary fire apparatus. This is to accomplish the baseline services f fire suppression and first responder EMS incidents. Staffed ambulances would be provided at stations 11, 12, 13, 15, would be assigned to stations 11 and 21, both high-risk stations. Stations 14, 17, 19, and 20 would It is understood that all current minimal staffing is 27 with the 2 Battalion Chief is assumed to remain as currently deployed. Frederick County, VA Page 11 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 continue to be staffed with 2 personnel and cross-staff an ambulance consistent with current practice. Station 16 is allocated an ALS ambulance and the associated 2-person staffing due to an analysis the evaluated the balance between call concurrency and call volume. that any station service areas that have greater than or equal to 1,800 (<5 calls per day) and than or equal to 15% call concurrency that each unit is staffed rather than continuing to cross-staff resources. Therefore, all additional engine staffing was allocated due to t The recommendations for staffed ambulance placement is allocatedgraphic requirements to achieve the greatest contribution to response ti only exception. This alternative would have all ALS ambulances - staffed ALS chase vehicles. Table 3: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alternative 2  10/13 All 11 Fire Stations Station Risk Rating Service Area 11 Engine ALSALS47High 12 Engine ALS 24Low 13 Engine ALS 25Moderate 14 Engine 22Low 15 Engine ALS 25Moderate 16 Engine ALS 24Low 17 Engine 22Low 18 Engine ALS 45Moderate 19 Engine 22Low 20 Engine 22Low 21 Engine ALSALS27High Total117226 45 Note: Apparatus are restricted to the recommended primary staffed unit additional apparatus staffed by volunteers. Alternative 3  Partially Autonomous EMS Layer with Risk-based Engine Staffing Alternative 3 is an incremental variation of the Alternative 2. Analyses have demonstrated that stations 12 and 16 are not required to meet 90% of the incidents-minute urban/suburban travel times for EMS. In other words, all 11-stations would be included for fire, non-EMS, and first responder EMS incidents. Only 9-stations would be resourced with staffed ambulances and stations Frederick County, VA Page 12 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 12 and 16 would continue current practices. All moderate and hi-risk stations are recommended to have 3-person engine staffing. Table 4: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alternative 3  10/13 All 11 Fire Stations Station Risk Rating Service Area 11 Engine ALSALS47High 12 Engine 22Low 13EngineALS25Moderate 14 Engine ALS 24Low 15 Engine ALS 25Moderate 16 Engine 22Low 17 Engine ALS 24Low 18 Engine ALS 45Moderate 19 Engine ALS 24Low 20 Engine ALS 24Low 21 Engine ALSALS27High Total119226 49 Note: Apparatus are restricted to the recommended primary staffed unit additional apparatus staffed by volunteers. Frederick County, VA Page 13 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Alternative 4  Partially Autonomous EMS Layer and 2-Person Engine Staffing Alternative 4 is an incremental variation of either Alternatives 1 deployment between Alternative 1 and 2, are the changes from Stas have demonstrated that stations 12 and 16 are not required to meet 90-minute urban/suburban travel times for EMS. In other words, all 11-stations would be included for fire, non- EMS, and first responder EMS incidents. Only 9-stations would be resourced with staffed ambulances and all fire suppression apparatus would continue wit-person staffing. Table 5: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alternative 4  10/13 All 11 Fire Stations Station Risk Rating Service Area 11 Engine ALSALS46High 12 Engine 22Low 13 Engine ALS 24Moderate 14 Engine ALS 24Low 15 Engine ALS 24Moderate 16 Engine 22Low 17 Engine ALS 24Low 18 Engine ALS 44Moderate 19 Engine ALS 24Low 20 Engine ALS 24Low 21 Engine ALSALS26High Total119226 44 Note: Apparatus are restricted to the recommended primary staffed units. This summa additional apparatus staffed by volunteers. Frederick County, VA Page 14 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Alternative 5  Partially Autonomous EMS at 12 Minutes and 2-Person Engine Staffing Alternative 5 is an incremental variation of either Alternatives 1 or 2. The only difference in baseline deployment between Alternative 1 and 2, are the changes from Sta 11-stations would be included for fire, non-EMS, and first responder EMS incidents and would continue to perform at 10-minutes urban/suburban and 13-minutes rural coverage. However, an additional ALS ambulance layer would be provided at a 12-minute travel time. Only 5-stations would be resourced with staffed ambulances and all fire suppression apparatus would continue with 2- person staffing. Table 6: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alternative 5  12 Minutes All 11 Fire Stations Station Risk Rating Service Area 11 Engine ALSALS46High 12 Engine 22Low 13 Engine ALS 24Moderate 14 Engine 22Low 15 Engine 22Moderate 16 Engine ALS 24Low 17 Engine 22Low 18 Engine 42Moderate 19 Engine ALS 24Low 20 Engine 22Low 21 Engine ALSALS 26High Total115226 36 Note: Apparatus are restricted to the recommended primary staffed unit additional apparatus staffed by volunteers. Frederick County, VA Page 15 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Alternative 6  Peak Load Ambulance Program and 2-Person Engine Staffing Alternative 6 is an incremental variation of either Alternatives 1 deployment between Alternative 1 and 2, is the changes from Station 18 to 21. In this scenario- stations would be included for fire, non-EMS, and first responder EMS incidents and would continue to perform at 10-minutes urban/suburban and 13-minutes rural coverage. However, any additional staffed ambulances are provided as peak-load units that work 12-hours per day. In total, 7 peak-load ambulances could be deployed plus 2 additional 24/7 ambulances. current practices of cross-staffing ambulances. The middle of the day, between 8:00 am and 8:00 pm, experiences volume and workload. In addition, the overwhelming volume is fo opposed to fire suppression incidents with a relatively high transport rate. Much of the non-peak overnight period has less than one call every two hours on avera Figure 7: Average EMS Calls and EMS Transports per Day by Hour of Day Therefore, considering Alternative 6 would include the strategy of hiring 12-hour employees to meet demands above and beyond the base level services. This is the m increases in demand for the future once base level services haveor the 24-hour period. Frederick County, VA Page 16 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Table 7: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alternative 6  10/13 All 11 Fire Stations Station Risk Rating Service Area 11 Engine ALS ALS 4 4 2 High 12 Engine ALS 2 2 2 Low 13 Engine ALS 2 2 2 Moderate 14 Engine 2 2 0 Low 15 Engine ALS 2 2 2 Moderate 16 Engine ALS 2 2 2 Low 17 Engine 2 2 0 Low 18 Engine ALS 4 2 2 Moderate 19 Engine 2 2 0 Low 20 Engine 2 2 0 Low 21 Engine ALS ALS 3 2 4 2 High Total11 7 2 26 26 14 Note: Apparatus are restricted to the recommended primary staffed unit This summary does not address additional apparatus staffed by volunteers. Fiscal Comparison of Alternative Staffing and Deployment Models A comparison of the general costs for each of the developed alte below. A baseline estimate for a minimum staffing of 26 personnel per day utili salary range of $54,118.12 as provided by the department. It is is assigned to each shift bringing the actual minimum staffing th day. However, to compare alternatives for the personnel assigned to primary response appa utilized was 26. As stated previously, in all scenarios it is a currently deployed. In addition, the departments current staffing multiplier (3.82) was utili these comparison purposes. Under the current staffing strategy, each person deployed 24/7. Finally, it is also understood that ersonnel costs only utilizing the average salary as provided by FCFRD and may n compensation. This is for comparison purposes to illustrate the alternative. The resource allocation and definition of high-risk station shifts between Stations 18 and 21 depending on whet 3 10-minute travel time is adopted. Frederick County, VA Page 17 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Table 8: Comparison Table of Alternatives Utilizing Average Salary for Pe Alternative Current Proposed Delta from Delta from Current Minimum Minimum Current FTE Staffing Utilizing Staffing Staffing of 100 Average Salary (w/o BC) (w/o BC) (w/o BC) Alternative 1 26 45 73 $3,927,893.15 Alternative 2 26 73 45 $3,927,893.15 Alternative 326 89 49 $4,754,818.02 Alternative 426 69 44 $3,721,161.93 Alternative 5 26 39 36$2,067,312.18 Alternative 626 35 4 14$1,894,134.20 Recommendation: # The County is encouraged to consider one of the alternatives to Staffing, Scheduling, and Overtime Staffing and Schedules The fire department currently operates on a modified Detroit sthat equates to an average workweek of 56 hours per week regardless of the pay cycle for ea completed to determine if there were any fiscal advantages to ch Departments around the country utilize a variety of schedules that typically result in a 42, 48, or 56- hour workweek. Schedules for 42, 48, and 56-hour workweeks were evaluated to determine the relative fiscal impact of the various schedules. In all scenari on all units and no deployment changes were necessary or contemplat completed to determine the impact of establishing a Kelly Day or hours; 52-hour workweek or less. This analysis utilizes the average leave histories of the employees provided by FCFRD. When referring to the table below, the staffing multiplier is th one position or seat on an apparatus 24 hours a day and 7 days ak and annual hours. For example, for the 42-hour workweek in the first row, it would require 4.67 employees to continuously staff one position 24/7. This table aminimum daily staffing of 27 personnel 24/7. Peak Load Schedule only requires 2.5 personnel to fulfill the sc 4 Frederick County, VA Page 18 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Table 9: Comparison of Various Work Schedules and Staffing Demands Work Week Annual Staffing Needed Additional Delta from Delta in (hrs.) Hours Multiplier Employees Employees to Current of Personnel Cover Vacation 103 Costs Utilizing Slots Average Salary 42 (Kelly Days) 2,184 4.67 126 21 44 Additional $2,381,197.28 48 (Kelly Days)2,496 4.0 108 15 20 Additional$1,082,362.40 52 (Kelly Day) 2,704 3.6599 13 9 Additional $487,063.08 56 2,9123.369112 0$0 The departments current staffing multiplier is 3.82 (103 shift FTE / 27 minimum staffing). Therefore, the department has elected to staff for the available vacation s multiplier. For example, 103 shift FTE / 3 shifts = approximate equate to a total of 7 personnel that could be off on any shift (34 27 minimum staffing = 7) prior to hiring back on overtime. However, as the those employees need to have access to time off as well. Therefore, the number of time of slots needs to be increased to 3.6 from 3.2. Again, doubling the avai would be approximately 7 slots, which is in line with the departments current practices. Results from this analysis suggest that within the current minimum staffing of 27 personnel average leave history of the employees; the optimized staffing c approach already accounts for 3.6 vacation slots per day within mula. Therefore, following the departments current practice, an additional 12 em x 3.36 = 12.1) to cover the available time off slots. The number of available slots that personnel can take off each leave is approximately 6. There are times where this may be exceeded wit the total hours of 27,923 hours that include vacation, sick leav accounts, it would require a minimum of 3.2 available slots for all employees to utilize their average leave. This figure was calculated when the department had 91 pe are 103 personnel, the number of required slots is 3.6. However as desirable as others, therefore a factor of approximately 2, o reasonable solution to account for desirable days, partial vacat the department continue to utilize the 7 available slots per day, but do not allow greater than 7 personnel off per shift on scheduled leave. The current schedule that the fire department utilizes is the mo coverage 24 hours per day 7 days a week. Recommendation: It is recommended that Frederick County and FCFRD continue with t foreseeable future. Frederick County, VA Page 19 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Recommendation: It is recommended that FCFRD continue to use no more than 7 slo Overtime There is a direct relationship between the available staffing an the average workweek and minimum staffing, there may be some add resources as the system continues to grow to meet community demands. However, there are three general factors that contribute to overtime usage that deserves payment for premium overtime (1.5 X base rate) for all scheduled hours. Since the average workweek is 56 hours, there is inherent Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime that oc pay period that has nothing to do with leave usage of the person overtime at the premium regardless of the sweat hours (hours aas opposed to hours on some type of leave) that are afforded in the federal FL the employee took several days vacation, reducing the sweat hours or actual time at work, the scheduled work hours would continue to be compensated at full rate and at a premium rate for hours past 212 hours in the 28-day work cycle (7 days/week x 4 weeks). At 56 hours a workweek, average month would be approximately 224 hours (56-hour week x 4 weeks). Therefore, there would be approximately 12 hours of overtime each month for each employee due to schedule plus an additional 8 hours of off duty training per mon These hours are inherent in the prescribed schedule prior to anyl overtime to cover PTO, unscheduled leave, etc. Second, as previously described, the department has 8-hours of training scheduled each month that will always be paid at the premium rate because it is above the the department allows greater than 7 personnel off per shift, such as sch positions are vacated due to unscheduled leave, the department m minimum staffing of 27 is obtained. The unscheduled leave experience may have the greatest unpredicted impact on overtime based on the limited ability for Finally, since all scheduled hours above 212 in 28 days are esse interest of the County to hire FTEs rather than carry the extra burden of overtime. For example, since all overtime is at the premium 1.5 rate, it may be better t the 1.0 rate. Virginia has eliminated the benefit of the FLSA sweat hours requirementrequiring all scheduled hours to be compensated irrespective of if they utilized vacatio Therefore, the traditional method of determining the break over of straight time employment versus overtime at a premium is negated. Recommendation: Since the relationship is a 1 to 1 ratio, it is recommended that offset the need for shift back-fill and provides for additional surge capacity in the system fo Adding additional personnel seems to be a more efficient use of limited fiscal resources. Frederick County, VA Page 20 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Measuring Total Response Time and Dispatch Center Performance The Department has not established goals for system performance SOC. The aggregate performance is more representative of the system performance. The individual station demand zones performance provides understanding of the c While it is up to the department to establish policy related to expectations, there are opportunities to better align goals and baseline However, it is important to clarify nuances in the data collecti distinct dispatch time, defined from when a citizen calls 911 ncy crews and apparatus are dispatched, is not clearly identifiable in the dat between when the units/crews are notified until they are enroute either. Therefore, the data reports an aggregated value of both dispatch and turnout time at 7.3 th minutes at the 90 percentile. Based-on national experience, it is more likely that the elongated tim with the turnout time that may be most influenced by times when volunteers have to drive to the station before responding. However, several suggestions are provided to and performance management. While it is understandable that the travel time is over 10-minutes for Frederick County Fire and Rescue, it is also recognized that the total citizen experience th called until the first units arrival at the 90percentile. This is known as the total response time. The department could impact the total response time in most instances with the improvement of crew turnout time and/or improved dispatch time that is more clo such as NFPA 1710 or NFPA 1221. Irrespective of the national re suggested that best practice is 2 minutes or less at the 90 th percentile for call processing or dispatch time. Recommendation: It is recommended that FCFRD begin dispatching at the unit level manner, performance between career or staffed models and volunteer or unstaffed models cou evaluated within the context of the service delivery model. Thi to measure dispatch or call processing time. Recommendation: Once the dispatch center is able to dispatch at the unit level and separa time. The department is encouraged to monitor turnout time to e at 60 seconds for an EMS incident and up to 90 seconds for a fire related incident. Turnout time performance is typically within personnel and management controls generally a no-cost option. Frederick County, VA Page 21 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 NON-DEPLOYEMENT OBSERVATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Division and Support Staff Needs Admin/EMS Billing As the organization grows additional demands are placed on the a – staff. Additional line personnel equate to an exponential increase in the provision of administrative services, which in turn can negatively impact the effective output of staff. Keeping pace with the number of administrative personnel is paramount to organizational activities can be accomplished effectively and ef Consistent with this theme is the need to provide an identifiable means of horizontal and vertical communications, defined job descriptions, work space and equipment compatible wi planning, and opportunities for personal and professional growth Deliberate and contemplative consideration should be given when determining the need for addi appropriate assignments, and the potential of replacing administFTE vacancies with line and staff fire officers. Recommendation: It is understood that FCFRD has recently filled this position. It is recommended that FCFRD continue efforts to ensure long-term sustainability of the new position. Training Division - The personnel assigned to the FCFRD Training Division continue to perform at a high level under continually increasing demands. As the communi risks and exposures become more diverse, training of personnel b Delivery of requisite training programs is directly proportionate to the personnel ava the training. Currently the limited staff is providing all prog-service, specialty on-demand programs, and officer development. Potential increases to training efficiencies could be realized through the development of a dedicated trainin certified instructors, and the expanded use of Target Solutions, Division and company officers. Current delivery methodology lends itself to increasi overtime hours, flex scheduling, and potential burn out of tra continues to grow it does not appear that the current number of and subsequent delivery systems, are sustainable over time. In addition, it wo organization to develop a division succession plan to account fo Recommendation: It is recommended that the possibility of developing on shift training officers be explo training division and relieve excessive hours from current staff Life Safety/Fire Marshal - This division is impacted by county growth and development on a basis due to the plan review and inspection functions being perf division also supplement and support emergency functions as needhe organizational hierarchy. The divergence from their identified potential to negatively impact service delivery and customer sat Timeliness is paramount Frederick County, VA Page 22 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 when assisting customers who need approvals, certifications, or authorizations to move forward with various business endeavors. Currently division functions a of full time and part time personnel. As the built inventory in evaluate the historic work metrics of both full and part time staff. Demands for Life Safety division will continue to increase and may create th positions to full time positions. The department can determine the appropriate fire inspection staffing levels by evaluating the general demand for services, the frequency of service, and the a an example, if the department has 1,000 inspectable properties, year, and the average time to complete an inspection is 1 hour; capacity to accomplish 6 full inspections (plus travel and lunch complete (less average vacation, sick leave, etc.). This is calulated as 1,000 inspections X 1 hour per inspection = 1,000 needed hours. Next, 6 inspections per day would require 1, hours per week) / 1,000 = 0.75. This can be replicated for othe education, etc. As fire prevention is the first line of defense in protecting th the organization to constantly reassess the effectiveness of the return on the investment being made. The Fire Marshals office has a dedicated, qualified staff committed to their mission. Progress and effectiveness can be e activities perceived to be a low priority. Horizontal and vertic well defined and contain feedback and follow up provisions. Recommendation: It is recommended that the FCFRD consider requesting an officialDept. of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, regarding the specific local conditions regar-Call status. While there are general guidelines relative to compensation for these hours, there are m each agencys use of on-call hours. Said opinion would be useful in developing an organ could clearly and definitively explain the counties position Operations - Emergency response personnel continue to meet their challenge with limited resources. FCFRD is fortunate to have dedicated individuals committed to th adapt to the changing environment. Limited staffing, as identifstaff officers, directly impacts the time necessary to assemble an effective fire force. Due to the uncertainties of volunteer response the limited staffing also impacts the commitment of mulstations, which further exacerbates the issue of coverage of simultaneous calls for assistance. Under the current model the continued increase of EMS related incidents further erodes the availability and other emergency activities. Given the inherent risks associa personnel safety is of the utmost importance. Essential to thiss the standardization of policies. Frederick County, VA Page 23 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Recommendation: It is recommended that a clearly defined chain of command policy volunteer staffing/response. Continued analysis of projected cory to determine short and long-term needs for appropriate staffing locations Organizational Structure and Management The current FCFRD organizational chart shows three distinct divi Training. While Administration can loosely be identified on t the Division level, EMS Operations and Volunteer related activities do not appear in the organizational chart. While neither of the absent functional arappears to rise to the Division level, they are nevertheless significant contributors to organiz for certain functional tasks to be comingled within existing Divisions for ease of a, as indicated by Resource Manager (Logistics), under the Operations Division as much of the logistics function is impacted by operational concerns or issues. In simion, volunteer related functions seem to be aligned with Administration due, in large p the Fire Chief. Both the Chiefs Working Group and the Fire & R Fire Chief, however they have no official place on the FCFRD organizational chart. Managing across divisional boundaries requires a concentrated ef communication is paramount and should include the Chiefs Workin Association. Administrative communications should be formalized and utilize a pathway. The development of specific distribution lists can be helpful to the right messages. Each functional division should develop a vcal pathway to streamline the dissemination of information. Information intended for departme rely on word of mouth communication and should be accomplished t . organizational policy Divisional leadership should be charged with developing recommendations that c incentivize personnel to pursue opportunities within the divisio for divisional advancement based on competencies, experience, an Often the best- qualified candidates in a division can be eliminated from consideration fo prerequisite requirements not available by serving in the divisi be impacted due to divisional leaders having to learn from the ground up regarding their new responsibilities. Effective control of emergency incidents relies heavily on span command. Standardized operating policies are necessary to allow be effective throughout the system regardless of location. Adequate superv personnel, paid and volunteer, is essential for safe operations. sole determinant of the need for supervision. Each station woulell served to have an Officer on duty at all times. This provides for the necessary accountab and clearly identifies the decision-making authority. Station Officers take command of incidents un relieved by a higher-ranking officer or as defined by organizational policy. Ultimatel Frederick County, VA Page 24 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 should have one Incident Commander. The delineation of this con organizational policy, with input from the various stakeholders,cross all . districts within FCFRD With approximately 80% of all emergency activity being EMS relat paid staff involved in these incidents, there seems to be a limited of identity of this function in the current organizational chart. Given the complexities of prehospital emergency care, and the transportation of the sick and injured, the need for specialized, incident supervision, compliance, equipment standardization, protocols, and medical direction may require a dedicated EMS officer. The continued success of FCFRD, and the effective planning for f fixed stations, apparatus acquisition and deployment, operating changes required by an evolving community, is best served by the appointment of a single Fire Chief who has the ultimate authority and is directly responsible for a FCFRD. From a historical perspective this has been an outcome foss the country. It is an evolutionary process necessitated by the and external influences faced by fire departments everywhere, ev collaborative effort of all the stakeholders and does not signal the demise of the individual companys leadership. The opportunity exists to synthesize volu advisory committee for providing input to the organizations decision-making process. The combination of a single Fire Chief, and an engaged advisory committee, will provi to the oversight of funding and the distribution of assets, thus of taxpayer dollars. It would also allow for a general standardization of srvice levels across the entire county Recommendation: It is recommended that FCFRD develop a policy that clearly defin horizontally and vertically. Recommendation: It is recommended the FCFRD take the necessary action to provide an officer at each station on each s Recommendation: It is recommended that promotional policies be revised to permit encumbrance of rank requirements not achievable within the division. Recommendation: It is recommended that FCFRD develops, adopts, and publishes a p guidelines that will be implemented on a countywide basis for career and volunteer personnel. Frederick County, VA Page 25 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Recommendation: It is recommended that Frederick County revisit the hierarchal m single fire chief supported by an advisory committee to be defin Recommendation: It is recommended that FCFR appoint a senior officer as the Medical Officer or EMS Officer to oversee the multiple issues regarding the delivery of pre-hospital emergency medical services. Recommendation: It is recommended that FCFRD revise the existing Organizational and Volunteers. Frederick County, VA Page 26 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Future Vision, Goals, and Objectives for Future Growth Evaluation of Projected Future Growth Two measures were utilized to help describe the potential growththat may impact future demands for service. First, is the year over year requests for service. The annualized growth was approximately 4% between 2014 and 2016-line projection in the figure below should be used with caution due to the variability acros Therefore, data must be reviewed annually to ensure timely updat utilizing at least 5-years of continuous data. Figure 8: Projected Service Demand Growth of 4.02% Projected Growth in Requests for Service 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025 Low 2.8%High 5.1%Actual - 4% Assuming that future demands may not reasonably distributed acro service areas in the system, the system will require a redistribution of workl in resources to meet the growing demand. While the system should be evaluated performance and desired outcomes, the department should specific-evaluate workload and performance indicators for every 1,000-call increase to ensure system stability. Second, is a source from the US Census and ESRI that estimates p As a growing community, the population change is increasing at a growth areas are to the northwest, northeast, and southeast portions of the county. There are no reductions in population projected. Frederick County, VA Page 28 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Figure 9: Annual Population Change 2016-2021 Frederick County, VA Page 29 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Developing a System of Standards to Guide Performance Management The Frederick County Fire and Rescue system utilizes a variety of staffing and performance levels to bring the system together to respond to requests for service. FCFR leadership has lead with inclusion and transparency and thewhile working together to provide services. However, performance and due to the segmented approach to service delivery. Specifically first due (career) staff are unavailable or require a multi-unit response within the first due territory as the volunteer performance may vary by time of day and organizati reasonable and a best practice to recognize that differentiate d rural areas and urban or suburban areas. Therefore, a system of measures and thresholds that serve as tri Department and system in maintaining a commensurate manner in or risks. In addition, these measures should establish baseline service levels to be provided of service or employment status. In other words, baseline servi to provide a highly credible and reliable service to the citizenCounty that utilizes performance as the measure rather than whether the personnel are The following table summarizes initial recommendations to the Co review and modify as necessary to best meet their needs. When referring to the table below, it is intended to be read as the desired performance is either less th When the reciprocal is true on any of the individual measures, i review other like measures to determine if action must be taken. Two examples a compare and contrast. First, if the unit hour utilization is - hour staffed unit then action must be taken based on only the infactor. However, the immediacy of the change may have some flexibility if other perfo time and concurrency are within limits. Similarly, if the reli but the response time and workload is still acceptable, then a longer reaction time may be acceptable. Frederick County, VA Page 30 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Figure 10: Summary of Recommended Baseline Service Objectives Type of Measure Performance Metric Career Volunteer 5 Review Period 5F Dispatch 2 Min at 90% 2 Min at 90%Quarterly Turnout Time 1.5 Min at 90% 6 Min at 90% Quarterly Travel Time 6 Min at 90% 15 Min at 90% Quarterly Minimum Engine Staffing 2 Firefighters 2 Firefighters Daily Station/Unit Minimum Ambulance 1 FF/PM 1 PM and 1 EMT Daily Performance Staffing 1 FF/EMT *If cross staffed must be FF Certified Percentage of Calls with 1% 9.9% Quarterly no response StationService Area Risk Increases in Risk to Increases in Risk to Annually Rating ChangingModerate orHighModerate or High Reliability 90%90% Quarterly Call Concurrency15% 15% Quarterly System Design Call Volume 3,000 Initial1,800  Initial Annually and Performance 500  Ongoing 300 - Ongoing Unit Hour Utilization 0.25 on 24-hour units 0.25 on 24-hour units Quarterly 0.50 on 12-hour units 0.50 on 12-hour units Cross-Staffing <1,800 annual calls and <1,800 annual calls and Annually <15% Call Concurrency <15% Call Concurrency If Rural Stations are staffed 24-7 career personnel the Turnout Time should be equal to the caree 5 Frederick County, VA Page 31 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 Frederick County, VA Page 32 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Final Summary Report May 2018 January 2018 Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Coverage Study Frederick County Fire and Rescue, Virginia Prepared by: FITCH & ASSOCIATES, LLC 2901 Williamsburg Terrace #G Platte City Missouri 64079 816.431.2600 www.fitchassoc.com COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT AND STANDARDS OF COVER FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY __________________________________________________________________________ 1 DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITY SERVED ____________________________________________________________ 3 I ________________________________________________________________________________ 3 NTRODUCTION Figure 1: Governance Model of Frederick County Fire and Rescue __________________________________________ 7 FINANCIAL BASIS ______________________________________________________________________________ 9 O ___________________________________________________________________________________ 9 VERVIEW Table 1: Fire Rescue's Program Areas - FY17/18 Expenditure Budget ________________________________________ 9 Figure 2: Frederick Fire Rescue FY17/18 Expenditure Budget______________________________________________9 Expenditure Controls and Restrictions _________________________________________________________ 10 AD ____________________________________________________________________________ 11 REA ESCRIPTION Geography ______________________________________________________________________________ 11 Topography______________________________________________________________________________ 11 Climate _________________________________________________________________________________ 11 Population and Demographic Features ________________________________________________________ 12 Disaster Potentials and Community Characteristics of Risk ________________________________________ 12 Table 2: Hazard Risk Categories _____________________________________________________________________ 13 Table 3: Natural Risk Hazard Summary_______________________________________________________________ 13 Table 4: Technological Risk Hazard Summary __________________________________________________________ 14 Table 5: Societal Risk Hazard Summary _______________________________________________________________ 14 Figure 3: Hazard Risk Plot__________________________________________________________________________ 15 SERVICES PROVIDED ___________________________________________________________________________ 16 Table 6: Station 11 Resources ______________________________________________________________________ 17 Table 7: Station 12 Resources ______________________________________________________________________ 18 Table 8: Station 13 Resources ______________________________________________________________________ 19 Table 9: Station 14 Resources ______________________________________________________________________ 20 Table 10: Station 15 Resources _____________________________________________________________________ 21 Table 11: Station 16 Resources _____________________________________________________________________ 22 Table 12: Station 17 Resources _____________________________________________________________________ 23 Table 13: Station 18 Resources _____________________________________________________________________ 24 Table 14: Station 19 Resources _____________________________________________________________________ 25 Table 15: Station 20 Resources _____________________________________________________________________ 26 Table 16: Station 21 Resources _____________________________________________________________________ 27 Figure 4: Frederick County Fire Station 1st Due Boundaries ______________________________________________ 28 CSS _____________________________________________________________________ 29 URRENT TAFFING TRATEGY DRP ______________________________________________________________________ 29 UAL OSTERED ERSONNEL CVD _____________________________________________________________ 29 AREER AND OLUNTEER EMOGRAPHICS Table 17: Career & Volunteer Personnel by Agency Listed alphabetically after Frederick County Fire Rescue _______ 29 Figure 5: Fire Personnel Composition  All Agencies _____________________________________________________ 30 ______________________________________________ 31 Administration, Emergency Services and Support Staff Frederick County, Virginia Page i © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 18: Summary of Administration, Emergency Services, and Support Staff Listed Alphabetically after F County Fire Rescue _______________________________________________________________________________ 31 Table 20: Qualifications & Certifications by Fire Company Listedquentially by station number _________________ 33 COMMUNITY RESPONSE HISTORY _______________________________________________________________ 35 M_______________________________________________________________________________ 35 ETHODOLOGY Table 21: List of Fire Companies Evaluated in Alphabetical Orde __________________________________________ 35 OCRP ____________________________________________________ 36 VERVIEW OF OMMUNITY ESPONSE ERFORMANCE Table 22:____________________________________ 36 Table 23: _________________________________________ 37 Table 24: _________________ 38 Figure 8: _____________________________________________ 38 Figure 9: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Weekday in 2016 _____________________________________________ 39 Figure 10: ______________________________________________40 Table 25: Overall Workload by Station Listed alphabetically ______________________________________________ 41 Table 26: Overall Workload by Unit Volunteer Companies listed a ______________________________ 41 Table 27: _____________ 45 Figure 11: ____________________________________ 46 Table 28: _______________ 46 Table 29: __ 47 Figure 12: _____________________________ 47 Table 30: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 48 Figure 13: All Calls: Distribution of Dispatch and Turnout Time ____________________ 48 Figure 14: All Calls: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving Unit in 2016 _________________________________ 49 COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS ___________________________________________________________________ 50 SIP _____________________________________________________________________ 50 TAKEHOLDER NPUT ROCESS GP___________________________________________________________________________ 50 UIDING RINCIPLES Mission _________________________________________________________________________________ 50 Core Values ______________________________________________________________________________ 50 COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK LEVELS __________________________________________________ 52 RAM__________________________________________________________________ 52 ISK SSESSMENT ETHODOLOGY Methodology ____________________________________________________________________________ 52 Figure 15: Community Risk Assessment Process________________________________________________________ 52 Figure 16: Probability and Consequence Matrix ________________________________________________________ 53 Planning Areas/Service Areas _______________________________________________________________ 53 Population Density, Development, and Growth _________________________________________________ 54 PC ____________________________________________________________________ 54 OPULATION HARACTERISTICS Figure 17: Median Age - 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ 55 Figure 18: Population Density by Census Block - 2016 ___________________________________________________ 56 Figure 19: Annual Population Change 2016-2021 _______________________________________________________ 57 Figure 20: Median Household Income -2016 __________________________________________________________ 58 Figure 21: Unemployment Rates -2016 _______________________________________________________________ 59 Table 31: Comparison of Response Times by Agency to Best Practi _________________ 60 PGRS_________________________________________________________ 60 ROJECTED ROWTH IN EQUESTS FOR ERVICE Figure 22: Projected Service Demand Growth of 4.02% __________________________________________________ 61 RA_____________________________________________________________________________ 61 ISK SSESSMENT Frederick County, Virginia Page ii © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Fire Suppression Services ___________________________________________________________________ 61 Table 32: _____________________________________ 62 Table 33: __________________________________________________ 62 Figure 23: _______________________________________________ 63 Table 34:______________________________________________ 63 Figure 24: __________________________________________ 64 Table 35: Total and Average Fire Related Calls by Hour of Day i ______________________________________ 64 Figure 25: Average Fire Related Calls per Day by Hour of Day in16 ______________________________________ 65 Table 36:___________________________________________________ 66 Table 37: ________________________________________ 66 Figure 26: ______________________ 67 Figure 27: Heat Map for Fire Related Incidents ________________________________________________________ 68 Figure 29: Low Risk Occupancies ____________________________________________________________________ 70 Figure 30: Moderate Risk Occupancies _______________________________________________________________ 71 Figure 31: High Risk Occupancies ___________________________________________________________________ 72 Figure 32: Probability and Consequence Matrix for Fire Risk ______________________________________________ 73 CTA _________________________________________________________________________ 73 RITICAL ASK NALYSIS Table 38: Structure Fire  Low / Moderate Risk - Possible________________________________________________ 74 Table 39: Resource Allocation for a Structure Fire  Low / Moderate Risk - Possible ___________________________ 74 Table 40: Confirmed Structure Fire  Moderate Risk ____________________________________________________ 74 Table 41: Resource Allocation for aConfirmed Structure Fire  Moderate Risk _______________________________ 74 Table 42: Structure Fire  High Risk __________________________________________________________________ 75 Table 43: Resource Allocation for a Structure Fire  High Risk _____________________________________________ 75 EMS________________________________ ____________________________________ 75 MERGENCY EDICAL ERVICES Community Service Demands _______________________________________________________________ 75 Table 44:____________________________________ 76 Table 45: Annual Total and Average per Day of EMS Calls by Mont ___________________________ 76 Figure 33: Average EMS Calls per Day by Month of Year in 2016 __________________________________________ 77 Table 46: _________________________ 77 Figure 34: __________________________________________ 78 Table 47: __________________________ 78 Figure 35: Average EMS Calls per Day by Hour of Day in 2016 _____________________________________________ 79 Table 48: Workload by Station for EMS Incidents in 2016 ________________________________________________ 80 Transport _______________________________________________________________________________ 80 Table 49: ___________________________________________________ 80 Table 50: Total EMS Calls and EMS Transports and Average per Day by Hour of Day in 2016 ____________________ 81 Figure 36: Average EMS Calls and EMS Transports per Day by Hour ____________________________ 82 Figure 37: Heat Map for EMS Related Incidents ________________________________________________________ 82 Community Risks _________________________________________________________________________ 83 Figure 38: Major Causes of Death in Lord Fairfax Health Distric _______________________________________ 83 Figure 39: Any Tobacco Use Trend - Lord Fairfax Health District ___________________________________________ 84 Figure 40: 2016 Communicable Diseases in Lord Fairfax Health Di _____________________________________ 84 Figure 41: Drug Overdose Death Rate Trend - Lord Fairfax Health District ___________________________________ 85 Figure 42: Motor Vehicle Traffic Death Rate Trend - Lord Fairfax Health District ______________________________ 85 Figure 43: Poisoning Death Rate Trend - Lord Fairfax Health District _______________________________________ 85 Figure 44: Unintentional Fall Death Rate Trend - Lord Fairfax Health District _________________________________ 86 Probability/Consequence of EMS Risk _________________________________________________________ 86 Figure 45: Probability and Consequence Matrix for EMS Risk _____________________________________________ 87 CTA _________________________________________________________________________ 87 RITICAL ASK NALYSIS Table 51: Emergency Medical Response  Low/Moderate Risk ____________________________________________ 87 Frederick County, Virginia Page iii © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 52: Resource Allocation for Emergency Medical Response  Low/Moderate Risk ________________________ 87 Table 53: Emergency Medical Response - High Risk _____________________________________________________ 88 Table 54: Resource Allocation for Emergency Medical Response - High Risk _________________________________ 88 Table 55: Emergency Medical Response - Motor Vehicle Crash with Extrication ______________________________ 88 Table 56: Resource Allocation for Emergency Medical Response - Motor Vehicle Crash with Extrication__________ 88 Hazardous Materials Services _______________________________________________________________ 88 Table 57: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy ____________________ 89 Figure 46: Probability and Consequence Matrix for Hazardous Materials____________________________________ 90 Table 58: Level 1 Hazardous Materials Event - Low Risk _________________________________________________ 91 Table 59: Resource Allocation for Level 1 Hazardous Materials I- Low Risk ___________________________ 91 Table 60: Level 2 Hazardous Materials Event - Moderate Risk _____________________________________________ 91 Table 61: Resource Allocation for Level 2 Hazardous Materials I- Moderate Risk / High Risk Possible _______ 91 RS______________________________________________________________________________ 91 ESCUE ERVICES Table 62: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Program in 2016 ____________________ 92 Figure 47: Probability and Consequences Technical Rescue Risk M _____________________________________ 93 Table 63: Technical Rescue Incident -Moderate Risk/High Risk ___________________________________________ 93 Table 64: Resource Allocation for Technical Rescue Incident - Moderate/High Risk___________________________ 94 Table 65: Resource Allocation for a Water Rescue Incident _______________________________________________ 94 REVIEW OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ______________________________________________________________ 95 CE___________________________________________________________________________ 95 ASCADE OF VENTS Detection _______________________________________________________________________________ 95 Call Processing ___________________________________________________________________________ 95 Turnout Time ____________________________________________________________________________ 96 Total Response Time ______________________________________________________________________ 96 Figure 48: Cascade of Events _______________________________________________________________________ 96 RTC _____________________________________________________________________ 97 ESPONSE IME ONTINUUM Fire ____________________________________________________________________________________ 97 Figure 49: Example of Traditional Time Temperature Curve ______________________________________________ 97 Figure 50: Ventilation Controlled Time Temperature Curve ______________________________________________ 98 EMS ____________________________________________________________________________________ 98 Figure 51: Cascade of Events for Sudden Cardiac Arrest with ShoRhythm______________________________ 99 DF ________________________________________________________________________ 100 ISTRIBUTION ACTORS Comparison of Service Areas _______________________________________________________________ 100 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel - Frederick County Only ______________________ 100 Table 66: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time ____ 101 Figure 52: Travel Time Bleed Maps for 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Times ____________ 102 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel  Frederick Stations Only ____________________ 103 Table 67: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time ___ 103 Figure 53: Travel Time Bleed Maps for 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Times ___________ 104 Table 68: 90th Percentile First Arrival Performance by Fire Serv ____ 105 Figure 54: 90th Percentile Response time by Fire Station Servic _____________________________________ 105 Comparison of Workloads by Station Service Area ______________________________________________ 106 Table 69: Number of Calls and Responses by First Due Station Se ________________________________ 106 Figure 55: Number of Incidents by Station Service Area ________________________________________________ 107 Figure 56: Workload by Station Service Area _________________________________________________________ 107 Comparison of Workloads by Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) ________________________________________ 108 Figure 57: Station Level Unit Hour Utilization _________________________________________________________ 109 Table 70: Station Level Unit Hour Utilization _________________________________________________________ 109 Frederick County, Virginia Page iv © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 DESCRIPTION OF FIRST ARRIVING UNIT PERFORMANCE _____________________________________________ 110 Table 71: Description of First Arriving Unit Emergency Response ______________________________ 110 Figure 58: EMS Calls: Distribution of Dispatch and Turnout Time ________________________ 111 Figure 59: EMS Calls: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving _____________________________________ 111 Figure 60: Fire Calls: Distribution of Dispatch and Turnout Tim _________________________ 112 Figure 61: Fire Calls: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arr _____________________________________ 112 Table 72: Average Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time of First Ar _______________________ 113 Table 73: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time of First Arriving Units by Station _________________ 113 Table 74: ALS1/AL2: Average Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time b ________________________ 114 Table 75: ALS1/AL2: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout and Trave __________________ 114 FAURTSSA____________________________________________115 IRST RRIVING NIT ESPONSE IME BY TATION ERVICE REA Table 76: Mean First Arrival Performance by First Due Station Service Area. Listed by response time ____________ 115 Figure 62: Average Dispatch and Turnout and Travel Time by Stati ___________________________ 115 Table 77: 90th Percentile First Arrival Performance by Station S____________ 116 Figure 63: 90th Percentile Response time by Station Service Are ________________________________________ 116 Figure 64: 90th Percentile Dispatch and Turnout Time by Station Service Area ______________________________ 117 Figure 65: 90th Percentile Travel Time Performance by Station S ________________________________ 117 CF ______________________________________________________________________ 118 ONCENTRATION ACTORS Concentration of Risks by Service Area _______________________________________________________ 118 Table 78: Summary of Station Fire Service Area Risk Concentrati _________________________________ 118 Table 79: Summary of Station Service Area Risk Concentration Ratings ____________________________________ 119 Figure 66: 3-D Risk Profile for Millwood Station 21 ____________________________________________________ 119 Figure 67: 3-D Station Risk Profile for Greenwood Station 18 ____________________________________________ 120 Figure 68: 3-D Station Risk Profile for Star Tannery Station 17 ___________________________________________ 120 Figure 69: 3-D Station Risk Profile for Gore Station 14 __________________________________________________ 121 Figure 70: 3-D Station Risk Profile for Clear Brook Station 13 ____________________________________________ 121 Figure 71: 3-D Station Risk Profile for Round Hill Station 15 _____________________________________________ 122 Figure 72: 3-D Station Risk Profile for North Mount Station 19 ___________________________________________ 122 Figure 73: 3-D Station Risk Profile for Reynolds Store Station 20 _________________________________________ 123 Figure 74: 3-D Station risk Profile for Gainesboro Station 16 _____________________________________________ 123 Figure 75: 3-D Station risk Profile for Stephens City Station 11 ___________________________________________ 124 Figure 76: 3-D Station risk Profile for Middletown Station 12 ____________________________________________ 124 Concentration of Resources ________________________________________________________________ 125 Table 80: Summary of Concentration of Resources by Station SERVI Ascending Station Order __________________________________________________________________________ 126 Effective Response Force Capabilities ________________________________________________________ 127 Figure 78: 10-Minute ERF represented by purple shading  All Current Stations _____________________________ 129 Figure 79: 13-Minute ERF represented by purple shading - All Current Stations _____________________________ 130 Figure 80: 18-Minute ERF represented by purple shading - All Current Stations _____________________________ 131 RF __________________________________________________________________________ 132 ELIABILITY ACTORS Percentage of First Due Compliance _________________________________________________________ 132 Figure 81: Percentage Reliability by Station Service Area Liste ______________________________ 132 OSCA_______________________________________________________ 133 VERLAPPED OR IMULTANEOUS ALL NALYSIS Figure 82: Probability of Overlapped Calls Occur by Station Ser ___________________________________ 133 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND MEASUREMENT _________________________________________________ 134 POB__________________________________________________________ 134 ERFORMANCE BJECTIVES ENCHMARKS Fire Suppression Services Program __________________________________________________________ 134 Emergency Medical Services Program________________________________ ________________________ 134 Frederick County, Virginia Page v © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Hazardous Materials Services Program________________________________ _______________________ 134 Special Rescue Operations Program _________________________________________________________ 135 Table 81: Summary of FCFRs Benchmark Objectives ___________________________________________________ 135 POB _____________________________________________________________ 135 ERFORMANCE BJECTIVES ASELINES Fire Suppression Services Program __________________________________________________________ 136 Emergency Medical Services Program________________________________ ________________________ 136 Hazardous Materials Services Program________________________________ _______________________ 136 Special Operations Program _______________________________________________________________ 136 Table 82: Summary of Baseline Performance and Baseline Objectives for _____________________ 137 Table 83: Summary of Baseline Performance and Baseline Objective ______________________________ 138 Table 84: Summary of Baseline Performance and Baseline Objective ___________________ 138 Table 85: Summary of Baseline Performance and Baseline Objective _________________ 139 COMPLIANCE METHODOLOGY _________________________________________________________________ 140 CT/R _______________________________________________________________ 140 OMPLIANCE EAM ESPONSIBILITY PECS_________________________________________________ 140 ERFORMANCE VALUATION AND OMPLIANCE TRATEGY CVR _____________________________________________________________ 140 OMPLIANCE ERIFICATION EPORTING CIS _______________________________________________________________ 141 ONSTANT MPROVEMENT TRATEGY Figure 83: Continuous Improvement and Compliance Model ____________________________________________ 141 OVERALL EVALUATION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ___________________________________ 142 OE _________________________________________________________________________ 142 VERALL VALUATION GO _______________________________________________________________________ 142 ENERAL BSERVATIONS Measuring Total Response Time and Dispatch Center Performance ________________________________ 142 IPGDR_______________________________________ 143 NTERNAL ERFORMANCE OALS AND THE ISTRIBUTION OF ESOURCES Table 86: 90th Percentile Turnout and Travel Time of First Arriving Units by Program ________________________ 143 Table 87: 90th Percentile First Arrival Performance by Fire Stat _____________________________ 144 Figure 84: Urban and Rural Call Density Map with Current Statio _______________________________________ 145 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel - Frederick County Only ______________________ 146 Table 88: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time ____ 146 Figure 85: Travel Time Bleed Maps for 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Times ____________ 147 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel  Frederick Stations Only ____________________ 148 Table 89: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time ___ 148 Figure 86: Travel Time Bleed Maps for 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Times ___________ 149 OSDP____________________________________________________________ 150 PTIMIZED TATION ISTRIBUTION LANS 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time _____________________________________ 150 Figure 87: Optimized Station Deployment Plan - 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time ____ 151 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time ____________________________________ 151 Figure 88: Optimized Station Deployment Plan - 10-Min. Urban/Suburban and 13-Min. Rural Travel Time ________ 153 WCRRR _________________________________________ 154 ORKLOAD APACITY EINVESTING OR EALLOCATING ESOURCES Figure 89: Station Level Unit Hour Utilization _________________________________________________________ 155 S,S,O_____________________________________________________________ 155 TAFFING CHEDULING AND VERTIME Staffing and Schedules ____________________________________________________________________ 155 Table 90: Comparison of Various Work Schedules and Staffing Demands __________________________________ 156 Overtime _______________________________________________________________________________ 157 Staffing Challenges________________________________ _______________________________________ 158 Figure 90: Fire Service Staffing Model Continuum _____________________________________________________ 158 Figure 91: Finding Balance in Fire Service Staffing ______________________________________________________ 160 Frederick County, Virginia Page vi © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 R-AAR ________________________________________________ 160 ISKBASED PPROACH TO THE LLOCATION OF ESOURCES Alternative 1  Risk-based Engine and Station Staffing at 8-Minutes Urban/Suburban _________________ 160 Table 91: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alternative 1  8/13 All 11 Fire Stations ___________ 162 Alternative 2  Rick-based Engine and Station Staffing at 10-Minutes Urban/Suburban ________________ 162 Table 92: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alte 10/13 All 11 Fire Stations __________ 163 Alternative 3  Partially Autonomous EMS Layer with Risk-based Engine Staffing _____________________ 163 Table 93: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alte 10/13 All 11 Fire Stations __________ 164 Alternative 4  Partially Autonomous EMS Layer and 2-Person Engine Staffing _______________________ 165 Table 94: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alte  10/13 All 11 Fire Stations__________ 165 Alternative 5  Partially Autonomous EMS at 12 Minutes and 2-Person Engine Staffing ________________ 166 Table 95: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alte12 Minutes All 11 Fire Stations______166 Alternative 6  Peak Load Ambulance Program and 2-Person Engine Staffing ________________________ 167 Figure 92: Average EMS Calls and EMS Transports per Day by Hour __________________________________ 167 Table 96: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alte 10/13 All 11 Fire Stations __________ 168 Table 97: Comparison Table of Alternatives Utilizing Average Sa __________________ 169 NON-DEPLOYEMENT OBSERVATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS ________________________________________ 170 DSSN _______________________________________________________________ 170 IVISION AND UPPORT TAFF EEDS FVGOFG__________________________________________ 191 UTURE ISION AND OALS AND BJECTIVES FOR UTURE ROWTH Developing a System of Standards to Guide Performance Management ____________________________ 191 Figure 93: Summary of Recommended Baseline Service Objectives _______________________________________ 192 DEFINITION OF TERMS ________________________________________________________________________ 194 ATTACHMENTS  Attachment A  Data Report Attachment B  GIS Report Frederick County, Virginia Page vii © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Frederick County contracted with Fitch & Associates to objective departments operations, deployment, and staffing. The Frederick County Fire Rescue Department is largely motivated to evaluate the current response model and the risk-based, data driven staffing and deployment plan based upon the sue profile of Frederick County. Comprehensive data based quantitative and geospatial analyses were utilized to objectively evaluate the historical county demand for services by type and severity. Occupancy level data were obtained from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) and Frederick Countys o assess occupancy level risk within the community. Ultimately, occupancies were categorized as low, moderate, and high risks and geocoded to the respective existing efficient and objective risk-based strategy for resource allocation. Additionally, the Fitch team made several visits to the organiza internal and external stakeholders. A series of structured inte occasions with members representing all levels and functions within the organization. Through these efforts, the Fitch team was able to provide this document observations supported by comprehensive GIS and data reports. The current fire response time average, county wide, is 11 minutes 2 seconds. The current EMS response time, county wide, is 11 minutes 1 second. The rural average fire response times are meeting the nationwide best practice expectations in the rural a The developed areas will need some modifications to the current fire rescue response the best practices response standard. However, a more conservative and reliable measure of performance This measure is more robust, or less influenced by outliers, than measures of central tendency such as th mean. Best practice is to measure at the 90th percentile. In other words, 90% of all performance is captured expecting that 10% of the time the department may exper would typically be considered an outlier. For example, if the department were to report an average response time of six minutes, then in a normally distributed set of data, half of be longer than six minutes and half of the responses would be le The 90th percentile communicates that 9 out of 10 times the department pepredictable and thus more clearly articulated to policy makers and the community. The countywide performance at the 90th percentile for fire response was 17.6 minutes, and EMS response was 16.1 minutes. Of the 10,250 responses in 2016, 79.3% were EMS calls. The distribution of risk and demand within Frederick County is p identified development areas of the county. The density of the development areas is higher than the Frederick County, Virginia Page 1 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 rural areas creating challenges for FCFRD to provide uniform service levels with the current model and allocation of resources. The FCFRD continues to be challenged by increasing call volume a for its personnel. Specific fire companies handle a disproportionate number of calls on a routine basis. With the current paid staffing it is becoming increasingstations to effectively handle concurrent calls, and the entire county is co necessary to assemble an effective fire force. Strategies are presented in this report to further support the agencys efforts to provide workload balance for the Several alternative staffing and deployment models were evaluate Additionally, several variations of deployment and response times were evaluated that include performance and service levels based on the identified development and rural areas. The continued success of FCFRD, and the effective planning for fces, fixed stations, apparatus acquisition and deployment, operating the dynamic changes required by an evolving community, is best s single Fire Chief who has the ultimate authority and is directly responsible for all activities and decisions of the FCFRD. From a historical perspective this has organizations across the country. It is an evolutionary process time sensitive, internal and external influences faced by fire departments everywhere, every day. Frederick County, Virginia Page 2 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITY SERVED Introduction The Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department (FCFR) is a full-service fire agency providing fire suppression, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Basic and Advanced Life Support (ALS), ambulance transport, fire prevention, hazardous materials, and specialized services funincorporated portions of the county. Frederick County is 416 square miles at the northern-most point in Virginia, a mid-point of the East Coast. The County sits at the mouth of the Shenandoah Valley, which stretches 200 miles between two mountain ranges - The Blue Ridge Mountains to the East and The Allegheny Mountains the Appalachian Mountain Range) to the West. The Valley is bound by two rivers, the Potomac River to the North and the James River to the South. Frederick County was established in 1743 from parts of Orange County and encompassed all or part of four counties in-day Virginia  Shenandoah, Clarke, Warren, and Frederick  and five in present-day West Virginia  Hardy, Hampshire, Berkeley, Jefferson and Morgan. The County has 11 fire service areas that provide emergency response service from 11 stations in areas of the county not serviced by a municipal fire department including the communities of Stephens City, Middletown, Clear Brook, Gore, Round Hill, Gainesboro, Star Tannery, Greenwood, North Mountain, Reynolds Store, and Millwood Station. Collectively these organizations maintain twenty-three ambulances, twenty engines, three aerial devices, and various pieces of specialty apparatus and provide services to approximately 85,000 people. The budgeted paid minimum staffing strength is 26 personnel on each shift plus one battalion chief, supplemented by volunteer personnel. Administrative command of each fire company is determined by the individual hierarchy established within the framework of their enabling authority. LEGAL BASIS Frederick County is governed by an elected Board of Supervisors one from each magisterial district - Shawnee, Opequon, Gainesboro, Stonewall, Back Creek and Red Bud, and one chairman-at-large. Supervisors are elected for four-year terms, which are staggered at two-year intervals. The Board of Supervisors is the policy-making body of the county and is officially known as the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. It is vested with all policy-making powers and responsibilities conferred by general law on county governing bo Functions of the Board of Supervisors include making land use decisions, establishing growth and development policies, setting operational policies, and reviewing and adopting the Cou . budgets which set spending priorities Frederick County, Virginia Page 3 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 2014 Virginia Code Title 27 - Fire Protection § 27-23.6. Provision of fire-fighting or emergency medical services A. Any county, city or town may contract with or provide for any vo-fighting or emergency medical services companies or associations in the coun of fire or provision of emergency medical services in any countyy or town. If such provisions are made by the county, city or town, the fire-fighting or emergency medical services company shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the county, city or for damages done incident to fighting fires or providing emergency medical services therein. The county, city or town may elect to provide for the matters author-4 and 27-39. B. Any county, city or town may provide fire-fighting and emergency medical services to its citizens by using both government-employed and volunteer company or association firefighters and emergency medical services personnel. If such a system is utilized, the volunteer fire-fighting and emergency medical services companies and associations shall emed an instrumentality of the county, city or town, and as such exempt from suit for dages done incident to providing fire-fighting and emergency medical services to the county, city or t The county, city or town may also elect to provide for matters authorized in §§ 27-4 and 27-39. "Providing fire-fighting or emergency medical services" includes travel while pe rescue or other emergency operations in fire-fighting apparatus or other emergency vehicles as described in §§ 46.2-1023 and 46.2-920, respectively. 1970, c. 187; 1982, c. 239; 1991, c. 54; 2001, c. 142; 2002, c. Frederick County Code Chapter 89 Fire and Rescue Services § 89-2 Department established. There is hereby established the Frederick County Department of F Department shall consist of the Department Chief and any such ca approved by the Board and appointed by the Department Chief. The Department shall work in conjunction with the volunteer fire and rescue companies as defi Association and its members, to achieve the mission of fire and § 893 Department Chief. The County Administrator shall appoint the head of the Departmen "Department Chief." The Department Chief shall have general supervision and control Department. The Department Chief shall, after consultation with the Association, establish rules and regulations for the operation of the Department. Such rules shall be consistent with the Frederick County, Virginia Page 4 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 provisions of this article. The Department Chief shall have no jurisdiction over the internaaffairs of the companies. The Department Chief shall develop and administer a program for the personnel of the Department. § 89-4 Creation; purpose; bylaws. The Association is hereby recognized by the County for the follo conjunction with the Department on matters regarding the operati including, but not limited to, reviewing operating procedures, rtions, budget matters, as noted in the current service agreement; to create en companies; to coordinate the work of its membership; to dissemin-fighting methods and techniques; to promote goodwill and devoted service to the people of Frederick County; and to promote a general interest and knowledge of fire The Association shall be dedicated to the service of volunteer fire and rescue m companies of Frederick County; and to promote and encourage cooperation among the member companies. The Committee is empowered to promulgate bylaws to effectuate th out herein. § 89-5 Membership. . Membership in the Association is governed by the current bylaws § 89-6 List of companies. Each individual fire and rescue organization that is located in a "fire and rescue company" as provided in § 27-8.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. These presently include: Stephens City Volunteer Fire & Rescue C Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company, Inc.; Clear Brook Volunteer Firteer Fire Company; Round Hill Community Fire & Rescue Company, Inc.; Inc.; Star Tannery Volunteer Fire Department; Greenwood Voluntee Inc.; North Mountain Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.; Reynolds Storer Fire & Rescue Company, Inc.; Millwood Station Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company § 89-7 Approval of names and numbers. Newly established fire and rescue company names and numbers shalbe recommended by the Association and are subject to final approval by the Board. § 89-8 Establishment. Pursuant to § 27-8 of the Code of Virginia, any number of persons, not less than orm themselves into a company for emergency response, subject to app § 89-9 Organization. A writing stating such formation of a company, with names of itsesented to . the Board and recorded in the Circuit Court pursuant to § 27-9 of the Code of Virginia Frederick County, Virginia Page 5 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 § 89-10 Dissolution. Pursuant to § 27-10 of the Code of Virginia, whenever the Department shall ascertain that a company has failed, for three consecutive months, to consist of or ascertains that it has failed for the same period of time to condition its fire and rescue apparatus (an engine), hose, emergency medical services vehicle, equipment and other proper implements, or whenever the Board for advisable, the Board may act to dissolve a company. § 89-11 Rules and regulations. The members of each company may make their own rules and regulat laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, this chapter, and other or Frederick County, Virginia Page 6 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Department Governance Figure 1: Governance Model of Frederick County Fire and Rescue Citizens Frederick CountyBoard of Supervisors Public Safety County Administrator Committee Chief of Fire & Rescue Chiefs Work Department Association Group Governing Policies and Department Staff Oversight Procedures Departmental specific System Goal Setting / Policies & Procedures Accomplishments System Finance / System / Company Administrative Oversight Accountability System-wide Operational Strategic System Planning Accountability Coordination of Committee Cooperative Day-to-Day Input Operations in Concert with Vol. Chiefs Volunteer Agency Contribution / Grant Strategic Department / Financial Administrative System Planning Oversight Department / Volunteer Companies Frederick County, Virginia Page 7 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 HISTORY OF FREDERICK COUNTY FIRE AND RESCUE The Fire and Rescue System consists of eleven (11) volunteer fir independently operated by volunteer personnel and supported by 1 seven (7) civilian staff. The agency is an all-hazards system, coordinating with our volunteer companies to deliver emergency medical services, firefighting, h . environmental responses within Frederick County The Career Department has grown considerably since its 1990 inception to address staffing requests by volunteer fire and rescue companies. These requests are the direct result of an increased demand for services from volunteer companies due to an ever-expanding county population. Over the course of the Departments lifespan, the county population has increased by Currently the Career Department is divided into three primary divisions: Operations, Life Safety (Fire Marshal), and Training. Secondary divisions include Emergency Management, Volunteer Recruitment and Retention, and EMS Billing. The Department was created to provide supplemental operational staffing and administrative support to the Countys volunteer fire and rescue companies and Association. In addition, the Department maintains the Countys Fire and Rescue E Operations Center; coordinates Emergency Management functions an special events planning, strategic planning and GIS/mapping serv risk reduction; conducts all code-related fire inspections, and investigates the causes and origin explosions and hazardous materials incidents. The Chief is responsible for Department personnel, programs and components, and the day-to-day operational activities of the system. CHRONOLOGY OF FREDERICK COUNTY FIRE AND RESCUE COMPANIES CompanyFounded Stephens City Volunteer Fire Company: 1939 Middletown Volunteer Fire Company: 1942 Clear Brook Volunteer Fire Company: 1946 Gore Volunteer Fire Company: 1950 Round Hill Community Fire Company: 1953 Gainesboro Volunteer Fire Company: 1958 Star Tannery Volunteer Fire Company: 1971 Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company: 1971 North Mountain Volunteer Fire Company: 1973 Reynolds Store Volunteer Fire Company: 1978 Millwood Station Volunteer Fire Company: 1998 Frederick County, Virginia Page 8 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 FINANCIAL BASIS Overview Frederick County budgets expenditures in four program areas for Table below lists those areas along with the FY17/18 budget and full-time equivalent (FTE) positions 1 : Table 1: Fire Rescue's Program Areas - FY17/18 Expenditure Budget Program Area FY17/18 BudgetFTEs Fire Rescue $14.7 million 117.5 EMS Revenue Recovery Fund $1.6 million2 Volunteer Fire Departments $.9 million 0 Ambulance & Rescue Service $.4million0 Total$17.6 million 119.5 The figure that follows is a graphic representation of the fundi services. Figure 2: Frederick Fire Rescue FY17/18 Expenditure Budget Frederick County 17/18 Budget (in Millions) Volunteer Fire Ambulance & Departments Rescue Service $.9 $.4 EMS Revenue Recovery Fund $1.6 Fire Rescue $14.7 In addition to the General Fund, the county has a primary revenu services, as described below. EMS Expense Recovery These are charges to patients who are transported by Frederick C . ambulances. This is a significant revenue source for the Countys General Fund and is budgeted at $1.6 million for FY17/18. The General Fund budgeted revenue for fee recovery is $491,776. The http://www.fcva.us. FrederickCounty FY 2017 - 2018 Annual Budget, p. 108,110,117,174 1 Frederick County, Virginia Page 9 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 remaining expected revenue goes directly to the eleven volunteer during the quarter. Expenditure Controls and Restrictions Management of the County is responsible for establishing and mai structure designed to ensure that the assets of the County are p and to ensure that adequate accounting data is compiled to allow for th statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting prin The internal control structure is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, ace that these objectives are met. The concept of reliable assurance recognizes that (1) the cost o the benefits likely to be derived and (2) the valuation of costs judgments by management. The countys Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for th that the county maintains budgetary controls. The objective of these budgetary controls is to ensure compliance with legal provisions embodied in the annual appropriated budget approved by the Countys governing body. Activities of the general fund, special revenue funds, and the f component unit School Board are included in the annual appropria The level of budgetary control (that is, the level at which expenditures cannot legally exceed the approp amount) is established by function and activity within an indivi Open encumbrance amounts, as of June 30, 2017, have been determined and the amoun reported as reservations of fund balances since they do not cons Encumbrances generally are re-appropriated as part of the following years budget. The 2017 CAFR also provided the Independent Auditor Report which In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all ma position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, the discretely presented component units, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the County of Frederick, Virginia, as of June 30, 2017, and the respective cha applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordciples generally accepted in the United States of America. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over c material weaknesses. The controls that are in place in Frederick County, along with t long-term focus and ongoing strategic planning process, indicate that a framework of governmental best practices. Frederick County, Virginia Page 10 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Area Description Geography Frederick County is the northernmost county in the Commonwealth of Virginia and is included in the Winchester, VA-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is also included in the Washington- Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA Combined Statistical Area. Located at the North end of the Shenandoah Valley, the Blue Ridge Mountains to the East and the Allegheny Mountains (part of the Appalachian Mountain Range) to the West. The Valley is bound by two rivers, the Potomac River to the North and the James River to the South. Frederick County is 72 miles West of Washington, DC and 135 miles Northwest of Richmond, the state capitol. Winchester Regional Airport provides general aviation services for the region. Commercial options are accessible in less than an hour. IAD is only 50 minutes away and BWI & DCAprovide extra destination flexibility in 90 minutes. Longitude: -78.260102, Latitude: 39.2096441, Elevation: 268m / 879feet, Barometric Pressure: 98KPa. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 416 square miles (1,080 km 2), of 22 which 414 square miles (1,070 km) is land and 2 square miles (5.2 km) (0.5%) is water. Frederick County has an extensive transportation infrastructure which incl Interstate 81 (North-South), Interstate 66 (East-West), US 50 (East-West), US 11 (North-South), US 522 (Northwest-Southeast), VA Primary 7 (East), VA Primary 37 (Western Bypass) and is home to Lord Fairfax Community College. Topography Generally, the topography of Frederick County is characterized by the rolling Shenandoah Valley, 8 to 10 miles wide. The average altitude of the broad valley is 700 feet and the mountaintops are about 1950 feet. Great North Mountain is the most prominent landmark parts of the county. As Great North Mountain trends southwestwa Route 50, midway between Gore and Hayfield, it increases in prominence. Its altitude 800 feet in the Northeast to 2844 feet at Pinnacle Knob, the highest point in the county. Frederick County is underlain mainly by the sedimentary rocks shale, sandsstone. Climate 2 The average temperature of Frederick County is 52.62°F Average high/low in July = 86/63 Average high/low in January = 40/22 Average Rainfall: 38.5 inches. The US average is 39. Average Snowfall: 21.7 inches. The average US city gets 26 inches of snow per year Retrieved from http://www.fcva.us/services/about-us 2 Frederick County, Virginia Page 11 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Population and Demographic Features 3 Frederick County population estimate of July 1, 2016: 84,421 Median household income (in 2015 dollars), 2011-2015: $69,098 ($59,209 in 2000) Mar. 2016 cost of living index in Frederick County: 90.5 (less than average, U.S. average is 100) Per capita income in past 12 months (in 2015 dollars), 2011-2015: $30,769 Population per square mile, 2010: 189.4 (55% urban, 45% rural) White Non-Hispanic Alone (86.3%), Hispanic or Latino (6.6%), Black Non-Hispanic Alone (3.9%), Two or more races (1.5%), Asian alone (1.2%) : 39.0 years Median resident age : 37.0 years Virginia median age Males: 40,939 (49.7%) Females: 41,438 (50.3%) Land area: 414 sq. mi. Water area: 2.0 sq. mi. Industries providing employment: Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services (20.7%), Educational, health and social services (14.7%), Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing (12.4%). Private wage or salary: 66%; Government: 9%; Self-employed, not incorporated: 25%. Disaster Potentials and Community Characteristics of Risk 4 That assessment of risk within the community, using the Virginia Management Hazard Mitigation Plan, was intended to reduce inconsistency and promote a rational basis for defining risk among disparate hazards. Four criteria were used in this process, and include: History - past record of occurrences for a specific hazard. Vulnerability - assesses citizens that might be killed, injured or contaminated. Also, the likelihood the property might be destroyed, damaged due to the o hazard. Maximum Threat - considers the impact from a "worst case" scenario for a specific hazard. Probability - determines the likelihood of a specific hazard occurring. For each major area of risk, the overall hazard rating is provid The following table highlights specific hazard samples and breaks them into one of three categories: natural hazards, technological hazards, and societal hazards. Retrieved from http://www.city-data.com/county/Frederick_County-VA.html#ixzz45Ahx5nYL 3 Virginia Department of Emergency Management-Hazard Mitigation Plan. 4 Frederick County, Virginia Page 12 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 2: Hazard Risk Categories Natural Risk Located in northern Virginia, Frederick County is most prone to and severe thunderstorms. Each of these natural risks is likely to cause a significant increase in demand on the fire department. These risks mostly would manifest themselves in disperse geographic areas, thereby stretching normal staffing and resourceir existing capacity. A summary of the natural risks rated above as negligible, and their overall hazard ratings are shown in Table below. Table 3: Natural Risk Hazard Summary Hazard Overall Rating Winter/Ice Storms High Flood Med-High Tornado Med-High Drought Med-High Wildfire Medium Landslide Medium Karst Medium Non-Rotational Wind Medium Earthquake Med-Low Frederick County, Virginia Page 13 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Technological Risks From a technological hazard assessment, infrastructure failure, materials release from a fixed site, and a nuclear power plant accident were ranked with community. A summary of the technological risks, and their overall hazard r below. Table 4: Technological Risk Hazard Summary Hazard Overall Rating Transportation: Non-Haz Mat ReleasedHigh Hazardous Materials Release: Fixed Site Med-High FireMed-High Transportation: Hazardous Materials ReleaseMed-High Infrastructure failure Medium Pipeline Medium Dam FailureMed-Low Land Subsidence Med-Low Societal Risks From a societal risk perspective, terrorist attacks are seen as on the community. While there have been no specific threats made on critical infrastructure within the area, infrastructure such as chemical, nuclear, and energy a officials have issued warnings. A summary of the societal risks, and their overall hazard ratings are shown in table below. Table 5: Societal Risk Hazard Summary Hazard Overall Rating Public Health Medium Terrorist Attack Med-Low Enemy Attack Low Civil Disturbance Low The following figure summarizes each hazard and plots its risk along two axes: history and probability against vulnerability and maximum threat. Caution should be used when examining only the overall ratings above. For example, while infrastructure faghest overall rating, the figure below reflects the reality that winter weather has a grea the overall risk scale. Of most importance, is the need for Freand Rescue to understand, and be prepared to address, disaster potentials within the community. Frederick County, Virginia Page 14 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 3: Hazard Risk Plot Frederick County, Virginia Page 15 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 SERVICES PROVIDED Fire Suppression The FCFR provides fire suppression services within the various jurisdictis to requests for service from adjacent agencies. Fire suppression services are provided from 11 fixed facility fire stations distributed throughout the county. All career members of the Department are fully trained at a minimum of EMT-B and receive Firefighter I and II, Virginia HazMat Ops, EVOC I, II, III, MayDay!, vehicle extrication, and Introduction to Heavy Tec school. Volunteer members may or may not have certifications. In total, FCFR maintains the following operational units: 20 engine companies, 2 ladder companies, 1 Quint, 6 Tankers, 4 squad companies, 11 Brush units, 1 Battalion Chief Command unit, 11 Volunteer Chief vehicles, various specialty units. Minimum paid staffing of 27 per day, supported by over 160 . active volunteer firefighters Rescue FCFR provides Technical Rescue services, to the level of personnel tr conjunction with the assistance of the regional response team which can provide advanced rescue capabilities for risks such as urban search & rescue, confined space rescue, swift w water rescue, high and low angle rope rescue, trench rescue, hel rescue. Emergency Medical Services The FCFR provides emergency Basic Life Support (BLS) first responder leve injured throughout the County. This is accomplished using engine, ladder and squad companies utilized as first responders. FCFR also provides Advanced Life Support (ALS) for advanced care, treatment, and transport to the hospital using 23 ambulances and 3 ALS Chase Vehicles. All of the Departments fire suppression apparatus provides first response for BLS and ALS level incidents. Hazardous Materials The FCFR provides Hazardous Materials response from various fixed facilit detection and mitigation of risks within the limits of personnelning and capabilities. Additional assistance is provided by the regional response team that provides technician level trained personnel and advanced equipment. Frederick County, Virginia Page 16 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 CURRENT DEPLOYMENT STRATEGY Fire Stations The Frederick County Fire and Rescue utilizes 11 fixed fire station facilities to effect fire suppression, emergency medical, and special operation responses. Below is the brief overview, listed sequentially by . station number, of the fire station locations, capabilities, and staffing Station 11: Stephens City is located at 5436 Mulberry Street, Stephens City, VA 22655 Table 6: Station 11 Resources Apparatus Type Quantity Engines 2 Tower 1 Rescue Engine 1 Mini Pumper1 Brush Unit 1 ALS Ambulances3 HazMat Trailer1 Boats 3 Support Unit1 Command Vehicles 3 4Career FCFR Personnel Total Staffing Volunteer Staff Frederick County, Virginia Page 17 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Station 12: Middletown is located at 7855 Main Street, Middletown, VA 22645 Table 7: Station 12 Resources Apparatus Type Quantity Engines 1 Rescue Engine 1 ALS Unit 1 Mobile 1 Mini Pumper1 Ambulances 2 2 Career FCFR Personnel Total Staffing Volunteer Staff Frederick County, Virginia Page 18 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Station 13: Clear Brook is located at 1256 Brucetown Road, Clear Brook, VA 22624 Table 8: Station 13 Resources Apparatus Type Quantity Engines 1 Wagon 1 Tanker 1 Brush Unit 1 ALS Ambulances2 Utility Vehicles2 Command Vehicles 1 2 Career FCFR Personnel Total Staffing Volunteer Staff Frederick County, Virginia Page 19 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Station 14: Gore is located at 7184 Northwestern Pike, Gore, VA 22637 Table 9: Station 14 Resources Apparatus Type Quantity Engines 1 Tanker 1 Brush Unit 1 Attack Vehicle1 Utility Vehicles1 Ambulances 2 2 Career FCFR Personnel Total Staffing Volunteer Staff Frederick County, Virginia Page 20 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Station 15: Round Hill is located at 150 Corporate Place, Winchester, VA 22602 Table 10: Station 15 Resources Apparatus Type Quantity Engines 1 Rescue Engine 1 Brush Unit 1 ALS Ambulances2 Utility Vehicle 1 Command Vehicles 1 2 Career FCFR Personnel Total Staffing Volunteer Staff Frederick County, Virginia Page 21 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Station 16: Gainesboro is located at 221 Gainesboro Road, Winchester, VA 22603 Table 11: Station 16 Resources Apparatus Type Quantity Engines 2 Tanker 1 Mini Attack Pumper 1 Tower 1 Brush Unit 1 ALS Ambulances2 ALS Chase Vehicle 1 Command/Support Vehicles2 2 Career FCFR Personnel Total Staffing Volunteer Staff Frederick County, Virginia Page 22 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Station 17: Star Tannery is located at 950 Brill Road, Star Tannery, VA 22654 Table 12: Station 17 Resources Apparatus Type Quantity Engines 2 Tanker 1 Brush Unit 1 Ambulance 1 Support Vehicle1 2 Career FCFR Personnel Total Staffing Volunteer Staff Frederick County, Virginia Page 23 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Station 18: Greenwood is located at 809 Greenwood Road, Winchester, VA 22602 Table 13: Station 18 Resources Apparatus Type Quantity Engines 1 Quint 1 Brush Unit 1 Utility Vehicles1 Ambulances 3 4Career FCFR Personnel Total Staffing Volunteer Staff Frederick County, Virginia Page 24 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Station 19: North Mountain is located at 186 Rosenberger Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 Table 14: Station 19 Resources Apparatus Type Quantity Engines/Tanker 1 Mini Pumper1 Tanker 1 Brush Unit 2 Ambulances 2 Utility Vehicles1 Command Vehicles 1 2 Career FCFR Personnel Total Staffing Volunteer Staff Frederick County, Virginia Page 25 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Station 20: Reynolds Store is located at 9381 North Frederick Pike, Cross Junction, VA 226 Table 15: Station 20 Resources Apparatus Type Quantity Engines 1 Rescue Engine 1 Tanker 1 Brush Units2 Off-Road Suppression Unit 1 ALS Ambulances2 Utility Vehicles1 Command Vehicles 1 2 Career FCFR Personnel Total Staffing Volunteer Staff Frederick County, Virginia Page 26 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Station 21: Millwood Station is located at 250 Costello Drive, Winchester, VA 22602 Table 16: Station 21 Resources Apparatus Type Quantity Engines 1 Rescue Squad 1 Rescue Engine (reserve)1 ALS Ambulances2 Utility Vehicle 1 2 Career FCFR Personnel Total Staffing Volunteer Staff Response Areas Consistent with the station distribution model currently utilized by FCFR there are 11 distinct station service areas. The fire station service areas have been utilized for all planning aspects for managing risk, demand, and performance. A map of the fire department service areas is provided in the following Figure. Frederick County, Virginia Page 27 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 4: Frederick County Fire Station 1st Due Boundaries 5 Frederick County Information Technologies. (2014). 5 Frederick County, Virginia Page 28 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Current Staffing Strategy Evaluation of staffing levels was conducted for the Frederick County system, as a whole and each fire company separately. A survey was sent to FCFR requesting information on career personnel, broken down by either shift assignment or a daytime assignment; and to each fire company for volunteer personnel, capturing those capable of interior activities versus-interior qualified or limited to support/non-fire roles. Information was also gathered from this survey on t officers, driver operators, medical first responder, EMT or para The requested information was received by all agencies. Dual Rostered Personnel Utilizing available company rosters, a limitation of this analysis is thatit was not possible to identify those career personnel who may also volunteer in their local communities. To effectively evaluate the true number of total personnel in the FCFR system it would be necessary to cross-reference each company roster against the FCFR career roster. The total number incident would be reduced by the number of individuals appearing Career and Volunteer Demographics When examining all fire companies within Frederick County, the distribution between career and volunteer personnel is reflected in the following figures. With 613 total personnel, approximately 82% are volunteers. However, the total number of volunteer personnel reported may include non-active members as well as limited capability members as identified in T Table 17: Career & Volunteer Personnel by Agency Listed alphabetically after Frederick County Fire Rescue Career Volunteer Department Total Staff Personnel Personnel Frederick County Fire and Rescue113113 0 Clear Brook n/a34 34 Gainesboro n/a110 110 Gore n/a25 25 Greenwood n/a48 48 Middletown n/a68 68 Millwoodn/a36 36 North Mountainn/a24 24 Reynolds Storen/a43 43 Round Hill n/a34 34 Star Tannery n/a27 27 Stephens Cityn/a51 51 TOTALS 113 500 613 Frederick County, Virginia Page 29 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 5: Fire Personnel Composition  All Agencies 18% 82% Career PersonnelVolunteer Personnel Of the 500 members reported on company rosters, excluding FCFR, approximately 164, or roughly 33%, are certified as interior structural firefighters. Frederick County, Virginia Page 30 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Certifications and qualifications of personnel, by agency, are reflected in the table below. As noted, the number of personnel qualified to serve in an officers role, as well as those qualified to serve as a driver operator- as determined by the fire company  is significant. Of interest is the high percentage of personnel certified at the emergency medical technician (EMT) and Paramedic level. This represents approximately 43% of the entire FCFR system or 30% when excluding FCFR. Table 20: Qualifications & Certifications by Fire CompanyListed sequentially by station number Driver Medical First Department Officers EMT* Paramedic **Operator Responder Frederick Co Fire Rescue 31 113090 23 1 14 0 11 1 Clear Brook 9 40 0 22 6 Gainesboro 1 5 3 7 2 Gore 7 25 0 21 1 Greenwood 8 19 11 9 1 Middletown 7 8 0 13 3 Millwood 4 10 0 12 0 North Mountain 6 14 0 10 0 Reynolds Store 4 2 0 10 1 Round Hill 6 15 0 6 0 Star Tannery 7 21 0 15 1 Stephens City TOTALS 91 28614 226 39 Notes: *EMT includes B, E, I; ** Driver Operator includes EVOC and DPO, total not verifiable due to incomplete information reported. Each Volunteer Company maintains their own requirements for officers and drivers. Frederick County, Virginia Page 33 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 6: Frederick County Fire Rescue Organizational Chart Frederick County Fire and Rescue Organizational Chart FREDERICK COUNTY FIRE AND RESCUE CAREER STAFF Fire Chief / Emergency Mgmt. Coordinator Deputy Administrative Emergency Assistant Mgmt. Coordinator (PT) Life Safety Division Training Division Operations Division Deputy Chief Deputy Chief Deputy Chief Resource Senior Secretary Secretary Manager Secretary SCBA Tech (PT) EMSBilling Fire Training Asst. Fire Manager Lieutenant Marshal A Shift EMS Billing EMS Training Battalion Chief Asst. Fire Specialist Lieutenant Marshal B Shift Specialist QA/IT Specialist Battalion Chief Plan Review/PubEd C Shift Specialist Battalion Chief Fire Inspector (2 - PT) Fire Investigator (PT) Frederick County, Virginia Page 34 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 COMMUNITY RESPONSE HISTORY Methodology Although FITCH collected three years (2014-2016) of CAD data, in this section of the report, the primary focus of our analysis was on the 2016 calendar year. The most recent year is utilized for measures of workload, call volume, and response time performance, because utilizing the entire three-year data set would artificially lower all measures as growth isWe discuss the three years baseline workload and response time performances as appropriate. Here we focus on responses from the following 11 Fire Companies: Table 21: List of Fire Companies Evaluated in Alphabetical Order Fire Company Clear Brook Gainesboro Gore Greenwood Middletown Millwood North Mountain Reynolds Store Round Hill Star Tannery Stephens City Two distinct measures were utilized: call volume and workload. First, is the number of requests for service that are defined as either dispatches or calls. Dispatches/calls are the number of times a specific incident was created involving any of the 11 agencies. Conversely, responses are the number of times that an individual unit (or units) responded to a call. Responses will be utilized on all Agency, Station and Unit level analyses, which account for a performance. Calls have been categorized as EMS, Fire, Rescue, Hazard, and Muual aid calls respectively. Transport calls are identified if any responding ambulance has r transport time or unit arriving at hospital time. Frederick County, Virginia Page 35 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Overview of Community Response Performance Table 22: 1,0131,0101,138 687 673 731 787 871 729 144 125 152 505 578 582 1,5101,6221,741 2,7913,0433,060 7,437 7,922 8,133 130 123 113 142 102 117 93 8584 493 437 476 282 354 424 51 56 47 96 120 118 1,2871,277 1,379 14 1118 327 333 305 39 4433 383 380 382 296 Incidents were in CAD that did not have any Frederick County 9 incidents were included, the total count in 2016 would be 10,546. Frederick County, Virginia Page 36 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 23: Percentage 1,138 3.1 11.1% 731 2.0 7.1% 729 2.0 7.1% 152 0.4 1.5% 582 1.6 5.7% 1,741 4.8 17.0% 3,060 8.4 29.9% 8,13322.3 79.3% 113 0.3 1.1% 117 0.3 1.1% 84 0.2 0.8% 476 1.3 4.6% 424 1.2 4.1%* 47 0.1 0.5% 118 0.3 1.2% 1,3793.8 13.5% 18 0.0 0.2% 305 0.8 3.0% 33 0.1 0.3% 382 1.0 3.7% Figure 7: 10 Public Service requests are for assistance requiring a response Frederick County, Virginia Page 37 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 24: Responses Number Hours 8,133 15,408 1.9 13,971 54.4 77.2% 1,3793,4882.52,70346.514.9% 305 804 2.6 488 36.4 2.7% 18 70 3.9 40 34.1 0.2% 33 43 1.3 158 220.2 0.9% 382 796 2.1 744 56.0 4.1% Figure 8: Hours are for apparatus or unit hours and not specifically perso 11 would be calculated as the product of the total busy hours and the number Frederick County, Virginia Page 38 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 9: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Weekday in 2016 Frederick County, Virginia Page 39 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 10: Frederick County, Virginia Page 40 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 25: Overall Workload by Station Listed alphabetically Avg. Busy Busy Annual Annual Average Minutes Hours Unit Number Total Busy Responses per per Responses Station of Calls Responses Hours per Call Response Dayper Day Clear Brook 1,123 1,316 1,235 1.2 56.3 3.4 3.6 Gainesboro 1,334 1,3901,2501.0 54.0 3.4 3.8 Gore 400 5805791.5 59.9 1.6 1.6 Greenwood 2,498 2,5602,3511.0 55.1 6.4 7.0 1,60 Middletown 1,184 1,673 1.4 57.7 4.4 4.6 8 Millwood 1,893 2,172 1,579 1.1 43.6 4.3 6.0 North Mountain 465 7546381.6 50.7 1.7 2.1 Public Safety 1,512 1,649 1,104 1.1 40.2 3.0 4.5 Building Reynolds Store 393 552 546 1.4 59.4 1.5 1.5 1,80 Round Hill 1,822 2,273 1.2 47.7 4.9 6.2 6 Star Tannery 219 2493341.1 80.5 0.9 0.7 2,46 Stephens City 2,207 2,674 1.2 55.3 6.8 7.3 6 Total 10,250 17,84215,495 1.7 52.1 42.548.9 Table 26: Overall Workload by Unit Volunteer Companies listed alphabetically Avg. Busy Annual Minutes per Annual Busy Total StationUnit Unit Type Response HoursResponses A132 Medic Unit 65.0 527.3 487 A131 Medic Unit 66.8 387.5 348 E13 Engine 33.7 123.5 220 W13 Wagon 38.5 76.5 119 B13 Brush 39.7 44.4 67 Clear Brook T13 Tanker 54.3 57.0 63 CH13 Chief Officer 89.2 13.4 9 MO13 Mobile 139.3 4.6 2 SV13 Serve 46.60.8 1 Clear Brook Total 56.3 1,234.9 1,316 ALS1 ALS Chase Unit 58.1 846.1 874 CH16 Chief Officer 40.5 227.2 337 A162 Medic Unit 66.5 344.8 311 Gainesboro A161 Medic Unit 59.1 232.3 236 W16 Wagon 37.8 90.1 143 E16 Engine 44.9 66.5 89 Frederick County, Virginia Page 41 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Avg. Busy Annual Minutes per Annual Busy Total StationUnit Unit Type Response HoursResponses T16 Tanker 53.8 69.0 77 MO16 Mobile 71.7 82.5 69 AT16 Attack 54.2 55.1 61 TW16 Aerial 59.8 37.8 38 ALS16 ALS Chase Unit 106.7 26.7 15 B16 Brush 82.6 17.9 13 BT16Boat 2.5 0.0 1 Gainesboro Total 55.5 2,096.0 2,264 A142 Medic Unit 70.4 195.9 167 A141 Medic Unit 69.6 141.6 122 E14 Engine 43.8 62.8 86 SV14 Serve 35.4 50.7 86 AT14 Attack 66.5 45.4 41 Gore CH14 Chief Officer 65.3 33.7 31 T14 Tanker 61.2 27.6 27 B14 Brush 84.8 17.0 12 W14 Wagon 29.1 2.9 6 MO14 Mobile 40.0 1.3 2 Gore Total 59.9 578.9 580 ALS2 ALS Chase Unit 55.8 1,761.9 1,893 A183 Medic Unit 65.0 1,132.8 1,046 A181 Medic Unit 60.3 764.2 760 E18 Engine 31.6 145.2 276 Q18 Aerial 26.9 103.9 232 Greenwood CH18 Chief Officer 22.5 62.5 167 A184 Medic Unit 132.3 130.1 59 B18 Brush 41.2 10.3 15 SV18 Serve 36.5 1.8 3 MO18 Mobile 8.3 0.3 2 Greenwood Total 55.4 4,112.9 4,453 A121 Medic Unit 66.2 453.3 411 A122 Medic Unit 68.9 434.9 379 ALS12 ALS Chase Unit 63.1 317.4 302 RE12 Rescue Engine 30.2 146.6 291 ET12 Engine 36.6 60.499 Middletown CH12 Chief Officer 58.7 78.3 80 AT12 Attack 44.0 38.9 53 MO12 Mobile 47.6 41.2 52 ATV12 ATV 363.7 36.4 6 Middletown Total 57.7 1,607.5 1,673 Frederick County, Virginia Page 42 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Avg. Busy Annual Minutes per Annual Busy Total StationUnit Unit Type Response HoursResponses A211 Medic Unit 57.9 764.2 792 RE21 Rescue Engine 26.5 206.5 467 E21 Engine 27.0 207.4 460 A212 Medic Unit 56.3 314.4 335 Millwood Station A101 Medic Unit 48.7 62.5 77 SV21 Serve 34.7 22.6 39 CH21 Chief Officer 42.2 1.4 2 Millwood Station Total 43.6 1,578.9 2,172 A192 Medic Unit 62.8 174.9 167 A191 Medic Unit 69.4 173.4 150 CH19 Chief Officer 40.5 91.7 136 W19 Pumper 41.9 59.3 85 SV19 Serve 26.5 37.1 84 North Mountain AT19 Attack 33.4 36.7 66 T19 Tanker 54.9 43.9 48 B19 Brush 72.3 20.5 17 E19 Engine 0.1 0.0 1 North Mountain Total 50.7 637.6 754 BTL10 Duty Officer Vehicle 32.0 743.2 1,394 FM102 Fire Marshal 68.6 61.7 54 FM1 Fire Marshal 82.4 70.0 51 FM2 Fire Marshal 152.7 119.6 47 CH10 Chief Officer 34.1 17.6 31 OPS1 Chief Officer 26.4 11.0 25 FM103 Fire Marshal 176.5 50.0 17 BTX10 Duty Officer Vehicle 27.6 4.6 10 Public Safety Building TN102 Support Vehicle 20.6 1.7 5 HZM10 HazMat Truck 144.6 7.2 3 TN10 Chief Officer 84.5 4.2 3 E10 Engine 21.5 1.1 3 EM10 Support Vehicle 178.2 8.9 3 FM106 Fire Marshal 88.8 3.0 2 TN101 Support Vehicle 8.5 0.1 1 Public Safety Building Total 40.2 1,104.0 1,649 A202 Medic Unit 80.1 215.1 161 E20 Engine 49.8 102.2 123 T20 Tanker 62.6 55.3 53 Reynolds Store A201 Medic Unit 71.7 60.9 51 AT20 Attack 50.4 38.7 46 MO20 Mobile 40.8 26.5 39 Frederick County, Virginia Page 43 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Avg. Busy Annual Minutes per Annual Busy Total StationUnit Unit Type Response HoursResponses RE20 Rescue Engine 31.3 16.2 31 CH20 Chief Officer 40.4 20.2 30 B201 Brush 18.4 3.4 11 B202 Brush 114.2 7.6 4 B203 Brush 3.5 0.2 3 Reynolds Store Total 59.4 546.2 552 A152 Medic Unit 60.9 988.4 974 RE15 Rescue Engine30.9 182.1 354 A151 Medic Unit 60.9 345.2 340 E15 Engine 26.0 107.2 247 Round Hill SV15 Serve 29.1 84.7 175 CH15 Chief Officer 33.4 58.4 105 B15 Brush 30.9 39.6 77 AT15 Attack 1.2 0.0 1 Round Hill Total 47.7 1,805.6 2,273 A171 Medic Unit 94.2 260.7 166 B17 Brush 52.7 24.6 28 W17 Pumper 50.8 16.9 20 Star Tannery T17 Tanker 64.4 21.5 20 E17 Engine 46.9 9.4 12 SV17 Serve 16.3 0.8 3 Star Tannery Total 80.5 333.9 249 A113 Medic Unit 61.8 974.8 947 A112 Medic Unit 65.3 592.3 544 A111 Medic Unit 64.1 401.4 376 CH11 Chief Officer 31.5 124.8 238 W11 Engine 35.8 118.7 199 E11 Engine 35.2 113.2 193 AT11 Attack 28.2 27.8 59 MO11 Mobile 23.8 20.2 51 TW11 Aerial 39.4 29.5 45 Stephens City TRS11 Tech Rescue 259.2 21.6 5 BT11 Boat 244.9 20.4 5 SV11 Serve 12.3 0.8 4 ALS11 Mobile 54.5 2.7 3 BT111 Boat 387.8 6.5 1 HZM11 Support Trailer 26.5 0.4 1 BT112 Boat 603.3 10.1 1 UT11 Utility 28.8 0.5 1 B11 Brush 38.30.6 1 Frederick County, Virginia Page 44 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Avg. Busy Annual Minutes per Annual Busy Total StationUnit Unit Type Response HoursResponses Stephens City Total 55.3 2,466.2 2,674 Frederick County Total 52.7 18,102.8 20,609 Table 27: Response Sample 5.35.9 11.1 7,519 4.86.4 11.2 1,088 5.46.0 11.4 15 5.55.9 11.3 274 The sample size is different from the totals reported in Tables 12 elements. Therefore, 87% of the total incidents are represented and are statistically robust to total population. Frederick County, Virginia Page 45 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 11: Table 28: Response Sample 7.3 10.1 16.1 7,519 7.5 11.7 17.6 1,088 8.6 9.6 17.6 15 8.0 10.7 17.1 274 Frederick County, Virginia Page 46 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 29: Response Sample 5.5 6.011.6 1,911 5.5 5.711.2 882 5.6 6.011.6 1,407 5.3 5.8 11.1 1,931 4.2 4.8 9.0 109 5.5 8.313.8 29 4.4 5.6 10.0 1,250 *Omega indicates obvious fatality Figure 12: Frederick County, Virginia Page 47 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 30: Response Sample 7.4 10.3 16.51,911 7.4 9.8 15.9882 7.5 10.016.41,407 7.2 9.9 15.91,931 6.1 8.214.1109 7.0 12.918.729 6.8 10.615.61,250 Figure 13: All Calls: Distribution of Dispatch and Turnout Time of Firstin 2016 Frederick County, Virginia Page 48 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 14: All Calls: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving Unit in 2016 Frederick County, Virginia Page 49 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS Stakeholder Input Process The process utilized to evaluate community expectations was thro, many conducted very early in the process, and interaction with elected officials; County Administrators office; civilian members of the Fire Study committee, career and voluntefire chiefs and chief officers, Volunteer Firefighters Association, career staff, and line personnel and volunteers. There is a degree of assumed representativeness of community expectations through stakeholder input. However, for clarity, this study did not include a speci Guiding Principles Mission The Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department is dedicated to y and cost- effective services that protect our citizens, their property, an fire, medical emergencies, technological hazards, and man-made or natural disasters which pose a threat to our community. The volunteer and career members of our Department shall uphold high personal and pr standards and always act with a sense of cooperation, respect an the public and each member of the organization. Above all else, our department shall hold as sacred the obligation to be responsible custodians of public trust and in every circumstance, shall always act in the Core Values PROFESSIONAL EXCELLENCE We believe the pursuit of excellence and demonstrating high professional standards are critical to our work. To ensure the best possible service for our community, the Fire Department supports continuous training and encourages professio HEALTH and SAFETY We believe our health and safety are essential to fulfilling the Fire and Rescue Department's mission. We are committed to providing the best health and safety program well-being and operational readiness. Frederick County, Virginia Page 50 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 DIVERSITY We know Frederick County is a diverse community, and we commit to meeting its ever- changing needs. We are dedicated to reflecting and respecting that diversity thr organization. We will respect the diversity of our community by providing comp quality service to all. TEAMWORK AND SHARED LEADERSHIP We believe the pursuit of excellence and demonstrating high prof to our work. To ensure the best possible service for our community, the Fire Department supports continuous training and encourages professional development. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION We believe communication is essential to the cohesiveness and peour organization. We are committed to providing effective and responsive means of communication throughout the organization and the community INTEGRITY We understand the trust placed in us by the public and our colle performance of our duties. We are committed to honest and ethical behavior, and we will hold . ourselves accountable to these values COMMUNITY SERVICE and INVOLVEMENT We believe we have a duty to be involved in the communities wher Our responsibility is to protect life, property, and the environment. We are committed to fulfilling our responsibility and to deepening our involvement in the commu No request or inquiry will go unanswered. INNOVATION We recognize and understand that the constancy of change in our community and industry impacts our business daily. We are committed to seeking out and implementing innovative and . progressive thinking to address change effectively to benefit th Frederick County, Virginia Page 51 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK LEVELS Risk Assessment Methodology Methodology The risk assessment process utilized a systematic methodology toe risks that are specific to the unincorporated county areas. This process evaluated risk from two broad perspectives. First, risk is identified through retrospective analyses of historical data. Second, risk is evaluated prospectively providing the necessary structure to app apparatus, and fire stations that afford sufficient distribution to mitigate those risks. This methodology also provides information for the County to consider alternative solutions to assist in the mitigation of risks. Service areas that either had little quantitative data (limited historical service demands),or did not require that level of analysis (very low level of service demands), were evaluated through both retrospective analysis as well as structured interviews with Department staff members. To improve clarity, the following terminology is used for the remainder of the risk assessment description and analyses: retrospective risk (historical demand data) will use the term Community Service Demands and prospective risk (potential service demands) will use the term Community Risks. The overall community risk assessment process and methods utilized by the Department is presented below as Figure 15.13 Figure 15: Community Risk Assessment Process Community Risk Assessment Community Service Community DemandsRisks Service Station Incident Incident Incident Incident Program Demand HistoryTypeLocationsFrequency AreaZones Olathe Fire Department. (2012). Adapted from Community Risk and Emergency Services Analysis: Standard of Cov 13 Olathe, Kansas: Author. Frederick County, Virginia Page 52 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 As indicated in Figure 15, community service demands (request for assistance) were analyzed by the incident history, type, locations, and incident frequencies. Within this process a temporal analysis was completed for each major service program area (fire, EMS, Haz Mat, etc.) and evaluated by station demand zone (response area) and the frequency of incidents. This methodology not only provides for sufficient allocation of preparedness aspects of the deployment strategy, but also balanc in-depth understanding of the probability of events through historical analyses. The combined results of this process were utilized to classify risk by severi matrix for each program/risk area. Finally, the critical tasks required for each level of risk were identified. An example of the overall probability and consequence matrix is 16 14 below. Figure 16: Probability and Consequence Matrix Planning Areas/Service Areas Frederick County Fire and Rescue utilizes the existing station service areas for their planning efforts. For example, the company officers from each fire station service area are responsible for fire 14 CFAI. (2009). Fire & Emergency Service Self-Assessment Manual, 8 th (ed.). Chantilly, Virginia: Author. (p. 49) Frederick County, Virginia Page 53 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 prevention efforts, building familiarity, etcetera within the service area. Therefore, the planning areas remained consistent throughout the risk assessment process. The service areas have served the department well in this process as risk has been evaluated f and the necessary concentration of resources to meet each service areas specific and unique risks. Population Density, Development, and Growth Overall, the density for the unincorporated County is predominan 15 the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI).The Commission has traditionally recognized that rural designations are populations less than 1,0 for populations between 1,000 and 2,000 per square mile. The County has an aggregated population 16 density of approximately 189.4 per square mile. Traditionally recommended service levels for suburban populations is that the first due unit is capable of ar 17 travel time with a goal of 5 minutes.However, the CFAI has combined urban and suburban th densities for first arriving apparatus at a baseline of 5:12 in Edition Interpretation Guide that accompanies the 9 th Edition Self-Assessment Manual.18 The time to assemble the effective response force has remained at a baseline of 13-minutes for suburban 19 densities. Utilizing the CFAIs traditional recommendations as a guide, rurulation densities are afforded 20 13-minutes or less to 90% of the incidents.The time to assemble the effective response force for rural populations is 18-minutes travel time.21 United States Census data is utilized to approximate the distrib County. The population density in the County is differentiated with somedensities but is largely rural with less than 1,000 population per square mile Population Characteristics Generally, older populations and very young populations are cons frequency and incidents of fire. In addition, older populations historically utilize EMS services with greater frequency. It is important to understand, what field crews often recognize the distribution of population risks are not uniform across the According to these data, overall the median age is less than 52. Age, population density, and socio-economic issues are drivers CFAI. (2009). Fire & Emergency Service Self-Assessment Manual, 9 (ed.). Chantilly, Virginia: Author. (p. 71) 15th US Census. (2017). Retrieved on January 6, 2018 from 16 . https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/frederickcountyvirg Ibid. 17 CFAI. (2016). Fire & Emergency Service Self-Assessment Manual: Interpretation Guide, 9 (ed.). Chantilly, Virginia: 18th Author. (p. 99) Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Frederick County, Virginia Page 54 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 of service demands. These factors are shown in Figures 17-21 and are planning indicators for preparing for growth in service demand. Figure 17: Median Age - 2016 Frederick County, Virginia Page 55 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 The population density in the County is largely of a rural densi near the municipal boundaries. Figure 18: Population Density by Census Block - 2016 Frederick County, Virginia Page 56 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 However, as a growing community, the population change is increa The greatest growth areas are to the northwest, northeast, and south are no reductions in population projected. Figure 19: Annual Population Change 2016-2021 Frederick County, Virginia Page 57 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Population alone is not the sole variable that influences the de and demographic factors have greater influence over demand. The median household income was evaluated to determine the degree to which the community had undlations. Figure 20: Median Household Income -2016 Frederick County, Virginia Page 58 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Finally, unemployment rates were evaluated across the county. Figure 21: Unemployment Rates -2016 Frederick County, Virginia Page 59 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 The Countys governance should retain the flexibility to establi exceeding the communitys expectations for service. Overall, th for the County does not meet the traditionally accepted baseline recommendations for Suburban densities from the Commission on Fire Accreditation Int analysis of each fire stations performance is provided as Tables 33 and 34 in the Data Report. A comparison table of the current performance and national recomme. Table 31: Comparison of Response Times by Agency to Best Practices and CFAI 23 USFA 25 CFAI 22 NFPA 1710 24 ththth Average 909090 thth Call 90Percentile 90 Travel Percentile Percentile Percentile Category Urban/Suburban Percentile Time Travel Time Rural Turnout Travel Time Travel Time Travel Time and Travel Fire 6:24 11:425:1213:00 4:00 10:59 EMS 5:54 10:06 5:1213:00 4:00 10:59 Projected Growth in Requests for Service The annualized growth was approximately 4% between 2014 and 2016. The following straight-line projection in the figure below should be used with caution due to the variability across years. Therefore, data must be reviewed annually to ensure timely updat utilizing at least 5-years of continuous data. CFAI. (2009). Fire & emergency service self-assessment manual, (8 ed.). Chantilly, Virginia: Author. 22th Ibid. 23 National Fire Protection Association. (2016). NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression 24 Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations. Boston, MA: National Fire Protection Association. 25 USFA. (August 2006). Structure fire response times: Topical fire research ser Frederick County, Virginia Page 60 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 22: Projected Service Demand Growth of 4.02% Projected Growth in Requests for Service 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025 Low 2.8%High 5.1%Actual - 4% Assuming that future demands may not be reasonably distributed across the various stations in the system, the system will require a redistribution of workload and to meet the growing demand. While the system should be evaluated continuously for performance and desired outcomes, the department should specifically re-evaluate workload and performance indicators for every 1,000-call increase to ensure system stability. Risk Assessment Fire Suppression Services The County has 11 fire companies, each of which has a geographically identified geographic response area, that provide emergency response services in areas of the county not serviced by a municipal fire department including the communities of Stephens City, Middletown, Clear Brook, Gore, Round Hill, Gainesboro, Star Tannery, Greenwood, North Mountain, Reyno Collectively these organizations maintain twenty-three ambulances, twenty engines, three aerial devices, and various pieces of specialty apparatus and provide s85,000 people. The budgeted paid minimum staffing strength is 27 personnel on each shift, supplemented by volunteer personnel. The individual hierarchy established within the framework of the authority determines administrative command of each fire company. Frederick County, Virginia Page 61 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Community Service Demands  Fire Table 32: 113 0.3 117 0.3 84 0.2 4761.3 4241.2 47 0.1 118 0.3 1,3793.8 Table 33: Number Percentage 3.2 7.2 99 3.2 6.5 90 3.5 7.9 109 4.5 9.7 134 3.3 7.5 103 4.3 9.4 129 3.9 8.7 120 3.5 7.9 109 4.3 9.4 130 3.8 8.6 118 4.4 9.6 132 3.4 7.7 106 Frederick County, Virginia Page 62 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 23: Table 34: Number Percentage 3.4 13.0 179 3.6 13.7 189 3.5 13.3 184 3.3 12.5 172 3.9 14.9 206 4.1 15.3 211 4.6 17.3 238 Frederick County, Virginia Page 63 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 24: ire related calls were evaluated by hour of the day. Considerable variability exists in the time of day that requests for fire related services are received. The hours that include 0100 to 0500 have the lowest demands. The middle of the day has the greatest frequency of calls, specifically from 1600 to 1800. The average number of calls per hour in a year is 57. Finally, in an effort to provide a more granular understanding of the communitys demand for fire relate included the average number of calls per hour. In other words, when referring to the Table below, the busiest hour is at 1800 with 106 calls during that hour in 2 The average number of calls per hour is a daily average for those 106 calls if they were equally distributed. Therefore, the busiest hour per day would be at 1800 with an average hourly call volume Table 35: Total and Average Fire Related Calls by Hour of Day in 2016 Hour of Number Calls per Call Day of Calls Day Percentage 00.071.9 26 1 0.06 1.7 23 2 0.05 1.5 20 3 0.04 0.9 13 4 0.06 1.5 21 5 0.06 1.7 23 6 0.10 2.7 37 7 0.12 3.0 42 8 0.19 5.0 69 9 0.18 4.7 65 Frederick County, Virginia Page 64 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Hour of Number Calls per Call Day of Calls Day Percentage 10 0.21 5.6 77 11 0.20 5.4 74 12 0.17 4.4 61 13 0.22 5.8 80 14 0.21 5.5 76 15 0.22 5.9 81 16 0.27 7.0 97 17 0.28 7.5 104 18 0.29 7.7 106 19 0.24 6.2 86 20 0.16 4.4 60 21 0.17 4.4 61 22 0.12 3.0 42 23 0.10 2.5 35 Total 3.78 100.0 1,379 Figure 25: Average Fire Related Calls per Day by Hour of Day in 2016 Frederick County, Virginia Page 65 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 36: Responses Responses 43.6 204 2810.6 0.8 63.6 427 4031.2 1.1 55.9 116 1240.3 0.3 41.5 357 516 1.0 1.4 68.3 297 2610.8 0.7 28.1 183 3910.5 1.1 42.0 132 1890.4 0.5 48.6 367 4531.0 1.2 48.3 7796 0.2 0.3 31.1 185 3580.5 1.0 50.7 3440 0.1 0.1 51.7 324 3760.9 1.0 Table 37: 1 2 3 4 5 6 more 23 6 7 1613 66 113 19 21 29 14 1110 13 117 15 22 15 21 7 22 84 161 142 10954 8 20 476 288 88 34 4 5 32 424 33 12 2 0 0 00 47 67 30 14 3 3 10 118 585 318 2091035031 83 1,379 42.4% 23.1% 15.2% 7.5% 3.6% 2.2% 6.0% 100.0% Frederick County, Virginia Page 66 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 26: Frederick County, Virginia Page 67 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 27: Heat Map for Fire Related Incidents Community Risks  Fire Frederick County Fire and Rescue elected to utilize the available occupancy level data provided b ISO in order to establish the most robust risk assessment for th document. As the department continues to refine their internal level data, it is intended that the department will transition to their internal data. The Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) is a subsidiary of Ver actuarial, underwriting and claims information. ISO in particular serves insurers, agents, brokers, insurance regulators, risk managers and other participants in thasualty insurance marketplace. ISO provides agencies with a Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (F assigns credit points to recognize a community's performance on measures related to fire suppressio The schedule objectively evaluates each item and uses the evaluations in a mato determine Frederick County, Virginia Page 68 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 the accurate amount of credit for each category. Using the FSRS, ISO develops an overall Public Protection Classification (PPC) number for each community. The PPC number represents the average class of fire protection for the jurisdiction. The PPC assigns each community a rating of 1 through 10, where 1 indicates exemplary fire protection capabilities, and 10 indicates the capabilities, if any, are insufficient for insurance credit. Occupancy level risks identified by the Insurance Services Organ jurisdiction were quantitatively rated and categorized by high, moderate, and low risks. A total of 924 occupancies were categorized into 109 low risk occupancies, 801 moderate risk occupancies, and 14 high-risk occupancies. The occupancy level risk matrix utilized follows in Figure 28. The occupancies identified exclude one and two-family residences. While there are multiple occupancies defined typically referred to as commercial buildings. Figure 28: Occupancy Level Risk Matrix All of the categorized risks were geocoded and mapped to better level risk identified is distributed throughout the county. Mapping for low, moderate, and high risks are presented below. Figures 29, 30, 31 are useful in understanding the concentration of the various levels of risk in relation to the locations of fire stations andtotal overall service demands. The specific locations of risk are also a determinate for the potential requirement for apparatus and personnel resources. Frederick County, Virginia Page 69 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 29: Low Risk Occupancies Frederick County, Virginia Page 70 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 30: Moderate Risk Occupancies Frederick County, Virginia Page 71 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 31: High Risk Occupancies Frederick County, Virginia Page 72 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Probability/Consequence of Fire Event Risk The relatively low frequency of fire related events required the Department to re the consequences of the events than the probability of the event For example, according to the Departments CAD final incident typing, the department reo 113 structure fire incidents accounting for 1.1% of the total call volume. Therefore, the example is intended to describe in broad terms th fall into each level of risk for the public, understanding that several risk levels depending on the information provided or conditions found. Detailed response matrices are updated as necessary and available from the department. The resulting probability and consequence matrix is presented below. Figure 32: Probability and Consequence Matrix for Fire Risk Critical Task Analysis The FCFR staff officers and Volunteer Chiefs analyzed the critical tasks required for thof , typical fire related incidents in the community. Critical tasks for low moderate, and high-risk events are presented as well as the resources allocated, as determined by the group, to each event follows in Tables 38 through 43. The findings are not representative of any actual past event and the values presented are the result of the collective professional judgment of the participants. Frederick County, Virginia Page 73 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 38: Structure Fire  Low / Moderate Risk - Possible Critical Task Needed Personnel Command / Control 1 Investigate 4 Total5 Table 39: Resource Allocation for a Structure Fire  Low / Moderate Risk - Possible Responding Units Minimum Staffing Engine (4) 4 Rescue Engine1 Truck 1 Fire Marshal 1 Ambulance 2 Chief1 Water Tanker (3) 3 Total Response Provided 9-12 Personnel Required by Critical Tasks 5 Table 40: Confirmed Structure Fire  Moderate Risk Critical Task Needed Personnel Command / Control 2 Pump Operator 2 Fire Attack 6 Water Supply1 Primary Search 1 Ventilation 4 RIC2 Safety4 Medical 2 Water Shuttle4 Total22-26 Table 41: Resource Allocation for a Confirmed Structure Fire  Moderate Risk Responding Units Minimum Staffing Engine (5) 5 Rescue Engine1 Truck (2) 2 Fire Marshal 1 Ambulance 2 Chief1 Water Tanker (3) 3 Total Response Provided 9-15 Personnel Required by Critical Tasks 22-26 Frederick County, Virginia Page 74 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 42: Structure Fire  High Risk Critical Task Needed Personnel Command / Control 2 Pump Operator 2 Fire Attack 8 Water Supply1 Search6 Ventilation 4 Aerial Operations 2 RIC4 Safety1 Medical 2 Water Shuttle6 Total32-38 Table 43: Resource Allocation for a Structure Fire  High Risk Responding Units Minimum Staffing Engine (5) 5 Rescue Engine1 Truck (2) 2 Fire Marshal 1 Ambulance 2 Chief1 Water Tanker (3) 3 Total Response Provided 12-16 Personnel Required by Critical Tasks 32-38 Emergency Medical Services Emergency medial services are provided through a combination of fire stations that cross staff fire suppression apparatus and am each of the stations supplement the career personnel. Finally, there are three advanced life support chase cars that supplement BLS ambulances. Community Service Demands Frederick County Fire and Rescue provides patient transport services. Requests for EMS are categorized into seven call categories using the CAD call description. On average, there were 22.3 EMS requests per day, and Cardiac and Stroke requests totaled 1,138 or 3.1 per day Frederick County, Virginia Page 75 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 44: Number 1,138 3.1 731 2.0 729 2.0 152 0.4 582 1.6 1,7414.8 3,060 8.4 8,13322.3 Table 45: Annual Total and Average per Day of EMS Calls by Month of Yea in 2016 Number Calls per Call Month of Calls DayPercentage January 22.7 8.7 705 February23.9 8.2 670 March 23.0 8.8 714 April21.9 8.1 657 May 21.7 8.3 673 June 22.2 8.2 665 July 22.6 8.6 702 August 21.0 8.0 650 September 20.7 7.6 621 October 22.1 8.4 686 November 23.1 8.5 692 December 22.5 8.6 698 Total22.3 100.0 8,133 Frederick County, Virginia Page 76 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 33: Average EMS Calls per Day by Month of Year in 2016 Table 46: Number Percentage 22.0 14.1 1,146 23.0 14.7 1,195 22.7 14.5 1,182 21.9 14.0 1,139 22.4 14.6 1,186 22.4 14.3 1,166 21.5 13.8 1,119 Frederick County, Virginia Page 77 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 34: Finally, the analyses for EMS services are completed by identify the average hourly rate of EMS calls per hour. The demand curve for requests for EMS service follows an expected pattern experienced in similar communities a The higher frequency of service calls begins from 0900 to 1800 and each hou The demand peaked at 1000 with 500 calls in a year. Results are provided below Table 47: Number Percentage 0 0.64 2.9 234 1 0.52 2.3 190 2 0.47 2.1 172 3 0.38 1.7 139 4 0.40 1.8 145 5 0.47 2.1 173 6 0.62 2.8 227 7 0.92 4.1 337 8 1.00 4.5 366 9 1.22 5.5 444 1.37 6.1 500 1.325.9 482 1.24 5.6 453 1.21 5.4 442 1.14 5.1 417 1.18 5.3 432 1.25 5.6 455 1.27 5.7 462 Frederick County, Virginia Page 78 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Number Percentage 1.16 5.2 422 1.02 4.6 372 1.00 4.5 366 0.97 4.4 355 0.80 3.6 291 0.70 3.2 257 Figure 35: Average EMS Calls per Day by Hour of Day in 2016 Frederick County, Virginia Page 79 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 48: Workload by Station for EMS Incidents in 2016 Avg. Busy Annual Busy Unit Minutes per Annual Total Hours per Responses StationResponseBusy HoursResponses Day per Day Clear Brook 62.09399092.62.5 Gainesboro 46.06578581.82.4 Gore 59.83913921.11.1 Greenwood 58.01,9522,0215.35.5 Middletown 60.51,2131,2033.33.3 Millwood Station 48.31,3061,6223.64.4 North Mountain 54.44625091.31.4 Public Safety Building 27.54419621.22.6 Reynolds Store 65.43122860.90.8 Round Hill52.51,5611,7844.34.9 Star Tannery 91.72491630.70.4 Stephens City 56.12,0292,1715.65.9 Total 53.6 11,511 12,880 31.5 35.3 Transport Table 49: Number Number Transport DurationDuration 31.7 177 91.3 961 84.4% 26.9 152 91.7 579 79.2% 22.9 75 90.7 654 89.7% 24.2 46 87.7 106 69.7% 43.7 280 98.7 302 51.9% 17.9 582 82.7 1,159 66.6% 27.4 825 82.1 2,235 73.0% 73.7% Frederick County, Virginia Page 80 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Requests by hour of the day are represented below Table 50: Total EMS Calls and EMS Transports and Average per Day by Hour of Day in 2016 Number Transports Transport 0 1612340.40.6 68.8 1 133190 0.40.5 70.0 2 122172 0.30.5 70.9 3 103139 0.30.4 74.1 4 103145 0.30.4 71.0 5 130173 0.40.5 75.1 6 1582270.40.6 69.6 7 2593370.70.9 76.9 8 267366 0.71.0 73.0 9 3484441.01.2 78.4 376500 1.01.4 75.2 3614821.01.3 74.9 347453 1.01.2 76.6 3484421.01.2 78.7 309417 0.81.1 74.1 324432 0.91.2 75.0 334455 0.91.2 73.4 3104620.81.3 67.1 313422 0.91.2 74.2 2663720.71.0 71.5 274366 0.81.0 74.9 259355 0.71.0 73.0 208291 0.60.8 71.5 183257 0.50.7 71.2 Frederick County, Virginia Page 81 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 36: Average EMS Calls and EMS Transports per Day by Hour of Day in 2016 Figure 37: Heat Map for EMS Related Incidents Frederick County, Virginia Page 82 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Community Risks In addition to the community response history for EMS incidents Commonwealth of Virginias Department of Healths health data was utilized to describe community health risks.26 All reported statistics are for the Lord Fairfax Health District. The five major chronic diseases in 2012 were reported in order of severity based on number of deaths and hospitalizations:27 Heart disease Stroke Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Diabetes Hypertension 28 Figure 38: Major Causes of Death in Lord Fairfax Health District, VA http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/data/social-determinants-of-health/ 26 ibid. 27 28 Ibid. Frederick County, Virginia Page 83 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 With respect to COPD, the rate of tobacco use in Lord Fairfax He commonwealth. 29 Figure 39: Any Tobacco Use Trend - Lord Fairfax Health District The most commonly reported communicable diseases in the Lord Fairfax Health District are Lyme disease, Campylobacteriosis, and Salmonellosis in 2016. 30 Figure 40: 2016 Communicable Diseases in Lord Fairfax Health District Finally, the death rates for overdose, poisoning, motor vehicle unintentional falls are all higher than the state rate within Lord Fairfaxs Health District 31 Data are presented in the figures below. Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 31 Ibid. Frederick County, Virginia Page 84 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 41: Drug Overdose Death Rate Trend - Lord Fairfax Health District Figure 42: Motor Vehicle Traffic Death Rate Trend - Lord Fairfax Health District Figure 43: Poisoning Death Rate Trend - Lord Fairfax Health District Frederick County, Virginia Page 85 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 44: Unintentional Fall Death Rate Trend - Lord Fairfax Health District In a broad sense, FCFR is in an excellent position to contribute community health risks. Community risk reduction programs that target risks such as falls prevention, poisoning, drug overdose, and driving behaviors coul Probability/Consequence of EMS Risk FCFR utilizes Emergency Medical Dispatching (EMD) and a Medical Priority Dispa (MPDS) to triage or prioritize medical risks at the 911-center prior to dispatching units. EMS incidents are categorized into Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, and Echo inciith Alpha being the least emergent and Echo being the most emergent. In this manner, the appropriate number of resources for each level of reported risk. category may fall into multiple levels of Alpha through Echo. In other words, a fall could be prioritized as an Alpha call as well as a Delta call depending o The detailed response matrices are updated as necessary and available from the department. The resulting probability and consequence matrix is presented in Figure 45 Frederick County, Virginia Page 86 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 45: Probability and Consequence Matrix for EMS Risk Critical Task Analysis The FCFR staff officers and Volunteer Chiefs analyzed the critical tasks required for the mitigation of the various EMS related incidents in the community. Critical tasks for low, moderate, and high-risk events are presented as well as the resources allocated, as determined by the group, to each event follow in tables 51 through 56 . The findings are not representative of any actual past event and values presented are the result of the collective professional judgment of the participants. Table 51: Emergency Medical Response  Low/Moderate Risk Critical Task Needed Personnel Pt Care and Assessment2 Total 2 Table 52: Resource Allocation for Emergency Medical Response  Low/Moderate Risk Responding Units Minimum Staffing Ambulance 2 TotalResponse Provided 2 Personnel Required by Critical Tasks 2 Frederick County, Virginia Page 87 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 53: Emergency Medical Response - High Risk Critical Task Needed Personnel Pt Care and Assessment4 Total4 Table 54: Resource Allocation for Emergency Medical Response - High Risk Responding Units Minimum Staffing Engine 1 Ambulance 2 Chief 1 Total Response Provided 4 Personnel Required by Critical Tasks 4 Table 55: Emergency Medical Response - Motor Vehicle Crash with Extrication Critical Task Needed Personnel Pt Care and Assessment2 Command and Control1 Stabilization/Extrication 4 Charged Hose Line1 Total8 Table 56: Resource Allocation for Emergency Medical Response - Motor Vehicle Crash with Extrication Responding Units Minimum Staffing Engine 1 Ambulance (2) 4 ALS Chase1 Rescue Engine1 Chief 1 Total Response Provided 8 Personnel Required by Critical Tasks 8 Hazardous Materials Services The FCFR provides Hazardous Materials (Haz Mat) response within the department tha capabilities for detection of and mitigation of risks. A staffed fire suppression apparatus responds for early size-up and initial mitigation so that the incident stabilization process be. More severe events can be responded to with a regional response ning and . more specialized equipment Frederick County, Virginia Page 88 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) defines WMD as (1) Any d any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas bomb, grenade, rocket h than 4 oz (113 grams), missile having an explosive or incendiaryarge of more than 0.25 oz (7 grams), mine or similar device; (2) any weapon involving toxic o weapon containing a disease organism; or (4) any weapon that is radioactivity in a level dangerous to human life. Given the broad definition of WMD, and Frederick Countys potent negated. Facilities such as medical complexes, institutions of major shopping hubs, airports, utility, and other infrastructure locations have been targeted across the country. Incidents of this nature are complex, dynamic, and . response, and mitigation Community Service Demands Fortunately for Frederick County the demand for hazardous materials and WMD services is limited. While there is considerable exposure to hazardous materials risknd for responses is low. In 2016 Frederick County 911 dispatched 18 Haz Mat calls, which equals 0.2% of all county dispatched calls. The relative low call volume renders temporal analyses unreliabl more random than in larger data sets. In other words, the results would not be intuitive for decision- making and no further analytical analyses were conducted. The distribution of calls is relatively equally distributed throughout the County. Due to the relatively low frequency of hazardous materials incidents, the data does not suggest a more appropriate location to deploy resourcesfor hazardous materials. There were no calls dispatched by Frederick County 911 in 2016 specifically related to WMD. Table 57: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Average Average Total Busy Percentage Number Number of Responses Busy Minutes per of Total Busy 32 Program of Calls Responses per CallHours Response Hours EMS8,13315,4081.913,97154.477.2% Fire 1,3793,4882.52,70346.514.9% Rescue3058042.648836.42.7% Hazmat 18703.94034.10.2% Fire Investigation 33431.3158220.20.9% Mutual aid3827962.174456.04.1% Total 10,250 20,609 2.0 18,103 52.7 100.0% Hours are for apparatus or unit hours and not specifically perso 32 would be calculated as the product of the total busy hours and t Frederick County, Virginia Page 89 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Community Risks Frederick County Fire and Rescue has existing hazardous materials risks between the fixed facilities, and the transportation routes to move materials. From 2014 to 2016 Frederick County responded to diverse types of Haz Mat incidents and it is reasonable to assume that these incidents will increase with growth and development. Probability/Consequence of Hazardous Materials Risk The FCFR staff and Volunteer Chiefs completed analyses for the probability and consequence of hazardous materials events. In this case, the risks for hazardous materials are greater than historical experience. Therefore, the consequence portion of the matrix had greater influe the risk classification than the probability. All hazardous materials events are relatively low frequency as compared to other community service demands but thequence of events can be significant. A probability and consequences risk matrix was developed and is Figure 46: Probability and Consequence Matrix for Hazardous Materials Critical Task Analysis The FCFR staff officers and Volunteer Chiefs analyzed the critical tasks required for the mitigation of typical hazardous materials risks in the community. Critical tasks for low, moderate, and high-risk events are presented as well as the resources allocated, as determined by the group, to each event in the following tables 58 through 61. The findings are not representative of any actual past event and the values presented are the result of the collective profesjudgment of the participants. Frederick County, Virginia Page 90 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 58: Level 1 Hazardous Materials Event - Low Risk Critical Task Needed Personnel Command / Control/Investigate 2 Total 2 Table 59: Resource Allocation for Level 1 Hazardous Materials Incidents- Low Risk Responding Units Minimum Staffing Engine 1 Total Response Provided 2 Personnel Required by Critical Tasks 2 Table 60: Level 2 Hazardous Materials Event - Moderate Risk Critical Task Needed Personnel Command / Control 1 Assistant Safety Officer 1 Entry Team 4 Decon 1 Isolate and Deny Entry / 1 Evacuation Ambulance2 Total 10 Table 61: Resource Allocation for Level 2 Hazardous Materials Incident - Moderate Risk / High Risk Possible Responding Units Minimum Staffing Engine 1 Engine 1 Rescue Engineor Rescue Squad 1 ALS Chase 1 Ambulance2 Chief 1 Total Response Provided 7 Personnel Required by Critical Tasks 10 Rescue Services Technical Rescue The FCFR has the capacity to perform technical rescue related activities. Technical rescue is a relatively broad term and includes responses to a wide variety o rescue, confined space rescue, high angle rescues, and structura Due to the critical tasking elements necessary for technical rescue events the FCFR utilizes fire response units and personnel supplemented by volunteer personnel. In large, more complex, in assistance from surrounding agencies. Frederick County, Virginia Page 91 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Community Service Demands Like the analyses for hazardous materials, the demand for technical res to the primary areas. Frederick County 911 dispatched 305 Rescue related calls in 2016. This equates to .08 calls per day and 2.7% of all dispatched calls. The county is experiencing an upswing in building, so there is potential risk for high angle rescues, tre vehicle collision with entrapment potential. Due to the relatively low community demand for services temporal analyses would not produce intuitive results for decision-making. Table 62: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Average Average Total Busy Percentage Number Number of Responses Busy Minutes per of Total Busy 33 Program of Calls Responses per Call Hours Response Hours EMS 8,13315,4081.913,97154.477.2% Fire 1,3793,4882.52,70346.514.9% Rescue 3058042.648836.42.7% Hazmat 18703.94034.10.2% Fire Investigation 33431.3158220.20.9% Mutual aid3827962.174456.04.1% Total 10,250 20,609 2.0 18,103 52.7 100.0% Community Risks The area around the City of Winchester is the population center As an urban/rural jurisdiction the County has a growing risk potential the growing construction demands, ongoing repair to infrastructu . transportation industry, active railways, and access to bodies of water Probability/Consequence of Technical Rescue Risk The FCFR staff and Volunteer Chiefs completed analyses for the probability and consequence of technical rescue events. In this case, the risks for technical rescue, and the FCFR technicians, are greater than the historical experience. Therefore, the consequence portion of the matrix had greater influence on the risk classification than the probabilit All technical rescue events are relatively low frequency as compared to other community service demands. A probability and consequences risk matrix was developed and follows in Figure 47. Hours are for apparatus or unit hours and not specifically personnel hours. The tot 33 would be calculated as the product of the total busy hours and t Frederick County, Virginia Page 92 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 47: Probability and Consequences Technical Rescue Risk Matrix Critical Task Analysis The FCFR staff officers and Volunteer Chiefs analyzed the critical tasks required for the mitigation of typical technical rescue risks in the community. Critical tasks for moderate and high-risk events are presented as well as the resources allocated to each event as determined by the group. The FCFR determined that the resource requirements for this program area -risk category. Critical tasks are provided in the following tables 63 through 65. The findings are not representative of any actual past event and the values presented are the result of the collective judgment of the participants. Table 63: Technical Rescue Incident - Moderate Risk/High Risk Critical Task Needed Personnel Command / Control 1 Locate / Access 4 Stabilize / Patient Care / Transport 2 Total 7 Frederick County, Virginia Page 93 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 64: Resource Allocation for Technical Rescue Incident - Moderate/High Risk Responding Units Minimum Staffing Engine 1 Engine 1 Rescue Engine1 Aerial 1 Ambulance 2 ALS Chase1 Chief Officer 1 Total Response Provided 8 Personnel Required by Critical Tasks 7 Table 65: Resource Allocation for a Water Rescue Incident Responding Units Minimum Staffing Engine 1 Rescue Engine1 Ambulance 2 Ambulance 2 Chief Officer 1 Total Response Provided 7 Personnel Required by Critical Tasks5 Frederick County, Virginia Page 94 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 REVIEW OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE The first step in determining the current state of the systems baseline measures of performance. This analysis is crucial to the ability to disc status quo and in identifying opportunities for improvement. This portion of the analysis will focus efforts on elements of response time and the cascade of events tt lead to timely response with the appropriate apparatus and personnel to mitigate the event. looked at in terms of total reflex time, or total response time, processing time, turnout time, and travel time, respectively. Cascade of Events The cascade of events is the sum of the individual elements of t normalcy and continuing until normalcy is once again returned th The elements of time that are important to the ultimate outcome of a struct medical emergency begin with the initiation of the event. For e-set of chest pain begins the biological and scientific time clock for heart damageespective of when 911 is notified. Similarly, a fire may begin and burn undetected for a period of notified. The emergency response system does not have control o recognition or the choice to request assistance. Therefore, Frederick County Fire and Rescue utilizes quantifiable hard data points to meas manage system performance. These elements include alarm process turnout time, travel time, and the time spent on-scene. An example of the cascade of events and the 34 elements of performance utilized is provided in Figure 48. 0F Detection Is the element of time between the time an event occurs, and someone detects it and the emergency response system has been notified. This is typically Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). Call Processing This is the element of time measured between when 911 answers th information, and subsequently dispatches emergency responders. Olathe Fire Department. (2012). Adapted from Community Risk and Emergency Services Analysis: Standard of Cover. 34 Olathe, Kansas: Author. Frederick County, Virginia Page 95 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Turnout Time This is the element of time that is measured between the time thspatched or alerted of the emergency incident and the time when the fire app the call. It is understood that for Frederick County, the Call Processing times are combined, as they are not currently differentiated in the data captured by the CAD Travel Time The travel time is the element of time between when the unit wen the incident, and their arrival on-scene. Total Response Time The total response time, or total reflex time, is the total time required to arrive on-scene beginning with 911 answering the phone request for service and the time th-scene. Figure 48: Cascade of Events Frederick County, Virginia Page 96 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Response Time Continuum Fire The number one priority with structural fire incidents is to save li property damage. A direct relationship exists between the timeliness of the respo survivability of unprotected occupants and property damage. The most identifiable point of fire behavior is Flashover. Flashover is the point in fire growth where the contents of an e their ignition temperature, resulting in a rapid-fire growth rendering the area un-survivable by civilians and untenable for firefighters. Best practices would result in the fire department arriving and attacking the fire prior to the point of flashover. A representation of the traditional time temperature curve and the cascade of events is provided in Figure 49. 35 Figure 49: Example of Traditional Time Temperature Curve Example of Traditional Time Temperature Curve. Retrieved at http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/coffee- 35 break/time-vs-products-of-combustion.pdf Frederick County, Virginia Page 97 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Recent studies by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) have found tha structure fires, flashover occurs within 4 minutes in modern fir Modern home environments differ from traditional home environments with the ion of consumer furnishings made from petroleum-based products such as foam cushions and plastics. A compounding effect is also due to the advances in energy efficiency such as found in mIn addition, the UL research has identified an updated time temperature curve due to fires being ventilation controlled rather than fuel controlled as represente curve. While this ventilation-controlled environment continues to provide a high risk to unprotected occupants to smoke and high heat, it does provide some advantage as water may be applied to the fire prior to ventilation and the An example of ULs ventilation-controlled time temperature curve is provided in Figure 50 below.36 Figure 50: Ventilation Controlled Time Temperature Curve EMS The effective response to Emergency Medical Service (EMS) incide the ability to respond within a specified period. However, unlike structure fires, responding to EMS incidents introduces considerable variability in the level of cl From this perspective, the association of response time and clinical outcome varies dependi severity of the injury or the illness. Research has demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of requ are not time sensitive between 5 minutes and 11 minutes for emer- 37 emergency responses. The 12-minute upper threshold is only the upper limit of the available UL/NIST Ventilation Controlled Time Temperature Curve. Retrieved from http://www.nist.gov/fire/fire_behavior.cfm 36 Blackwell, T.H., & Kaufman, J.S. (April 2002). Response time eff 37 an urban emergency medical services system. Academic Emergency Medicine, 9(4): 289-295. Frederick County, Virginia Page 98 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 research and is not a clinically significant time measure, as pa significantly different clinical outcome when the 12-minute threshold was exceeded.38 Out of hospital sudden cardiac arrest is the most identifiable and measured inci In an effort to demonstrate the relationship between response time representation of the cascade of events and the time to defibril presented in Table 51. The American Heart Association (AHA) has determined that brain d between four and six minutes and become irreversible after 10 minutes without intervention. Modern sudden cardiac arrest protocols recognize that high quali-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) at the Basic Life Support (BLS) level is a quality intervedelivered in shockable rhythms. The figure below is representative of a sudden cardiac arrest that is presenting in a shockable heart rhythm such as Ventricular Fibri-Fib) or Ventricular Tachycardia (V-Tach). 39 Figure 51: Cascade of Events for Sudden Cardiac Arrest with Shockable Rhythm 38 Blackwell, T.H., et al. (Oct-Dec 2009). Lack of association between prehospital response time Prehospital Emergency Care, 13(4): 444-450. Olathe Fire Department. (2012). Adapted from Community Risk and Emergency Services Analysis: Standard of Cov 39 Olathe, Kansas: Author. Frederick County, Virginia Page 99 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 It is important to note that many confounding variables are pres time to outcome relationships. For example, the recognition and detection phase previously discussed could have the greatest impact on the efficacy of the response system. Distribution Factors Comparison of Service Areas Geospatial analyses were completed regarding drive times that in performance and nationally recommended best practices. Drive times from each of the current fixed facility fire stations were created utilizing existing road mileeight and ten minute increments. This analysis suggest that the majority of the county should be able to be responded to within 8 minutes to 10 minutes for where the majority of the risk is located. The (green) shading indicates the estimated travel time capabilities darker the (green) shading, the more overlap exists between resp configuration. Finally, the number in parenthesis (1) indicates the order of performance at the specific travel time goal 90% of the time or For example, referring to Table 66 and Figure 52, Station 18 contributes the most to the overall success of the system. As illustrated, is capable of delivering an eight (8) minute response time to 79.84% of the incidents. Similarly, the planning analysis suggests that 90% of the incidents could be captured in 10-minutes or less. Station 21 would provide the greatest contribution to overall success. Reslysis are presented below. 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel - Frederick County Only The 8-minute travel time modeling suggests that an 11-station configuration would achieve a travel time of 8-minutes or less to approximately 80% of the incidents in the urb utilizing the City of Winchester. While it is less efficient th accounts for approximately 4% loss of coverage. This scenario falls short of the urban/suburban response of 8-minutes at 90% and continues to require all 11 current fire station locations. This model would of rural incidents within 13-minutes or less. Therefore, approximately 2.7% of the incidents areas would receive service longer than 13-minutes. Frederick County, Virginia Page 100 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 66: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Rank Station Number Station CaptureTotal CapturePercent Capture 1181,9531,95320.12% 2111,7643,71738.30% 3151,3155,03251.84% 4217255,75759.31% 5137206,47766.73% 6122546,73169.35% 7162506,98171.92% 8192277,20874.26% 9141997,40776.31% 10201867,59378.23% 11171567,74979.84% 12 21 942 8,69189.54% 13 11 235 8,92691.96% 14 16 210 9,13694.13% 15 19 919,22795.06% 16 13 869,31395.95% 17 14 699,38296.66% 18 20 259,40796.92% 19 12 169,42397.08% 20 15 149,43797.23% 21 17 9 9,44697.32% Frederick County, Virginia Page 101 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 52: Travel Time Bleed Maps for 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Times Frederick County, Virginia Page 102 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel  Frederick Stations Only The 10-minute travel time modeling suggests that a 9-station configuration would achieve a travel time of 10-minutes or less to 90.87% of the incidents in the Urban/Suburban 97% of the rural incidents in 13-minutes or less. Similar to the previous analysis, Station 18 would be the only station that does not provide any rural coverage and no rural coverage that were not already included in the requisite sban areas. Therefore, this configuration would require a 9-station deployment model to continue to meet 10- minutes urban/suburban and 13-minutes rural responses for greater than 90% of the incidents. This model requires one less station than if the City of Winchester provided coverage. In this model, 3.4% of the rural incidents would have a response time greater than 13 minutes. Table 67: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Rank Station Number Station CaptureTotal CapturePercent Capture 1213,6583,65837.69% 2111,6945,35255.14% 3151,5356,88770.96% 4135607,44776.73% 5184047,85180.89% 6203188,16984.16% 7142518,42086.75% 8 19 231 8,65189.13% 9 17 169 8,82090.87% 10 11 223 9,04393.17% 11 20 163 9,20694.85% 12 15 859,29195.72% 13 13 569,34796.30% 14 17 159,36296.46% 15 14 119,37396.57% 16 19 6 9,37996.63% 17 21 2 9,38196.65% Frederick County, Virginia Page 103 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 53: Travel Time Bleed Maps for 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Times Frederick County, Virginia Page 104 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Finally, the geospatial analyses were validated through a review across each of the service areas. In general, the actual performance validates the planning assessments on potential performance. The data were further analyzed to compare the individual station service areas performance. With respect to travel time performance, performances for calls in stations 21, 18, and 15 were less than 10 minutes and stations 10, 11, 12, and 13 were 11 minutes less. The historical travel time performance for each fire station service area is provided below. Table 68: 90th Percentile First Arrival Performance by Fire Service Area in Ascending Order of Response Time Dispatch and Travel Response Sample First Due StationService Area Turnout Time Time Time Size 21 - Millwood Station 7.18.514.1840 18 - Greenwood 7.18.514.41,862 15 - Round Hill 7.09.715.61,291 11 - Stephens City 7.210.516.42,095 12 - Middletown 7.111.016.4519 13 - Clear Brook 7.210.716.7867 16 - Gainesboro 7.411.517.9382 20 - Reynolds Store 8.112.719.1221 14 - Gore 8.613.219.4248 19 - North Mountain 9.812.619.5331 17 - Star Tannery 7.915.720.8151 Total 7.7 11.3 17.3 8,807 Figure 54: 90th Percentile Response time by Fire Station Service Area Frederick County, Virginia Page 105 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Comparison of Workloads by Station Service Area Another method of assessing the effectiveness of the distribution model is to analyze the demand for services across the distribution model. Workload is assessed at the first due station service area level and at the individual unit level. Of requests in the jurisdiction of Frederick County Fire and Rescue, analyses illustrate that the Station Service Area for Greenwood accounted for 21.7% of the total demand, station deman within Stephens City accounted for 18.0%, and station Round Hill Commun total. The workload of the top three station service areas accounted for 52% of the department total. Table 69: Number of Calls and Responses by First Due Station Service Area 40 Number Number ofResponses Percent of of Unit per Department First Due Station Service Area Calls Responses DayWorkload 10 - Frederick County 1001600.40.8 11 - Stephens City2,2163,71410.218.0 12 - Middletown 7441,2793.56.2 13 - Clear Brook9812,0535.610.0 14 - Gore2907402.03.6 15 - Round Hill Community 1,4022,5226.912.2 16 - Gainesboro 4221,1493.15.6 17 - Star Tannery 1783621.01.8 18 - Greenwood 1,990 4,470 12.2 21.7 19 -North Mountain356 9792.74.8 20 -Reynolds Store 316 762 2.13.7 21 - Millwood Station 9791,893 5.2 9.2 Berkeley County 2835 0.1 0.2 Clarke County 27 58 0.2 0.3 Hampshire County 42 88 0.2 0.4 Hardy County 8110.00.1 Jefferson County 5100.00.0 Morgan County 421010.30.5 Out of County 340.00.0 Warren County 480.00.0 Winchester 1172110.61.0 Total 10,250 20,609 56.5 100.0 The CAD data provided did not have a method to determine calls i 40 Frederick County, Virginia Page 106 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 55: Number of Incidents by Station Service Area Figure 56: Workload by Station Service Area Frederick County, Virginia Page 107 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Comparison of Workloads by Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) Another measure, time on task, is necessary to evaluate best practices i and consider the impact workload has on personnel. Unit Hour Ut developed by mathematical model. This model includes both the pportion of calls handled in each major service area (Fire, EMS, Rescue, and Hazmat) and total uni categories in 2016. The resulting UHUs represent the percentag is utilized responding to requests for service. Historically, the International Associati Fighters (IAFF) has recommended that 24-hour units utilize 0.30, or 30% workload as an upper threshold.41 In other words this recommendation would have personnel spend noan eight 1F (8) hours per day on emergency incidents. These thresholds take into consideration the necessity to accomplish non-emergency activities such as training, health and wellness, publ inspections. The 4 th edition of the IAFF EMS Guidebook no longer specifically identif threshold. However, FITCH recommends that an upper unit utilization threshold of approxima .30, 0r 30%, would be considered best practice. In other words, units and personnel should not exceed 30%, or eight (8) hours, of their workday responding to c These recommendations are also validated in the literature. For example, in their review of the City of Rolling Meadows, the Illinois Fire Chiefs Association utilized a UHU threshold of .30 as an indication to add additional resources.42 Similarly, in a standards of cover study facilitated by the Center for Pu 2F Excellence, the Castle Rock Fire and Rescue Department utilizes 43 their standards of cover due to the necessity to accomplish other n-emergency activities. 3F We grouped cross-staffed units together and conduct UHU analysis at station level Greenwood Station has the highest workload at 0.45, followed by the next four highest: Stephens City station at 0.24, Round Hill at 0.19, and Millwood and Gainesboro at 0.17. International Association of Firefighters. (1995). Emergency Medical Services: A Guidebook for Fire-Based Systems. 41 Washington, DC: Author. (p. 11) Illinois Fire Chiefs Association. (2012). An Assessment of Deployment and Station Location: Rolling Meadows 42 Department. Rolling Meadows, Illinois: Author. (pp. 54-55) Castle Rock Fire and Rescue Department. (2011). Community Risk Analysis and Standards of Cover. Castle Rock, Colorado: 43 Author. (p. 58) Frederick County, Virginia Page 108 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 57: Station Level Unit Hour Utilization Unit Hour Utilization 0.5 IAFFFitch 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Note: Greenwood station assumed one unit was staffed by full-time firefighters 24/7. Table 70: Station Level Unit Hour Utilization Station Unit Busy Hours UHU IAFFFitch Greenwood A181/A183/A814/E18/ALS2 3,9340.450.300.25 Stephens City A111/A112/A113/E112,0820.240.300.25 Round HillA151/A152/RE15/E15 1,6230.190.300.25 Millwood A211/A212/RE21/E21 1,4930.170.300.25 Gainesboro A161/A162/E16/ALS11,4900.170.300.25 Middletown A121/A122/ALS12/RE12/ET12 1,4130.160.300.25 Clear BrookA131/A132/E131,0380.120.300.25 North Mountain A191/A192/W19 4080.050.300.25 Gore A141/A142/E14 4000.050.300.25 Reynolds StoreA201/A202/E20 3780.040.300.25 Star Tannery A171/E17 2700.030.300.25 Frederick County, Virginia Page 109 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 DESCRIPTION OF FIRST ARRIVING UNIT PERFORMANCE Analyses of the response characteristics of the first arriving units were conducted. Overall the system had a mean dispatch and turnout time of 312 seconds, and th percentile. The travel time for all first arriving unit responses were calcu station service area. In other words, this analysis describes the first arriving un th mean travel time was 354 seconds, or 5 minutes and 54 seconds. Performance at the 90percentile was 623 seconds, or 10 minutes and 23 seconds. The total response time is defined as from call entry through unit response time is 672 seconds, or 11 minutes and 12 seconds. Performance at the 90 th percentile is 981 seconds, or 16 minutes and 21 seconds. Results of first arriving unit performance are provided below. Table 71: Description of First Arriving Unit Emergency Response Performance 90th Measure Average Percentile Dispatch and Turnout Time 5.27.3 Travel Time 5.910.4 Response Time 11.216.4 The 90th percentile dispatch and turnout time for EMS and fire c respectively. For EMS calls, a total of 51% of calls had dispatch and turnout less. For fire calls, a total of 65% of the calls had dispatch and turnout time of five minutes or less. The 90th percentile travel time for EMS and fire calls were 10.1 For EMS calls, a total of 47% of the calls had travel time of five mtotal of 46% of calls had travel time of five minutes or less. Frederick County, Virginia Page 110 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 58: EMS Calls: Distribution of Dispatch and Turnout Time of FirstArriving Unit Figure 59: EMS Calls: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving Unit Frederick County, Virginia Page 111 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 60: Fire Calls: Distribution of Dispatch and Turnout Time of FirsArriving Unit Figure 61: Fire Calls: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving Unit Frederick County, Virginia Page 112 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 In the following analysis, we focused on units staffed by career Greenwood units had the fastest average and 90th percentile response time, followed illwood Station and Round Hill. Table 72: Average Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time of First Arriving U Dispatch and Turnout Travel Response Sample StationUnit Time Time Time Size Clear Brook A131/A132/E135.16.211.3697 Gainesboro A162/A161/E165.26.912.1256 Gore A141/A142/E145.36.211.5207 Greenwood A184/A183/A181/E185.15.110.21,431 Middletown A121/A122/RE12/ET125.26.912.0541 Millwood Station A211/A212/RE21/E215.25.810.9945 North MountainA192/A191/W196.56.413.0220 Reynolds Store A202/A201/E205.36.111.5177 Round Hill A151/A152/RE15/E155.15.911.01,109 Star Tannery A171/E174.99.614.6127 Stephens City A111/A112/A113/E115.15.911.01,641 Total5.26.0 11.17,325 Table 73: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time of First Arriving Units by Sta Dispatch and Turnout Travel Response Sample StationUnit Time Time Time Size Clear Brook A131/A132/E137.210.516.4697 Gainesboro A162/A161/E167.411.417.8256 Gore A141/A142/E147.913.219.3207 Greenwood A184/A183/A181/E187.08.314.11,431 Middletown A121/A122/RE12/ET127.311.918.1541 Millwood Station A211/A212/RE21/E216.910.015.9945 North Mountain A192/A191/W199.911.218.4220 Reynolds Store A202/A201/E207.812.217.6177 Round HillA151/A152/RE15/E156.99.815.41,109 Star Tannery A171/E177.115.520.5127 Stephens City A111/A112/A113/E117.09.515.41,641 Total7.1 10.3 16.1 7,325 ALS1 and ALS2 responded to countywide incidents, and they only arrived first on scene 28% of the time. Of all their responses, ALS1s average response time was response time was 22.1 minutes. ALS2s average response time was percentile response time was 16.9 minutes. When they arrived first on scene, ALS1 90 th percentile response time was 17.9 minutes, and ALS2 90 th percentile response time was 13.2 minutes. Frederick County, Virginia Page 113 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 74: ALS1/AL2: Average Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time by Arrival Sequence Arrival Dispatch and Travel Response Sample Station Unit SequenceTurnout Time Time Time Size 1 5.17.612.8132 2 5.910.416.3281 Gainesboro ALS1 3 or later 5.311.717.0129 Total 5.610.015.6542 1 5.04.59.5143 2 5.57.212.7219 Greenwood ALS2 3 or later 8.58.316.951 Total 5.76.412.1413 Table 75: ALS1/AL2: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time b Arrival Dispatch and Travel Response Station Unit Sequence Turnout Time Time Time Sample Size 1 7.0 11.9 17.9132 2 7.7 15.6 22.8 281 Gainesboro ALS1 3 or later 7.6 17.323.1 129 Total7.6 15.622.1 542 1 7.0 8.113.2 143 2 7.5 11.4 18.0 219 Greenwood ALS2 3 or later 13.4 11.122.7 51 Total7.810.4 16.9 413 ALS1 and ALS2 respond to countywide incidents that require them to travel more distance than units that are responding within their respective service area. This results in ALS1 and ALS2 having longer th response times, and 90Percentile response times, than units responding within their demand zone from the same station. This difference is identified by comparing Tables 72 and 73 to the data in Tables 74 and 75. Frederick County, Virginia Page 114 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 First Arriving Unit Response Time by Station Service Area Further analyses were conducted to measure the performance of the firs th service area. Response times are reported below at both the mean and 90 percentile respectively. The Millwood Station had the best response time performance, and the average response time was 10.0 minutes, and the 90th percentile response time was 14.1 min The second fastest station service area is Greenwood. Table 76: Mean First Arrival Performance by First Due Station Service Area. Listed by response time Dispatch and Turnout Travel Response Sample Station Service Area Time Time Time Size 21 - Millwood Station 5.14.910.0840 18 - Greenwood 5.25.210.31,862 10 - Frederick County 5.05.610.689 12 - Middletown 5.06.011.0519 15 - Round Hill 5.25.811.01,291 11 - Stephens City 5.26.211.42,095 13 - Clear Brook 5.16.311.5867 14 - Gore 5.46.812.1248 16 - Gainesboro 5.26.912.2382 20 - Reynolds Store 5.66.712.3221 19 - North Mountain6.26.612.8331 17 - Star Tannery 5.69.915.5151 Total5.25.911.28,896 Figure 62: Average Dispatch and Turnout and Travel Time by Station Service Area Frederick County, Virginia Page 115 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 77: 90th Percentile First Arrival Performance by Station Service Area. Listed by response time Dispatch and Turnout Travel Response Sample Station Service Area Time Time Time Size 21 - Millwood Station 7.18.514.1840 18 -Greenwood7.18.514.41,862 15 - Round Hill 7.09.715.61,291 10 - Frederick County 7.010.515.989 11 - Stephens City 7.210.516.42,095 12 - Middletown 7.111.016.4519 13 - Clear Brook 7.210.716.7867 16 - Gainesboro 7.411.517.9382 20 - Reynolds Store 8.112.719.1221 14 - Gore 8.613.219.4248 19 - North Mountain9.812.619.5331 17 - Star Tannery 7.915.720.8151 Total 7.3 10.4 16.4 8,896 Figure 63: 90th Percentile Response time by Station Service Area The data were further analyzed to compare the individual station service areas performance. Regarding dispatch and turnout time, performances for calls in R Community, Millwood Station, and Middletown were the fastest. With respect to trave for calls in Greenwood, Millwood Station, and Round Hill Community were the fastest. Calls in Reynolds Store, Gore and Star Tannery had the longest 90th percentile travel time. Frederick County, Virginia Page 116 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 64: 90th Percentile Dispatch and Turnout Time by Station Service Area Figure 65: 90th Percentile Travel Time Performance by Station Service Area Frederick County, Virginia Page 117 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Concentration Factors Concentration of Risks by Service Area Analyses were conducted to describe and measure the relative con fire station service areas. Therefore, a station service area risk matrix was developed to quantitatively evaluate the relative risk by including measures or the frequency of moderate and high risk occupancies in each fire service area that are directly correlated to the necessity of higher concentrations of resources. In addition, several measures that both serves the distribution of the risk evaluation, but also contributes to the need for higher concentrations For example, a higher call volume may serve to drive the need for ad communitys demand. The variables included in the risk matrix are the demand for services for each station service area, the number of high and moderate-risk occupancies, and the impact of simultaneous events in each station service area. All measures were weighted equally, however, two variables have relationships with historical community demands and one variable is dedicated to occupancy risk. Community demands were rated more heavily in an effort to provide a realistic balance between the risk potential with historical experience. The risk tool and the scoring template are provided below. Table 78: Summary of Station Fire Service Area Risk Concentration Matrix *Explanation of Occupancy Risk Types were provided previously as part of the full risk assessment in Figure 28. Results categorized stations 18 and 11 as high-risk locations. Stations 21, 13, and 15 were classified as moderate risk stations. All other stations were categorized as - dimensional models are presented for each of the station demand zones. All other stations are either moderate or low risk areas. Frederick County, Virginia Page 118 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 79: Summary of Station Service Area Risk Concentration Ratings Station Service Call Sum Total Risk Area Demand Risk Concurrency Score Score Risk Rating 337481.521.94Moderate 21 53101,812.542.57High 18 1124.52.12Low 17 1139.53.08Low 14 338616.524.83Moderate 13 4210103232.12Moderate 15 11525.55.05Low 19 11525.55.05Low 20 11749.57.04Low 16 55102,812.553.03High 11 216929.59Low 12 Figure 66: 3-D Risk Profile for Millwood Station 21 Millwood Station 21 Demand 8 6 4 2 0 Call ConcurrencyRisk Moderate Frederick County, Virginia Page 119 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 67: 3-D Station Risk Profile for Greenwood Station 18 Greenwood Station 18 Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0 Call ConcurrencyRisk High Figure 68: 3-D Station Risk Profile for Star Tannery Station 17 Star Tannery Station 17 Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0 Call ConcurrencyRisk Low Frederick County, Virginia Page 120 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 69: 3-D Station Risk Profile for Gore Station 14 Gore Station 14 Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0 Call ConcurrencyRisk Low Figure 70: 3-D Station Risk Profile for Clear Brook Station 13 Clear Brook Station 13 Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0 Call ConcurrencyRisk Moderate Frederick County, Virginia Page 121 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 71: 3-D Station Risk Profile for Round Hill Station 15 Round Hill Station 15 Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0 Call ConcurrencyRisk Moderate Figure 72: 3-D Station Risk Profile for North Mount Station 19 North Mountain Station 19 Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0 Call ConcurrencyRisk Low Frederick County, Virginia Page 122 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 73: 3-D Station Risk Profile for Reynolds Store Station 20 Reynolds Store Station 20 Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0 Call ConcurrencyRisk Low Figure 74: 3-D Station risk Profile for Gainesboro Station 16 Gainesboro Station 16 Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0 Call ConcurrencyRisk Low Frederick County, Virginia Page 123 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 75: 3-D Station risk Profile for Stephens City Station 11 Stephens City Station 11 Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0 Call ConcurrencyRisk High Figure 76: 3-D Station risk Profile for Middletown Station 12 Middletown Station 12 Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0 Call ConcurrencyRisk Low Frederick County, Virginia Page 124 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Concentration of Resources The station fire service area risk matrix demonstrates that the risk associated within the Cou generally low to moderate in nature and the demand can be approp umbrella of the current distribution model. However, in following a risk-based design, stations of high risk may need additional resources. Two high-risk service areas are generated from the application of the risk matrix suggesting concentration of resources should be assigned to assist in covering both the inheren the communitys demand for services. Station 18s risk rating is more influenced by demand for services than unprotected risk. Station 11s risk rating is more balanced between inherent risk and the demand for services. In general, the distribution model that currently exists is capa addressing the low and moderate concentrations of risk without i resources. Therefore, the competing demands for where these resources are placed are not necessarily driven by occupancy risk when the potential risk and congruent. Table 77 summarizes the concentration of career resources. In recent history, the deployment strategy did not have a strong tie between risk and resource allocation, and with respect to staffing, does not have any corr concentration of staffing. In other words, all staffing remained constant at 2-personnel per day that cross staff any of the units necessary to respond. Volunteer staffing time of day. However, recently the department has increased staffing from 2 t and 18. This risk assessment is well aligned with the departments staffing decision. The following summary is intended to illustrate the major pieces all-inclusive. For example, it is understood that many of the statiand four-wheel drive vehicles, support vehicles, etc. at their disposal. Frederick County, Virginia Page 125 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 StaffingCareer Total Min. Command Pumper-Mini Tanker Hazmat Tower Squad Brush ALS Chase Ambulance Pump/Tender Quint Engine Effective Response Force Capabilities The capability of an Effective Response Force (ERF) to assemble appropriate personnel, apparatus, and equipment is important to ificant structural fire event. Therefore, it is important to measure the capabilities of assembling an ERF. In most fire departments, the distribution model performs satisfact challenged to assemble an ERF in the recommended timeframes. Several factors affect the capabilities to assemble an ERF such as the number of fire stations, number of units, and number of personnel on each unit. Each of these policy decisions should be made in relation to communitys specific risks and the willingness to as The relatively low frequency of structure fire responses (113), and the significant numbe stations (11), the sample size for each fire station would be st decision making. Additionally, since two of the stations staff at a constant of four, and the remaining nine stations staff at a constant of two, the depth of response for career personnel is a factor of the station location. Therefore, geospatial analyses were completed to cover the geography with each subsequent responding unit/station. There are two prevailing recommendations for the time to assembl structure fires. First, NFPA 1710 suggests that the Effective Response Force (ERF eight (8) minutes travel time or less in the urban areas. Second, the CFAI provides a baseline travel time performance objective of 10 minutes and 24 seconds 90% of t Additionally, the CFAI allows for 13-minutes in the suburban areas and 18 minutes in the rural areas. Therefore, 10, 13, and 18-minute travel times were created to demonstrate the relative cov throughout the jurisdiction. Similarly, NFPA 1720, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppressionperations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Publ, delineates between a volunteer department or a combination department as follows: If the department is comprised of less than 85% majority of either volunteer or career membership it would be a combination department. If the department has greater than categorized as a volunteer department.44 Given the delineation described by NFPA, until the FCFR exceeds 85% career membership it will continue to be considered a Combination Departm consequently NFPA 1720 would be the appropriate prevailing docum NFPA 1720 does not differentiate dispatch, turnout, and travel t following recommended response times are the time from dispatch notificati departments/units until the arrival. NFPA 1720. (2010) Standard for the Organization and Deployment 44 Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Volunteer Fi Frederick County, Virginia Page 127 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 45 Figure 77: Description of NFPA 1720 Performance Objectives Overall, the ERF coverage is more robust near the municipal centers where the greatest historical demand exists. The rural areas of the county are more challenged since they do not benefit from concentric response zones; that is station service areas that overlap and can be effectively covered by adjacent stations. When referring to Figures 78-80, the purple areas illustrate the geographic capability to tra within evaluated time frames of 10, 13, and 18-minute intervals respectively. Each successively darker shade of purple indicates that more than one station can cover the same area within the evaluated time frame. For example, there is considerable more coverage in-minute scenario as compared to the 10-minute scenario. In all cases, with 2 person staffing, assembli response force for labor-intensive calls such as structure fires will continue to be challenging. 45 Ibid. Frederick County, Virginia Page 128 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 78: 10-Minute ERF represented by purple shading  All Current Stations Frederick County, Virginia Page 129 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 79: 13-Minute ERF represented by purple shading - All Current Stations Frederick County, Virginia Page 130 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 80: 18-Minute ERF represented by purple shading - All Current Stations Frederick County, Virginia Page 131 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Reliability Factors Percentage of First Due Compliance The reliability of the distribution model is a factor of how often the response model is available an able to respond to the call within the assigned service area. If at least one unit from the first due station is able to respond to a call, we consider the station is able to respond to the call within the assigned service area. Utilizing the fire service areas, analyses reveal that all stations except Millwood Station had reliability of 90% or above. We also only analyzed reliability of career units and only Fredewn had reliability of 90% or above. Star Tannery had the lowest career unit reliability at 75.5. Figure 81: Percentage Reliability by Station Service Area Listed by % reliability Frederick County, Virginia Page 132 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Overlapped or Simultaneous Call Analysis Overlapped calls are defined as the rate at which another call was received for the same first due station service area while there were one or more ongoing calls in the same first due stati service area. For example, if there is one call in station Stephens Citys service area, before the call was cleared another request in Stephens Citys service area occurred and those two calls would be captured as overlapped calls. Some studies also refer as simultaneous calls. Understanding the probability of overlapped or simultaneous calls occurs will help staff for each station. In general, the larger the call volume a first due station service area has, it is more likely to have overlapped or simultaneous calls. The distribution of the demand throughout the day will impact the chance of having overlapped or simultaneous The duration of a call will also have major influences, since the longer time it takes to clear alikely to have an overlapped request. Station Stephens City had the highest probability of having over highest demand at 2,216 requests in 2016, and the average durati Station Greenwood had the second highest probability of overlapped calls at 39.2%. Greenwood station has the second highest demand at 1,990 requests in 2016 and the aver Figure 82: Probability of Overlapped Calls Occur by Station Service Area Frederick County, Virginia Page 133 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND MEASUREMENT The Commission on Fire Accreditation International recommends th accreditation establish both benchmarks (future oriented goals) objectives to help guide both ongoing and future oriented planning. Therefore, the following benchmark performance objectives are of consideration. The Department is encouraged to evaluate and dis template language as desired. Performance Objectives  Benchmarks Fire Suppression Services Program For 90% of all priority structure fire incidents, the first-due unit shall arrive, with a minimum of 2 personnel, within 10 minutes and 30 seconds total response time. The first-due unit shall be capable of initiating a rescue, advancing a first attack line, oasic life support for victims. For 90% of all priority structural fire incidents, the effectiveorce, with a minimum of 9 personnel, shall arrive within 13 minutes total response time. The effective response force should be capable of preventing further escalation of the . Emergency Medical Services Program For 90% of all priority ALS emergency medical incidents, the first-due Advanced Life Support (ALS) unit shall arrive within 10 minutes and 30 seconds total response time with a minimum of 2 personnel. The first-due unit shall be capable of providing advanced life support and transport for medical incidents. If an engine or ladder company is assigned the incident, it will be capable of providing a minimum of Basic Life Support (BL defibrillator (AED) capability, until the ALS unit arrives on th The ALS total response time is commensurate with the effective response force. For 90% of all priority EMS incidents, the effective response force, with a minimum of 4 personnel, shall arrive within 13 minutes total response time. The effective response force should be capable of patient care and transport support. Hazardous Materials Services Program For 90% of all hazardous materials incidents, the first-due unit shall arrive, with a minimum of 2 personnel, in 10 minutes and 30 seconds total response time. This unit shall be capable of initiating the mitigation of a hazardous materials incident at t Frederick County, Virginia Page 134 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 For 90% of all incidents, the effective response force, consisting of a minimum of 10 personnel, shall arrive within 13 minutes total response time. The effective response force should be capable of mitigation of a hazardous materials inciden identification, recon, decontamination, and rehabilitation. A regional response is available for major incidents. Special Rescue Operations Program For 90% of all incidents, the first-due unit shall arrive, with a minimum of 2 personnel, in 10 minutes and 30 seconds total response time. This unit shall be capable of initiating the mitigation of a technical rescue incident. For 90% of all incidents, the effective response force, consisting of a minimum of 7 personnel, shall arrive within 13 minutes total response time. The effective response force should be capable of mitigation of a technical rescue incident that may in below-grade rescue, and high-angle rescue. A regional response is available for major incidents. Summaries of FCFRs benchmark objectives are presented below. Table 81: Summary of FCFRs Benchmark Objectives Tech th Measured at the 90 Percentile Suppression BLS ALS HazMat Rescue Call Pick-up to Dispatch 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 Processing Turnout Time 1st Unit1:30 1:30 1:301:30 1:30 Turnout Turnout Time for ERF 1:30 1:30 1:301:30 1:30 Travel Time 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 1st Due Travel Travel Time 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 ERF Total Response Time 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 Total 1st Due Response Total Response Time Time 13:00 13:00 13:00 13:00 13:00 ERF Performance Objectives  Baselines Baseline performance is designed to closely mirror current capab to establish a minimum threshold, or baseline, for performance. It would be recommended that the department measure, evaluate, and manage the performance at leas benchmark objectives, the department is encouraged to continuous the baseline objectives as necessary. Frederick County, Virginia Page 135 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Fire Suppression Services Program For 90% of all priority structure fire incidents, the first-due unit shall arrive, with a minimum of 2 personnel, within 16 minutes and 30 seconds total response time. The first-due unit shall be capable of initiating a rescue, advancing a first attack line, or providing baport for victims. For 90% of all priority structural fire incidents, the effective of 9 personnel, shall arrive within 21 minutes and 30 seconds total response time. The effective response force should be capable of preventing furtherscalation of the fire incident. Emergency Medical Services Program For 90% of all priority ALS emergency medical incidents, the fir-due Advanced Life Support (ALS) unit, with a minimum of 2 personnel, shall arrive within 16 minutes and 30 seconds total response time. The ALS unit shall be capable of providing advanced life support transport for medical incidents. If an engine or ladder company is assigned the incident, it will be capable of providing Basic Life Support (BLS) with autom (AED) capability, until the ALS unit arrives on the scene. For 90% of all incidents, the effective response force, consisting of 4 personnel, shall arrive within 20 minutes and 30 seconds. Hazardous Materials Services Program For 90% of all hazardous materials incidents, the first-due unit shall arrive, with a minimum of 2 personnel, in 18 minutes total response time. This unit shall be capable of initiating the mitigation of a hazardous materials incident at the operations l For 90% of all incidents, the effective response force, consisting of a minimum of 10 personnel, shall arrive within 21 minutes and 30 seconds total r The effective response force should be capable of mitigation of a hazardous ma include entry, identification, recon, decontamination, and rehab A countywide response is available for major incidents. Special Operations Program For 90% of all incidents, the first-due unit shall arrive, with a minimum of 2 personnel, in 16 minutes and 30 seconds total response time. This unit shall be capable of initiating the mitigation of a technical rescue incident. Frederick County, Virginia Page 136 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 For 90% of all incidents, the effective response force, consisting of a minimum of 7 personnel, shall arrive within 21 minutes and 30 seconds total response tim The effective response force should be capable of mitigation of a technical rescue inci, extrication, below-grade rescue, and high-angle rescue. A countywide response is available for major incidents. In summary, the departments baseline performance has been as fo CFAI baseline objectives. When referring to the summary tables that follow, there are some data elements that must be understood. First, the performance listed for Total Response Time includes th the combined dispatch, turnout, and travel time measures at the percentile. Secondly, the data are presented as found in the CAD system. The first due performance for hazardous materials risks should be commensurate with the first due performance for all ot However, the sample size was very small and does not provide quaformation to make any inferences or assumptions about performance. Third, both the hazardous materials and the special operations programs did not have sufficient data to analyze the effective r Therefore, they are submitted with an n/a. Finally, as previously discussed with respect to the ERF, the frequency of incidents where sufficient vehicles arrived to assemble a minimum ERF was th relatively low and measures at the 90 percentile are problematic in small data sets. The ERF performance should be considered with caution and average times may be more much large sample size can be obtained. The tables below provide a comparison of baseline performance to baseline objectives. Table 82: Summary of Baseline Performance and Baseline Objectives for Fire Suppress Suppression Fires -90th CFAI BASELINE 2016 FCFR Baseline Objective Percentile Times Objective Call Pick-up to n/a 1:30 1:30 Processing Dispatch Turnout Time Dispatch 7:30 3:00 3:00 1st Unit and Turnout Time Turnout 7:30 3:003:00 for ERF Travel Time 5:12 -Urban/Suburban 13:00 11:42 1st Due 13:00 - Rural Travel 10:24  Urban Travel Time n/a 13:00  Suburban 18:30 ERF 18:12 - Rural Total Response 8:12  Urban/Suburban 16:30 17:42 Time 16:00  Rural Total 1st Due Response Time Total 13:24  Urban Response n/a 16:24  Suburban 21:30 Time ERF 21:12  Rural Frederick County, Virginia Page 137 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 83: Summary of Baseline Performance and Baseline Objectives for EMS CFAI BASELINE FCFR Baseline EMS - 90th Percentile Times 2016 Objectives Objectives n/a 1:30 1:30 Call Processing Pick-up to Dispatch Turnout Time 1st 7:183:003:00 Dispatch and Unit Turnout Turnout Time for 7:18 3:00 3:00 ERF 10:06 5:12 -Urban/Suburban `10:00 Travel Time 13:00 - Rural 1st Due Travel n/a 10:24 Urban 13:00 Travel Time 13:00  Suburban ERF 18:12 - Rural 16:06 8:12  Urban/Suburban16:30 Total Response 16:00  Rural Time 1st Due Total Response n/a 13:24  Urban 20:30 Time Total Response 16:24  Suburban Time ERF 21:12  Rural Table 84: Summary of Baseline Performance and Baseline Objectives for Spec Special Operations (Water and CFAI BASELINE Technical Rescue) - 90th 2016 FCFR Baseline Objective Objective Percentile Times Call Pick-up to 1:30 n/a 1:30 Processing Dispatch Turnout Time 1st 3:00 8:36 3:00 Dispatch Unit and Turnout Turnout Time for 3:00 8:36 3:00 ERF Travel Time 5:12 -Urban/Suburban 9:36 13:00 1st Due 13:00 - Rural Travel 10:24  Urban Travel Time n/a 13:00  Suburban 18:30 ERF 18:12 - Rural Total Response 8:12 Urban/Suburban Time 17:36 16:00  Rural 16:30 Total 1st Due Response Total Response 13:24  Urban Time Time n/a 16:24  Suburban 21:30 ERF 21:12  Rural Frederick County, Virginia Page 138 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 85: Summary of Baseline Performance and Baseline Objectives for Haza HazardousMaterials- 90th CFAI BASELINE 2016 FCFR Baseline Objective Percentile Times Objective Call Pick-up to 1:30 n/1 1:30 Processing Dispatch Turnout Time 1st 3:00 8:003:00 Dispatch Unit and Turnout Turnout Time for 3:00 8:00 3:00 ERF Travel Time 5:12 -Urban/Suburban 10:42 13:00 1st Due 13:00 - Rural Travel 10:24  Urban Travel Time n/a 13:00  Suburban 18:30 ERF 18:12 - Rural Total Response 8:12 Urban/Suburban Time 17: 16:00  Rural 16:30 Total 1st Due Response Total Response 13:24  Urban Time Time n/a 16:24  Suburban 21:30 ERF 21:12  Rural Frederick County, Virginia Page 139 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 COMPLIANCE METHODOLOGY This Standards of Response Coverage document is designed to guide the Department to continuously monitor performance, seek areas for improvement, an levels and performance to the community we have the privilege of Therefore, the Fire Chief may establish a Compliance Team to continuously monitor elements of this SOC and make recommendations for system adjustments or improvement quarterly. Compliance Team / Responsibility The Compliance Team may consist of the following department members and will have the responsibility of continuously monitoring changes in risk, community service demands department performance in each program area, fire department dem Chair Operations level Chief or equivalent Member  Data Analyst Member  Fire Prevention Representative Member  EMS Representative Member  as determined by FCFR Performance Evaluation and Compliance Strategy th FCFR will evaluate system performance by measuring first due unit per percentile quarterly and annually. In addition, the Department will evaluate first due performance by each individual fire station service area and by program area. Measures for the effective response force by each program area, fire station service area, and risk category will be evaluated annually. Annual reviews will be conducted in January of each year regarding the previous year All response performance monitoring will exclusively evaluate emergency responses. The compliance team will determine the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the system performance annually and make recommendations for system Finally, the Department will annually update and evaluate the risk assessment matrices f and changes in community risk. Compliance Verification Reporting The compliance team will communicate results of the period evalu The Fire Chief will disseminate the quarterly and annual results and any system adjustments in a timely manner so that both performance measurement and continuous improvement becomes part organizations culture. All performance and risk measures will be reported to the County Administration and the Board of Supervisors and available to the community annually. Frederick County, Virginia Page 140 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Constant Improvement Strategy The Department would be well served by utilizing the following conceptual model to facilitate both compliance and continuous improvement. Figure 83: Continuous Improvement and Compliance Model Review Performance Measures and SOC Make System Evaluate Current AdjustmentsPerformance Identify Monitor Desired Opportunities for Performance Improvement Design and Communicate New Elements Frederick County, Virginia Page 141 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 OVERALL EVALUATION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overall Evaluation The overall evaluation is the final component of the Standards o- based process that incorporates risk, mitigation, and outcomes mDepartment and the County leadership can more easily discuss service levels, outcomes, and allocations based on community risk. Overall, the department is performing well within the current system. The community enjoys high quality services from a professional and well-trained department. Predominantly, the departments distribution and concentration delivery models are appropriatelythe countys unique risks. In addition, the practice of cross-staffing units provides operational and fiscal efficiencies. However, there are areas that have been identified that the Department could make incremental system adjustments to improve. While it is recognized that FCFR has attempted to control costs and provide efficient services, such as cross staffing units and measured growth of career staffing, for the future to continue to meet expectations for service. General Observations Measuring Total Response Time and Dispatch Center Performance The Department has not established goals for system performance prior to the completion this SOC. The aggregate performance is more representative of th The individual station service areas performance provides understanding of the compartmentalized performance. While it is up to the department to establish policy related to exceeding community expectations, there are opportunities to betgoals and baseline objectives. However, it is important to clarify nuances in the data collection proc distinct dispatch time, defined from when a citizen calls 911 apparatus are dispatched, is not clearly identifiable in the dat Turnout time, defined as the time between when the units/crews are notified until they are en identifiable either. Therefore, the data reports an aggregated time at 7.3 minutes at the 90 th percentile. Based-on national experience, it is more likely that the elongated tim with the turnout time that may be most influenced by times when the station in before responding. However, several suggestions are provided to improve data collection and performance management. Frederick County, Virginia Page 142 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Observations and remedies: While it is understandable that the travel time is over 10-minutes for Frederick County Fire and Rescue, it is also recognized that the total citizen experience is over 16 minutes from the time 911 is called until the first units arrival at the 90 th percentile. This is known as the total response time. The department could impact the total response time in most inst crew turnout time and/or improved dispatch time that is more closely aligned with best pr such as NFPA 1710 or NFPA 1221. Irrespective of the national re is suggested that best practice is 2 minutes or less at the 90 th percentile for call processing or dispatch time. Recommendation: #1 It is recommended that FCFRD begin dispatching at the unit level rather than at the station l manner, performance between career or staffed models and volunte evaluated within the context of the service delivery model. Thivide a definitive data point to measure dispatch or call processing time. Recommendation: #2 Once the dispatch center is able to dispatch at the unit level a time. The department is encouraged to monitor turnout time to ensure the performance is best practice at 60 seconds for an EMS incident and up to 90 seconds for a fir performance is typically within personnel and management control generally a no-cost option. Internal Performance Goals and the Distribution of Resources The Department is evaluating policy options for both maintaining current performance at a 10- minute travel time and/or improving to an 8-minute travel time objectives. This will be a two-minute improvement in travel time performance. If the department was a to best practice, the department could improve the customers ex Currently, the department is performing at 10.4 minutes or faster to 90% of the incidents. th Only Stations 18 and 21 are performing at less than 9-minutes at the 90 percentile. Table 86: 90th Percentile Turnout and Travel Time of First Arriving Units by Program Dispatch and Travel Response Sample Program Turnout Time Time Time Size EMS7.3 10.1 16.1 7,519 Fire 7.511.717.61,088 Rescue 8.69.617.615 Hazmat 8.010.717.1274 Total 7.3 10.416.4 8,896 Frederick County, Virginia Page 143 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 87: 90th Percentile First Arrival Performance by Fire Station Service Area Dispatch First Due and Turnout Travel Response Sample Station Service Area Time Time Time Size 21 - Millwood Station 7.18.514.1840 18 - Greenwood 7.18.514.41,862 15 - Round Hill 7.09.715.61,291 10 - Frederick County7.010.515.989 11 - Stephens City 7.210.516.42,095 12 - Middletown 7.111.016.4519 13 - Clear Brook 7.210.716.7867 16 - Gainesboro 7.411.517.9382 20 -Reynolds Store8.112.719.1221 14 - Gore8.613.219.4248 19 -North Mountain9.812.619.5331 17 - Star Tannery 7.915.720.8151 Total 7.310.416.48,896 The current performance is both expected and reasonable from a system design perspective when considering the differences in demand and population levels across the district. Urban/Rural call density is calculated based on the relative concentration of incidents based on approximately 0.5-mile geographic areas as well as the adjacent 0.5-mile areas. The results demonstrate an urban and rural designation based on call density population. The red areas are designated as urban service areas and the green areas are des as rural service areas. Any area that is not colored has less than one call every six mo- mile area and the adjacent areas. When referring to the figure below, it is clear that in general, the majority of the County is rural by definition of this analysis. Stations 11, 15, 18, and 21 are of urban demand densities with smaller portions of 12, 13, and 19 as well. Frederick County, Virginia Page 144 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 84: Urban and Rural Call Density Map with Current Stations In addition to the quantitative analyses provided, Geographic In station locations and associated travel time capabilities. The current capabilities were evaluated to determine if, from a planning perspective, an 8-minute or 10-minute travel time is obtainable within the current configuration. Frederick County, Virginia Page 145 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel - Frederick County Only The 8-minute travel time modeling suggests that an 11-station configuration would achieve a travel time of 8-minutes or less to approximately 80% of the incidents in the urb utilizing the City of Winchester. While it is less efficient thns, it only accounts for approximately 4% loss of coverage. This scenario falls short of the urban/suburban response of 8-minutes at 90% and continues to require all 11 current fire station locations. This model woulde of rural incidents within 13-minutes or less. Therefore, approximately 2.7% of the incidents areas would receive service longer than 13-minutes. Table 88: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Rank Station Number Station CaptureTotal CapturePercent Capture 1181,9531,95320.12% 2111,7643,71738.30% 3151,3155,03251.84% 4217255,75759.31% 5137206,47766.73% 6122546,73169.35% 7162506,98171.92% 8192277,20874.26% 9141997,40776.31% 10201867,59378.23% 11171567,74979.84% 12 21 942 8,69189.54% 13 11 235 8,92691.96% 14 16 210 9,13694.13% 15 19 919,22795.06% 16 13 869,31395.95% 17 14 699,38296.66% 18 20 259,40796.92% 19 12 169,42397.08% 20 15 149,43797.23% 21 17 9 9,44697.32% Frederick County, Virginia Page 146 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 85: Travel Time Bleed Maps for 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Times Frederick County, Virginia Page 147 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel  Frederick Stations Only The 10-minute travel time modeling suggests that a 9-station configuration would achieve a travel time of 10-minutes or less to 90.87% of the incidents in the Urban/Suburban 97% of the rural incidents in 13-minutes or less. Similar to the previous analysis, Station 18 w the only station that does not provide any rural coverage and no rural coverage that were not already included in the requisite sthe urban and suburban areas. Therefore, this configuration would require a 9-station deployment model to continue to meet 10- minutes urban/suburban and 13-minutes rural responses for greater than 90% of the incidents. This model requires one less station than if the City of Winchester provided coverage. In this model, 3.4% of the rural incidents would have a response time greater than 13 minutes. Table 89: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Rank Station Number Station CaptureTotal CapturePercent Capture 1213,6583,65837.69% 2111,6945,35255.14% 3151,5356,88770.96% 4135607,44776.73% 5184047,85180.89% 6203188,16984.16% 7142518,42086.75% 8 19 231 8,65189.13% 9 17 169 8,82090.87% 10 11 223 9,04393.17% 11 20 163 9,20694.85% 12 15 859,29195.72% 13 13 569,34796.30% 14 17 159,36296.46% 15 14 119,37396.57% 16 19 6 9,37996.63% 17 21 2 9,38196.65% Frederick County, Virginia Page 148 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 86: Travel Time Bleed Maps for 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Times Frederick County, Virginia Page 149 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Optimized Station Distribution Plans 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Analyses were completed to develop an optimized station distribution model for an 8-minute travel time as well. This evaluation suggests, that an optimized 11-station model can provide for 90.6% effectiveness covering all incidents within 8-minutes or less travel time in the urban/suburban areas and 96.96% in 13-minutes in the rural areas. In comparison, the current station require more than 14 stations. Alternatively, the current 11-station configuration can achieve approximately 80% at 8-minutes. A graphic illustration is presented below. In other words, the long-term strategy of rebuilding stations in optimized locations, as replaced can improve performance by 2-minutes and 10% over the existing configuration. The recurring costs for personnel, apparatus, and equipment would not be impacted by the station locations. A graphic illustration is presented below. Recommendation: #3 If the desired service level is to improve to an 8-minute travel time, it is recommended that the County adopt a long-term strategy to relocate fire stations when they are due for a fully implemented the county would have the same number of fire Frederick County, Virginia Page 150 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 87: Optimized Station Deployment Plan - 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Analyses were completed to develop an optimized station distribu-minute travel time as well. This evaluation suggests, that an optimized 7-station model can provide for greater than 90% effectiveness covering all incidents within 10-minutes or less travel time for urban/suburban areas and 96.57% within 13-minutes in the rural areas. In comparison, the current station configuration would require 9 stations for commensurate service. While the cost of new stations vary considerably by the clients footprints, it is reasonable to utilize $4,000,000 as a planningfor capital costs. If the Frederick County, Virginia Page 151 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 assumption holds, then this option would have a long-term net capital reduction of approximately $16,000,000 in todays dollars. Recommendation: #4 If the desired service level is to maintain the current 10-minute travel time, it is recommended that the County develop a long-term strategy to relocate fire stations when they are due for a replacement. Once fully implemented the county would have reduced capital liabilities by four stations a offset personnel requirement by redistributing existing personne-term capital savings of approximately $16,000,000 dollars while maintnt performance. A graphic illustration is presented below. Frederick County, Virginia Page 152 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 88: Optimized Station Deployment Plan - 10-Min. Urban/Suburban and 13-Min. Rural Travel Time Frederick County, Virginia Page 153 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Workload Capacity  Reinvesting or Reallocating Resources The department is currently operating within the boundaries of nationa practices with respect to workload. Overall, the department is performing at approximately 0.15, or 15%. We grouped cross-staffed units together and conducted UHU analyses at the station level. Greenwood Station has the highest workload at 0.45, followed by Stephens City station at 0.24, Round Hill Community at 0.19. North Mountain, Gore, Reynolds Store, and Star Tannery statio had UHU less than or equal to 5%. FITCHs position is that workloads greater than 0.25 are not optimal on a 24-hour shift and should not exceed 0.30. The addition of a dedicated Medic unit at the Greenwood station would re-distribute the workload across the singular crew that cross-staffs each of the units. An additional Medic resource should be considered for the Stephens City station in the near future as the workload is nearly at our recommended threshold to begin planning for a new anges should have a moderating effect on some of the other stations, reducing the UHU for multiple units responding from surrounding stations. Recommendation: #5 It is recommended that a dedicated Medic unit be added at the Gr resource should be considered for the Stephens City station in the near future. It is also recommended that the workload, reliability, and call concurrency be evaluated in all stations, but specifically in Greenwood, Stephens City, Round Hill Community, Millwood, Gainesboro, and Middletown. Recommendation: #6 It is recommended that the workload, reliability, and call concube evaluated in all stations, but specifically in Greenwood, Stephens City, Round Hill Community, due to their relatively higher workloads. Frederick County, Virginia Page 154 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 89: Station Level Unit Hour Utilization Unit Hour Utilization 0.5 IAFFFitch 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Staffing, Scheduling, and Overtime Staffing and Schedules The fire department currently operates on a modified Detroit sequates to an average workweek of 56 hours per week regardless of the pay cycle for each of three shifts. Analyses were completed to determine if there were any fiscal advantages to ch Departments around the country utilize a variety of schedules that typically result in a 42, 48, or 56- hour workweek. Schedules for 42, 48, and 56-hour workweeks were evaluated to determine the relative fiscal impact of the various schedules. In all scenarios the minimum staffing was maintained on all units and no deployment changes were necessary or contemplated. completed to determine the impact of establishing a Kelly Day or hours; 52-hour workweek or less. This analysis utilizes the average leave histories of the employees provided by FCFRD. When referring to the table below, the staffing multiplier is th one position or seat on an apparatus 24 hours a day and 7 days a and annual hours. For example, for the 42-hour workweek in the first row, it would require 4.67 employees to continuously staff one position 24/7. This table aminimum daily staffing of 27 personnel 24/7. Frederick County, Virginia Page 155 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 90: Comparison of Various Work Schedules and Staffing Demands Work Week Annual Staffing Needed Additional Delta from Delta in (hrs.) Hours Multiplier Employees Employees to Current of Personnel Cover Vacation 103 Costs Utilizing Slots Average Salary 42 (Kelly Days) 2,184 4.67 126 21 44 Additional $2,381,197.28 48 (Kelly Days)2,496 4.0 108 15 20 Additional$1,082,362.40 52 (Kelly Day) 2,704 3.6599 13 9 Additional $487,063.08 56 2,9123.369112 0$0 The departments current staffing multiplier is 3.82 (103 shift FTE / 27 minimum staffing). Therefore, the department has elected to staff for the available vacation s multiplier. For example, 103 shift FTE / 3 shifts = approximate equate to a total of 7 personnel that could be off on any shift (34 pers 27 minimum staffing = 7) prior to hiring back on overtime. However, as the those employees need to have access to time off as well. Therefore, the number of time of slots needs to be increased to 3.6 from 3.2. Again, doubling the avai would be approximately 7 slots, which is in line with the depart Results from this analysis suggest that within the current minimum staffing of 27 personnel and the average leave history of the employees; the optimized staffing could be 91 (27 x 3.36). Utilizing this approach already accounts for 3.6 vacation slots per day within Therefore, following the departments current practice, an additional 12 em x 3.36 = 12.1) to cover the available time off slots. The number of available slots that personnel can take off each is approximately 6. There are times where this may be exceeded wit the total hours of 27,923 hours that include vacation, sick leav accounts, it would require a minimum of 3.2 available slots for all employees to capture their average leave. This figure was calculated when the department had 91 personnel are 103 personnel, the number of required slots is 3.6. However as desirable as others, therefore a factor of approximately 2, or a to reasonable solution to account for desirable days, partial vacat the department continue to utilize the 7 available slots per day, but do not allow greater than 7 personnel off per shift on scheduled leave. The current schedule that the fire department utilizes is the mo coverage 24 hours per day 7 days a week. Frederick County, Virginia Page 156 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Recommendation: #7 It is recommended that Frederick County and FCFRD continue with the current work schedule for the foreseeable future. Recommendation: #8 It is recommended that FCFRD continue to use no more than 7 slo Overtime There is a direct relationship between the available staffing an the average workweek and minimum staffing, there may be some add resources as the system continues to grow to meet community demands. However, there are three general factors that contribute to overtime usage that deserves payment for premium overtime (1.5 X base rate) for all scheduled hours. Since the average workweek is 56 hours, there is inherent Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime that oc pay period that has nothing to do with leave usage of the personnel. Virgi overtime at the premium regardless of the sweat hours (hours actually worked as opposed to hours on some type of leave) that are afforded in the federal FLSA standard. In other words, even if the employee took several days vacation, reducing the sweat hours or actual time at work, the scheduled work hours would continue to be compensated at full rate and at a premium r hours past 212 hours in the 28-day work cycle (7 days/week x 4 weeks). At 56 hours a workweek, the average month would be approximately 224 hours (56-hour week x 4 weeks). Therefore, there would be approximately 12 hours of overtime each month for each employee due to the current schedule plus an additional 8 hours of off duty training per month for a total of 20 hours of overtime. These hours are inherent in the prescribed schedule prior to any operational overtime to cover PTO, unscheduled leave, etc. Second, as previously described, the department has 8-hours of training scheduled each month that will always be paid at the premium rate because it is above the Third, anytime the department allows greater than 6 personnel off per shift, such as scheduled leave, or additiona positions are vacated due to unscheduled leave, the department must hire back personnel to ensure minimum staffing of 27 is obtained. The unscheduled leave experience may have the greatest unpredicted impact on overtime based on the limited ability for administrative control. Finally, since all scheduled hours above 212 in 28 days are essentially overtime, it may be in the best interest of the County to hire FTEs rather than carry the extra burden of overtime. For example, since all overtime is at the premium 1.5 rate, it may be better Virginia has eliminated the benefit of the FLSA sweat hours requirement to pay premium pay, by requiring all scheduled hours to be compensated irrespective of if they utilized vacatio Therefore, the traditional method of determining the break over overtime at a premium is negated. Frederick County, Virginia Page 157 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Recommendation: #9 Since the relationship is a 1 to 1 ratio, it is recommended that Frederick County continue to hire personnel to offset the need for shift back-fill and provides for additional surge capacity in the system fo Adding additional personnel seems to be a more efficient use of limited fiscal resources. Staffing Challenges Frederick County Fire and Rescue has a very diverse staffing model that has served the cit well. The system utilizes fire and rescue staffs that include both career and volunteer pe. Most of the volunteer stations are having challenges with recruitment and or retention which is a national issue and FCFR is no exception. The volunteer departments impacted are either running short of their optimal strength or are unable to keep staff long enough to obtain the necessary training and experience to be a long term asset to the system. FCFR has taken steps by supporting recruitment and retention as a system. Figure 90: Fire Service Staffing Model Continuum Frederick County, Virginia Page 158 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 FCFR should provide service level expectations and benchmarks throughout the system. FCFR can use those benchmarks in both performance and reliability to dete model is contributing to the benchmarks set for performance. This could include turnout time expectations and or response time expectations. If the volunteer stations were unable to meet the expectations that contribute to systems benchmarks, it would allow FCFR to take steps to assist in meeting those expectations. The department may then need to determine which staffing model is needed to meet the benchmarks. As the previous image shows there are several different staffing options. As the performance and reliability decreases of a particular sta station, additional investment in the model to the right of the current staffing model may be necessary. As the volunteerism decreases while the demand for s on volunteers to respond also decreases. As recruitment and retention of volunteer staff continues to be challenging the addition of career staff will be necessary to provide a to the citizens. FCFR should ensure that regardless of staffs employment type tha adequate number of trained staff able to respond in a reliable mer to the demand for service with the systems expectations. Staffing is a balance as depicted in the following image between capital costs, operating costs, available resources, risk tolerance, community expectations and FCFR like many departments in the country may need to look to expand investment in career staff when volunteer staffs are no longer able to reliably respond to the community demands and expectations. Recommendation: #10 It is recommended that the cost of frequent volunteer turnover be quantified to determine when the cost of continual recruitment, equipping, and training volunteers with short longevity exceeds the contribution that is provided to the system with the current model. Frederick County, Virginia Page 159 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 91: Finding Balance in Fire Service Staffing Risk-based Approach to the Allocation of Resources Following a risk-based approach to managing risk, two STATION SERVICE AREASs were categorized as high-risk station service areas and three stations service areas were categorized as moderate. All other stations service areas were categorized as low-risk stations. Within a risk-based approach, the system is designed to have a higher concentration of resources aigher risk versus lower risk. In all developed alternatives below, it is assumed that the Batt deployed and that would bring the current minimum staffing to 27 intended that every station would cross-staff an ambulance, preferably at the Advanced Life Support (ALS) level. Alternative 1  Risk-based Engine and Station Staffing at 8-Minutes Urban/Suburban Alternative 1 contemplates a risk-based deployment strategy that utilizes all 11-current fire stations and seeks to achieve an 8-minute travel time for urban/suburban areas and a 13-minute travel time Frederick County, Virginia Page 160 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 for rural incidents. As previously discussed, it is understood -minute travel time may only achieve approximately 80% of the incidents within the urban/suburban timeframe. The goal would be to achieve 90% of the incidents. However, it should not be discounted that the incidents would be responded to within 8-minutes or less. This alternative would increase engine staffing from 2 to 3 pers moderate and high-risk station service areas (11, 13, 15, 18, and 21). All other station service areas would continue to be staffed with 2 personnel on the primary fire apparatus. This is to accomplish the baseline services for fire suppression and first responder Eents. Staffed ambulances would be provided at stations 11, 12, 13, 15, would be assigned to stations 11 and 18, both high-risk stations. Stations 14, 17, 19, and 20 would continue to be staffed with 2 personnel and cross-staff an ambulance consistent with current practice. This alternative would have all ALS ambulances and wo-staffed ALS chase vehicles. Station 16 is allocated an ALS ambulance and the associated 2 pe evaluated the balance between call concurrency and call volume. that any stations that have greater than or equal to 1,800 (<5 calls per day) and greater than or eq to 15% call concurrency that each unit is staffed rather than co-staff resources. Therefore, all additional engine staffing was allocated due to terate or high. The recommendations for staffed ambulance placement is allocated requirements to achieve the greatest contribution to response ti only exception. This alternative would have all ALS ambulances and would eliminate the cross- staffed ALS chase vehicles. Frederick County, Virginia Page 161 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 91: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alternative 1  8/13 All 11 Fire Stations Station Risk Rating Service Area 21 Engine ALS ALS 25Moderate 18 Engine ALSALSALS 27High 17 Engine ALS 22Low 14 Engine ALS 22Low 13 Engine ALS ALS 25Moderate 15 Engine ALS ALS 25Moderate 19 Engine ALS 22Low 20 Engine ALS 22Low 16 Engine ALS ALS 24Low 11 Engine ALSALSALS 27High 12 Engine ALS ALS 24Low Total11724 46 22 45 Note: Apparatus are restricted to the recommended primary staffed unit additional apparatus staffed by volunteers. Alternative 2  Rick-based Engine and Station Staffing at 10-Minutes Urban/Suburban Alternative 2 contemplates a risk-based deployment strategy that utilizes all 11-current fire stations and seeks to achieve a 10-minute travel time for urban/suburban areas and a 13-minute travel time for rural incidents. As previously discussed, it is understood that the 10-minute travel time will accomplish a minimum of 90% of the incidents within the urban/suburban timeframe. However, it should not be discounted that the vast majority of the incidentsded to within 8- minutes or less (80%) if all 11 stations continue to be utilized. This alternative would increase engine staffing from 2 to 3 pers moderate and high-risk station service areas (11, 13, 15, 18, and 21). All other station service areas would continue to be staffed with 2 personnel on the primary fire apparatus. This is to accomplish the baseline services for fire suppression and first responder EMS incidents. Staffed ambulances would be provided at stations 11, 12, 13, 15, would be assigned to stations 11 and 21, both high-risk stations. Stations 14, 17, 19, and 20 would continue to be staffed with 2 personnel and cross-staff an ambulance consistent with current practice. Only four primary ambulances that are cross-staffed. In total, could have 11 cross-staffed ambulances, but only require 4 46 as primary deployment. Frederick County, Virginia Page 162 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Station 16 is allocated an ALS ambulance and the associated 2-person staffing due to an analysis the evaluated the balance between call concurrency and call volume. that any stations that have greater than or equal to 1,800 (<5 c to 15% call concurrency that each unit is staffed rather than continuing to cross-staff resources. Therefore, all additional engine staffing was allocated due to t The recommendations for staffed ambulance placement is allocatede geographic requirements to achieve the greatest contribution to response ti only exception. This alternative would have all ALS ambulances - staffed ALS chase vehicles. Table 92: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alternative 2  10/13 All 11 Fire Stations Station Risk Rating Service Area 11 Engine ALSALS47High 12 Engine ALS 24Low 13 Engine ALS 25Moderate 14 Engine 22Low 15 Engine ALS 25Moderate 16 Engine ALS 24Low 17 Engine 22Low 18 Engine ALS 45Moderate 19 Engine 22Low 20 Engine 22Low 21 Engine ALSALS27High Total117226 45 Note: Apparatus are restricted to the recommended primary staffed unit additional apparatus staffed by volunteers. Alternative 3  Partially Autonomous EMS Layer with Risk-based Engine Staffing Alternative 3 is an incremental variation of the Alternative 2. Analyses have demonstrated that stations 12 and 16 are not required to meet 90% of the incidents-minute urban/suburban travel times for EMS. In other words, all 11-stations would be included for fire, non-EMS, and first responder EMS incidents. Only 9-stations would be resourced with staffed ambulances and stations 12 and 16 would continue current practices. All moderate and high-risk station service areas are recommended to have 3-person engine staffing. Frederick County, Virginia Page 163 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 93: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alternative 3  10/13 All 11 Fire Stations Station Risk Rating Service Area 11 Engine ALSALS47High 12 Engine 22Low 13 Engine ALS 25Moderate 14 Engine ALS 24Low 15 Engine ALS 25Moderate 16 Engine 22Low 17 Engine ALS 24Low 18 Engine ALS 45Moderate 19 Engine ALS 24Low 20 Engine ALS 24Low 21 Engine ALSALS27High Total119226 49 Note: Apparatus are restricted to the recommended primary staffed units. This summary does not address additional apparatus staffed by volunteers. Frederick County, Virginia Page 164 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Alternative 4  Partially Autonomous EMS Layer and 2-Person Engine Staffing Alternative 4 is an incremental variation of either Alternatives 1difference in baseline deployment between Alternative 1 and 2, are the changes from Station 18 to 21. Analyses have demonstrated that stations 12 and 16 are not required to meet 90-minute urban/suburban travel times for EMS. In other words, all 11-stations would be included for fire, non- EMS, and first responder EMS incidents. Only 9-stations would be resourced with staffed ambulances and all fire suppression apparatus would continue wit-person staffing. Table 94: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alternative 4  10/13 All 11 Fire Stations Station Risk Rating Service Area 11 Engine ALSALS46High 12 Engine 22Low 13 Engine ALS 24Moderate 14 Engine ALS 24Low 15 Engine ALS 24Moderate 16 Engine 22Low 17 Engine ALS 24Low 18 Engine ALS 44Moderate 19 Engine ALS 24Low 20 Engine ALS 24Low 21 Engine ALSALS26High Total119226 44 Note: Apparatus are restricted to the recommended primary staffed unit additional apparatus staffed by volunteers. Frederick County, Virginia Page 165 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Alternative 5  Partially Autonomous EMS at 12 Minutes and 2-Person Engine Staffing Alternative 5 is an incremental variation of either Alternatives 1 deployment between Alternative 1 and 2, are the changes from Station 18 to 21. In this scenario, all 11-stations would be included for fire, non-EMS, and first responder EMS incidents and would continue to perform at 10-minutes urban/suburban and 13-minutes rural coverage. However, an additional ALS ambulance layer would be provided at a 12-minute travel time. Only 5-stations would be resourced with staffed ambulances and all fire suppression ap- person staffing. Table 95: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alternative 5  12 Minutes All 11 Fire Stations Station Risk Rating Service Area 11 Engine ALSALS46High 12 Engine 22Low 13 Engine ALS 24Moderate 14 Engine 22Low 15 Engine 22Moderate 16 Engine ALS 24Low 17 Engine 22Low 18 Engine 42Moderate 19 Engine ALS 24Low 20 Engine 22Low 21 Engine ALSALS 26High Total115226 36 Note: Apparatus are restricted to the recommended primary staffed unit additional apparatus staffed by volunteers. Frederick County, Virginia Page 166 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Alternative 6  Peak Load Ambulance Program and 2-Person Engine Staffing Alternative 6 is an incremental variation of either Alternatives 1 deployment between Alternative 1 and 2, is the changes from Stat- stations would be included for fire, non-EMS, and first responder EMS incidents and would continue to perform at 10-minutes urban/suburban and 13-minutes rural coverage. However, any additional staffed ambulances are provided as peak-load units that work 12-hours per day. In total, 7 peak-load ambulances could be deployed plus 2 additional 24/7 ambulances. All s continue current practices of cross-staffing ambulances. The middle of the day, between 8:00 am and 8:00 pm, experiences volume and workload. In addition, the overwhelming volume is for EMS r opposed to fire suppression incidents with a relatively high tra-peak overnight period has less than one call every two hours on averaase see the figure below. Figure 92: Average EMS Calls and EMS Transports per Day by Hour of Day Therefore, it is recommended that the department consider a stra-hour employees to meet demands above and beyond the base level services. This is the most efficient manner to address increases in demand for the future once base level servi- hour period. Frederick County, Virginia Page 167 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 96: Summary of Career Staffed Resource Allocation for Alternative 6  10/13 All 11 Fire Stations Station Risk Rating Service Area 11 Engine ALS ALS 4 4 2 High 12 Engine ALS 2 2 2 Low 13 Engine ALS 2 2 2 Moderate 14 Engine 2 2 0 Low 15 Engine ALS 2 2 2 Moderate 16 Engine ALS 2 2 2 Low 17 Engine 2 2 0 Low 18 Engine ALS 4 2 2 Moderate 19 Engine 2 2 0 Low 20 Engine 2 2 0 Low 21 Engine ALS ALS 47 2 4 2 High Total11 7 2 26 26 14 Note: Apparatus are restricted to the recommended primary staffed unit additional apparatus staffed by volunteers. A comparison of the general costs for each of the developed alternatives are provided in the below. A baseline estimate for a minimum staffing of 26 personn salary range of $54,118.12 as provided by the department. It islion Chief (BC) is assigned to each shift bringing the actual minimum staffing t alternatives for the personnel assigned to primary response appa utilized was 26. As stated previously, in all scenarios it is assumed that the BC will continue as currently deployed. In addition, the departments current staff these comparison purposes. Under the current staffing strategy,r each person deployed 24/7. Finally, it is also understood that only utilizing the average salary as provided by FCFR and may no compensation. This is for comparison purposes to illustrate the relative fiscal impact of each alternative. The resource allocation and definition of high-risk station shifts between Stations 18 and 21 depending on whether an 8 or 47 10-minute travel time is adopted. Frederick County, Virginia Page 168 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Table 97: Comparison Table of Alternatives Utilizing Average Salary for Alternative Current Proposed Delta from Delta from Current Minimum Minimum Current FTE Staffing Utilizing Staffing Staffing of 100 Average Salary (w/o BC) (w/o BC) (w/o BC) Alternative 1 26 45 73 $3,927,893.15 Alternative 2 26 45 73 $3,927,893.15 Alternative 326 49 89 $4,754,818.02 Alternative 426 69 44 $3,721,161.93 Alternative 5 26 39 36 $2,067,312.18 Alternative 626 35 14 48$1,894,134.20 Recommendation:#11 The County is encouraged to consider one of the alternatives to Peak Load Schedule only requires 2.5 personnel to fulfill the sc 48 Frederick County, Virginia Page 169 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 NON-DEPLOYEMENT OBSERVATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Division and Support Staff Needs Admin/EMS Billing As the organization grows additional demands are placed on the a – staff. Additional line personnel equate to an exponential increase in the provision of administrative services, which in turn can negatively impact the effective output of staf pace with the number of administrative personnel is paramount to organizational activities can be accomplished effectively and ef Consistent with this theme is the need to provide an identifiable means of horizontal and v defined job descriptions, work space and equipment compatible wi planning, and opportunities for personal and professional growth. Deliberate and contemplative consideration should be given when determining the need for addi appropriate assignments, and the potential of replacing administFTE vacancies with line and staff fire officers. Recommendation: #12 It is understood that FCFRD has recently filled this position. It is recommended that FCFRD efforts to ensure long-term sustainability of the new position. Training Division - The personnel assigned to the FCFRD Training Division continue to perform at a high level under continually increasing demands. As the communi risks and exposures become more diverse, training of personnel b Delivery of requisite training programs is directly proportionate to the personnel ava the training. Currently the limited staff is providing all prog-service, specialty on-demand programs, and officer development. Potential increases to training efficiencies could be realized through the development of a dedicated trainin certified instructors, and the expanded use of Target Solutions, Division and company officers. Current delivery methodology lends itself to increasi overtime hours, flex scheduling, and potential burn out of tra continues to grow it does not appear that the current number of training staff, and subsequent delivery systems, are sustainable over time. In addition, it wo organization to develop a division succession plan to account fostaff changes and retirements. Recommendation: #13 It is recommended that the possibility of developing on shift training training division and relieve excessive hours from current staff Frederick County, Virginia Page 170 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Life Safety/Fire Marshal - This division is impacted by county growth and development on a daily basis due to the plan review and inspection functions being perf division also supplement and support emergency functions as need organizational hierarchy. The divergence from their identified primary responsibilities has the potential to negatively impact service delivery and customer sat Timeliness is paramount when assisting customers who need approvals, certifications, or with various business endeavors. Currently division functions are being provided of full time and part time personnel. As the built inventory in evaluate the historic work metrics of both full and part time stds for the services of the Life Safety division will continue to increase and may create th positions to full time positions. The department can determine the appropriate fire inspection sta general demand for services, the frequency of service, and the a an example, if the department has 1,000 inspectable properties, year, and the average time to complete an inspection is 1 hour; then with an estimated employee capacity to accomplish 6 full inspections (plus travel and lunch complete (less average vacation, sick leave, etc.). This is cal inspection = 1,000 needed hours. Next, 6 inspections per day would require 1, hours per week) / 1,000 = 0.75. This can be replicated for othe education, etc. As fire prevention is the first line of defense in protecting the community from fire it is incumbent on the organization to constantly reassess the effectiveness of the return on the investment being made. The Fire Marshals office committed to their mission. Progress and effectiveness can be erode activities perceived to be a low priority. Horizontal and vertic well defined and contain feedback and follow up provisions. Recommendation: #14 It is recommended that the FCFRD consider requesting an officialDept. of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, regarding the specific local conditions regar-Call status. While there are general guidelines relative to compensation for these hours, there are more specific benc each agencys use of on-call hours. Said opinion would be useful in developing an organ could clearly and definitively explain the counties position Operations - Emergency response personnel continue to meet their challenge with limited resources. FCFRD is fortunate to have dedicated individuals committed to th adapt to the changing environment. Limited staffing, as identified by FCFR staff officers, directly impacts the time necessary to assemble an effective fire force. response the limited staffing also impacts the commitment of mulstations, which further exacerbates the issue of coverage of simultaneous calls for assistance. Under the current model the Frederick County, Virginia Page 171 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 continued increase of EMS related incidents further erodes the a and other emergency activities. Given the inherent risks associated with emergency response, personnel safety is of the utmost importance. Essential to thishe standardization of policies. Recommendation: #15 It is recommended that a clearly defined chain of command policyand directives for consistency in volunteer staffing/response. Continued analysis of projected co short and long-term needs for appropriate staffing locations Organizational Structure and Management The current FCFRD organizational chart shows three distinct divi Training. While Administration can loosely be identified on t the Division level, EMS Operations and Volunteer related activities do not appear in the organizational chart. While neither of the absent functional ar they are nevertheless significant contributors to organizational certain functional tasks to be comingled within existing Divisions for ease of ad, as indicated by Resource Manager (Logistics), under the Operations Division as much of the logistics function is impacted by operational concerns or issues. In simi, volunteer related functions seem to be aligned with Administration due, in large p the Fire Chief. Both the Chiefs Working Group and the Fire & R Fire Chief, however they have no official place on the FCFRD organizational chart. Managing across divisional boundaries requires a concentrated ef communication is paramount and should include the Chiefs Workin Association. Administrative communications should be formalized and utilize a d pathway. The development of specific distribution lists can be helpful to the right messages. Each functional division should develop a val pathway to streamline the dissemination of information. Information intended for departme rely on word of mouth communication and should be accomplished t . organizational policy Divisional leadership should be charged with developing recommen incentivize personnel to pursue opportunities within the divisio for divisional advancement based on competencies, experience, and education. Often the best- qualified candidates in a division can be eliminated from consideration fo prerequisite requirements not available by serving in the divisi be impacted due to divisional leaders having to learn from the ground up regarding their responsibilities. Effective control of emergency incidents relies heavily on span command. Standardized operating policies are necessary to allowl from various districts to be effective throughout the system regardless of location. Adeq Frederick County, Virginia Page 172 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 personnel, paid and volunteer, is essential for safe operations. sole determinant of the need for supervision. Each station would be well served to have an Off on duty at all times. This provides for the necessary accountab and clearly identifies the decision-making authority. Station Officers take command of incidents until relieved by a higher-ranking officer or as defined by organizational policy. Ultimate should have one Incident Commander. The delineation of this con organizational policy, with input from the various stakeholders, and be implemented across all . districts within FCFRD With approximately 80% of all emergency activity being EMS relat paid staff involved in these incidents, there seems to be a limited of identity of this function in the current organizational chart. Given the complexities of prehospital emergency care, and the transportation of the sick and injured, the need for specialized, incident supervision, compliance, equipment standardization, protocols, and medical direction may require a dedicated EMS officer. The continued success of FCFRD, and the effective planning for f fixed stations, apparatus acquisition and deployment, operating c changes required by an evolving community, is best served by the who has the ultimate authority and is directly responsible for a FCFRD. From a historical perspective this has been an outcome for many fire organizations across the country. It is an evolutionary process necessitated by the and external influences faced by fire departments everywhere, ev collaborative effort of all the stakeholders and does not signal the de companys leadership. The opportunity exists to synthesize volu advisory committee for providing input to the organizations decision-making process. The combination of a single Fire Chief, and an engaged advisory to the oversight of funding and the distribution of assets, thus of taxpayer dollars. It would also allow for a general standardization of service levels across the entire county. Recommendation: #16 It is recommended that FCFRD develop a policy that clearly defin horizontally and vertically. Recommendation: #17 It is recommended the FCFRD take the necessary action to provide Recommendation: #18 It is recommended that promotional policies be revised to permit encumbrance of rank requirements not achievable within the division. Frederick County, Virginia Page 173 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Recommendation: #19 It is recommended that FCFRD develops, adopts, and publishes a p guidelines that will be implemented on a countywide basis for career and volunteer personnel. Recommendation: #20 It is recommended that Frederick County revisit the hierarchal m single fire chief supported by an advisory committee to be defin Recommendation: #21 It is recommended that FCFR appoint a senior officer as the Medi multiple issues regarding the delivery of pre-hospital emergency medical services. Officer Development There are numerous programs and standards available to provide oModern technologies, operating procedures, information management strat impact today's fire service leaders. Fire officers must be prepared to address multiple challenges on the fire ground, at the station, and in the community. It would be beneficial for the organization to develop base line requirements for the various levels within FCF existing officers as well as aspiring new officer candidates. Several of the availab officer development are shown below. The Virginia Fire Officer Academy s an interactive, highly challenging, educational initiative of the i Virginia Fire Chiefs Association. The academy provides modern, ethical leadership values while promoting best practices in fire and emergency services health a emergency service professionals a comprehensive certificate prog skills and techniques of exemplary leadership necessary to enhanc a culture of leadership through ownership and safety in todays -changing fire and emergency services. The Virginia Fire Officer Academy is designed for those fire service professionals who are new to the officer corps and those poised to get there. This academy will help you prepare, improve, or expand your leadership skills and help you gain the professio career goals by providing an opportunity to interact with the finest schol leading practitioners who have demonstrated an expertise or exce service . Virginia Department of Fire Programs Incident Management (NIMS). The National Incident Management System (NIMS) has been developed to provide a common service agencies can utilize at local, state and federal levels.-systems that collectively provide a total systems approach to all risk incident management. There are fourteen such programs with the most commonly used being: ICS-100: Introduction to the Incident Command System, ICS-200: ICS for Single Resources and Initial Action Incidents, ICS-300: Intermediate ICS for Expanding Incidents, ICS-400: Advanced ICS for Command and General Staff, IS- Frederick County, Virginia Page 174 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 700: National Incident Management System, An Introduction, IS-800: National Response Framework, An Introduction. NFPA1021: Standard for Fire Officer Professional Qualifications identifies the up-to-date Job Performance Requirements (JPRs) necessary for the duties of a fire officer and specifically identifies four levels of progression: Fire Officer Levels I, II, III, and IV. The National Fire Academys(NFA) Executive Fire Officer (EFO) Program provides senior fire officers with a broad perspective on various facets of fire and emergency services administration. The courses and accompanying research examine how to exercise leadership when dealing with difficult or unique problems within communities. EFO Program students enhance their professional development through and upper-division-baccalaureate equivalent courses taken over a four-year period. Each course is two weeks in length. An Applied Research Project (ARP) that rela to your organization is required within six months after the completion of each of the four cours By utilizing the available programs, either whole or in part, it organizational policy to govern the required course work for both paid and volunteer officers. Implementation of the requirements could include a date specific system . Recommendation: #22 It is recommended that FCFRD develop and adopt a policy that cleeducational requirements for promotional advancement, at all levels, for paid and volunteer p. Wage Analysis and Recommendations Frederick County is in the Winchester Metropolitan Statistical A County, VA and Hampshire County, WV. Its 2016 population of 135,238 ranked 297th in t States. Winchester MSA had a per capita personal income (PCPI) o in the United States and was 107 percent of the state average. Ted an increase of 2.1 percent from 2015. The 2015-2016 state change was 3.1 percent. Due to the SMA being narrow in scope, and not representative of is necessary to evaluate additional criteria. Understanding the conjunction with the distance residents are willing to commute to work, provides a more comprehensive overview of economic factors affecting recruitment common scenario is residents of Frederick County working in coun Metro area. This creates a salary disparity that will be difficult to overcome. Todays workforce is more likely to take the first job offer while continuing to seek opportunity. Retention becomes a more complex challenge than in Frederick County, Virginia Page 175 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Attracting new employees goes beyond starting salaries. At the competing employers is not typically a detractor. Ancillary ben are key factors in leveling the field when recruiting. Potential candidates for employment will look for ways that the perceived lost earning potential can be made u and professional development, health and safety initiatives, and Separation usually occurs at the low end of the seniority scale. Employees that have several years invested, or who have achieved promotions are less like to leave It is important to acknowledge that the current staffing levels potential applicants. As FCFRD continues to grow it would be helpful to hav and long-term goals as part of the employment package. Additionally, it that vacancies can cost as much as 60% of the annual salary in ortime cost and training time for replacements. When factored in to the overall budget considerat savings realized by lower salaries Recommendation: #23 It is recommended, as a mid-range solution and to incentivize new employees to stay, that the FCFRD implement a policy requiring new employees to reimburse the orga the employee leaves within a specific period of time. Recommendation: #24 It is recommended that Frederick County conduct a study analyzing the FCFRD classification and co system to determine internal and external equity. This will prov in response to the findings and provide the data needed to implet a phased reconciliation of identified salary discrepancies. Capital Improvement Programs 1 The FREDERICK COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FY 2017-2022currently lists four CIP projects associated with the Fire & Rescue department. Over the -year plan total project cost exceeds $19M. In addition, the plan identifies anticipated addi the projects beyond the current five-year schedule. Also included in the current five-year plan is the development of revolving fund for Fire & Rescue Companies capital requests. This new project consists of accumu five-year plan for the benefit of Fire and Rescue Services. It is the expenditure fund to be for purchasing additional and replacement capital equipment and fire and rescue vehicles and equipment. Individual Fire and Rescue Compan the CIP. The individual Fire and Rescue Companies have identifierequests, which have been recognized in the CIP by way of a total project catego projects are not prioritized and are not identified in the CIP. requirements these capital projects are assumed to meet the $100,000 guidelines. Frederick County, Virginia Page 176 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 In accordance with the 2017-2022 CIP it is noteworthy that the listed projects are considered advisory only. The identified required funding has not been allocated or projects may not be funded during the year indicated. Observationally, the total identified capital in the areas of Fi Companies exceeds $20M across the current five-year CIP. These Funds are also listed as 100% county contributions. Based on the published document, and the justifications contained therein, it is difficult to determine to what extent all capital requests were CAD and GIS data to prioritize need, develop time lines, and dett. Without a detailed list of the projects contained in the $13M Fi Requests it is difficult to analyze how this funding may overlap extent to which the projects are necessary versus discretionary. Additionally, it is not clear whether any of the Companies requests include apparatus. Some of the factors that impact the development of a comprehensi in other areas of this report. Exacerbating the process is the lack of a detailed vehicle/apparatus replacement schedule and the absence of a means to approve, or d apparatus or the acquisition of additional pieces of equipment o Companies continue to experience difficulty maintaining their respective fleets, requiring seek economic assistance from the county, it is incongruent for purchasing.1 http://www.fcva.us/home/showdocument?id=13882 Recommendation: #25 It is recommended that FCFRD, working with the Fire Companies, e-term vehicle replacement plan, inclusive of annual funding contributions to a fund specif would also include a determination of the necessary types and numbers of various pieces of apparatus. A re of this process would provide a list of which existing units wou piece of apparatus, and its replacement cost, will allow for thelation of the annual amortized cost to be deposited to insure funds exist when needed. Applying the calcu provides for long term planning and annual budgeting. This plan d debt to purchase apparatus and expedite the replacement process Recommendation: #26 It is recommended that FCFRD, working with the Fire Companies, d fixed facilities that is prioritized and has a timeline for projected completion. This list should be evaluate need, longevity, and contribution to the overall system performa Health and Safety Programs/Risk Management (loss control) Health and Safety - NFPA 1500 Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety, Healt Wellness Program specifies the minimum requirements for an occup program for fire departments or organizations that provide rescuy medical services, hazardous materials mitigation, special operat This standard requires the appointment of a department Health an Frederick County, Virginia Page 177 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 qualifications defined in NFPA 1521 Standard for Fire Department Safety Officer Professional. NFPA 1500 also allows the Authority Having Jurisdiction to establish -in schedule for compliance with specific requirements of the standard. NFPA 1582 Standard on Comprehensive Occupational Medical Program for Fire Departments outlines an occupational medical program that will reduce risks and provide effectiveness of fire fighters operating to protect civilian lif NFPA 1583 Standard on Health-Related Fitness Programs for Fire Department Members outlines a complete health-related fitness program (HRFP) for members of fire departments i emergency operations to enhance their ability to perform occupat of injury, disease, and premature death. This document is intended to help fire departmen a health-related fitness program for department members that requires man . is not punitive. The document is not intended to establish physiteria Risk Management – NFPA 1500 4.2 requires a Fire Department to develop and adopt a comprehensive written risk management plan. The risk management risks associated with the following: (1) Administration (2) Faci (3) Training (4) Vehicle operations both emergency and non-emergency (5) Protective clothing and equipment (6) Operations a emergency incidents (7) Operations at non-emergency incidents (8) Products of combustion, carcinogens, fire-ground contaminants, and other incident-related health hazards (9) Other related . activities The risk management plan shall include at least the following co actual and potential hazards (2) Risk evaluation  likelihood of occurrence of a given hazard and severity of its occurrence (3) Establishment of priorities for a the degree of a hazard based upon the frequency and risk of occurrence (4) Risk control techn solutions for elimination or mitigation of potential hazards; implementation of best solution (5) Risk management monitoring  evaluation of effectiveness of risk control techniques. NFPA 1250 Recommended Practice in Fire and Emergency Service Organization establishes criteria to develop, implement, or evaluate a fire and emergency service organization (FESO) risk management program for effective risk identification the impact of detrimental events on individuals, the emergency s Recommendation: #27 It is recommended that the FCFRD develop a written policy statem risk management through the development, implementation, and adm program. The program should also delineate the lines of responsibility and liability between FCFRD personnel and the fire companies with respect to apparatus and fixed facil Frederick County, Virginia Page 178 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Recommendation: #28 It is recommended that FCFRD conduct comprehensive fire and lifee stations as part of the risk management program. Alternative/Supplemental Funding Sources Service expectations placed on EMS and fire services organizatio EMS delivery, response to natural disasters, hazardous materials incidents, technical rescue, and acts of terrorism, have steadily increased. Striking the right balanc revenue has become an essential skill for EMS and fire administr the ability to identify and acquire grants and other alternative revenu departments require funding for expenses such as equipment, trai necessary protection to their respective communities. However, wter budgets, less government subsidies, and fewer donations, it is becoming increa agencies and fire departments to meet greater and more complex d The most common source of funding for local governments is taxes. These include property taxes, sales tax, excise tax, income tax, and an assortment of regulato taxes available to local governments is determined by each State. Senior executives in emergency services must familiarize themselves with how their ju the political and legal limitations of taxes as a source of loca . funding sources Local Property (Ad Valorem) Tax - An ad valorem tax (Latin for according to value) is a tax based the value of real estate or personal property. It is perhaps the municipal and county services. A property tax is typically levie set rate per dollar of assessed value. There are two forms of property tax: primary and secondar property tax is used to fund general operating expenses, while t fund special obligations, such as the repayment of bonds and budget overrides. Fire Flow Tax - The fire flow tax is a type of property tax that is assessed to computed fire flow requirement, typically using an Insurance Ser flow. The tax can be used to cover the cost of fire protection aher emergency service functions. The fire flow tax amount is determined by calculating the risk f formula. Sales Taxes - Next to property tax, sales taxes are the most important revenue governments. A sales tax generates revenues by imposing a tax on retail and These taxes go into a communitys general revenues that support riad of services including fire protection and EMS. Frederick County, Virginia Page 179 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Income Tax - An income tax is typically assessed on the wages and earnings of individuals but may also be applied to the net income of unincorporated small busine-Three States levy some level of income tax. In a few States, local governments can also strengths of a personal income tax is the capacity to reach nonresidents w county. These commuters use county services but do not contribute their fair share for the cost of . providing these services through property or sales taxes Real Estate Transfer Tax - Real estate transfer taxes are special-purpose taxes assessed on the sale of property. Usually, they are a percentage of the selling price of the real estate. Real estate transfer taxes have sometimes been levied to provide an additional source of revenue for public safety and public works projects. Proceeds from such taxes are pooled with -fund revenues but can be earmarked for specific purposes. Utility-User Tax - A utility tax is a charge on the use of public utilities such as telephone, cell phone, cable television, gas and electric services, municipal water, wa utility tax applies to both businesses and homeowners. Taxes are regular billing procedure and then remitted to the county . A utility-user tax may be imposed as a special tax, earmarked for a specific purpose, or a general tax needs. Development Impact Fees - An impact fee is a direct charge levied by local governments against developers to help offset the cost of new growth. Impact fees mo- time permit charge assessed at the time of plat approval or an a These fees provide a county funding for capital projects. Counties may only impose fees on developments that will benefit from the infrastructure improveme fund operational expenses. Therefore, impact fees cannot be used deficiencies in older neighborhoods. Emergency-Response Service Fees - Fire and EMS agencies have experimented with charging fees to insurance companies to raise revenue to support services. Typica provide coverage for medical expenses and ambulance transportation, but not for fire- or police- response services. These fees try to recoup the cost of providinn-compensated prehospital medical treatment and rescue activities. Inspection Fees - Inspection fees have long been used by fire departments to provide funding for fire prevention. Fee schedules vary among jurisdictions. Inspection f inspection conducted (initial or re-inspection), the occupancy (educational, industrial, residential etc.), and the size of the building. Many departments charge a flat fee additional fees for each subsequent re-inspection. Additional fees may be charged when special hazards are present, such as hazardous materials storage areas. Frederick County, Virginia Page 180 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Plan Review and Permitting - Many fire departments review building plans for fire code compli and inspect the installation of fire protection systems during c receives part of the permit fees paid to the jurisdiction for these services. Fees are also charged for occupancy permits, special hazards permit, reviewing plans for b new fire protection systems in existing buildings. Fees are also centers, hotels, hospitals, nursing homes, spray-painting businesses, and other specific occupancies that require special permits to operate. Departments may also ch such as public events, the use of fireworks, large tent events (circuses, beer tents, etc.), as well as other special purposes such as open burning or movie production Hazardous Materials Fees - Maintaining the capability to respond effectively to hazardous m incidents adds significant costs for local jurisdictions. Hazardous materials response requires hundreds of hours of training and continuing education, speciali expertise to conduct inspections. Hazardous materials occupancie unusual to pose a challenge, such as a microchip manufacturing plant, the local exterminator business can pose significant problems for first re involving hazardous materials can keep fire companies occupied fds of time and present dangers to the public, responders, and the environment. To offse hazardous materials response capabilities, some fire departments materials storage and inspection fee. Revenue from this fee helps ensure steady income for training fire inspectors and covering the cost of specialized inspection charge for hazardous materials team response, both to offset the incentivize proper maintenance of hazardous materials facilities. The fee also equipment used to mitigate a spill or release. Federal law requi released hazardous materials to pay cleanup costs, including firEMS costs, which helps to justify these fees. Special Service (Standby and Fire Watch) Fees - Fees for special services attempt to recover or offset the costs from the users of the service. These fees may b standby at a football game or fire watch at a concert venue. The users often if they contracted with a for-profit provider for the service and often receive intangible ben as communications links that can quickly get additional resources to an event if an emergency develops. Fines for Nuisance Alarms - Most new commercial buildings and an increasing number of reside have fire detection systems that can trigger unwanted fire alarm department. Each false alarm creates some danger for the public and firefighte departments responded to 16 false alarms for every 10 fires, and structure fires. From 2000 to 2009, 24 firefighters died respondfire alarms, including malicious false alarms and alarm malfunctions. Increasingly, cit and counties are adopting nuisance and unwanted alarm ordinances that include fines to enc Frederick County, Virginia Page 181 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 systems, place greater responsibility on the system owner for unnecessary or inappropriate actions triggering alarms, and recover some of the costs of responding t Seized Assets - Another source of funds, equipment, and vehicles accessed by a g public safety agencies are the assets seized during drug raids. Where the fire a demonstrate that illegal drug activity has increased the demand records of illegal drug overdoses, or that first responders haved in drug-related incidents (such as hazardous materials team response to drug labs, Special paramedics in support of drug raids, and treating victims of rai money and equipment seized by law enforcement in drug-related arrests and raids. They money may have to be used for the purchase of special equipment for assist-related incidents, but can include vehicles, ambulances, communications equipment, comp equipment does not have to be used solely for drug-related incidents so long as it is available for such incidents. Traditional Loans - Many fire/EMS agencies, particularly independent volunteer organ traditional forms of borrowing money through banks and lending i used for capital improvements such as construction of stations, isting stations, and vehicle and equipment purchases. Fire/EMS agencies should exerci a loan, searching for the best interest rate and loan terms. Som provide lower-interest loans or different loan options for volunteer, service-oriented organizations, particularly if the lending institution is based in the communit. Recommendation: #29 It is recommended that the FCFRD Department work collaboratively with county administration, county legal, and the budget and finance departments to strategize if any of t may be appropriate. Systemically those revenue streams that are have proven successful. Compliance with Laws, Regulations, and Standards While inspections were not conducted by Fitch, site visits during the development of this report did not reveal glaring widespread noncompliance. There were isolate systemic upon closer analysis. The innumerable laws, regulations to observe on a casual basis. Some observations noted were fire an exhaust encroaching into living space, stored personal protectiv particulate, and lock out tag out. Records for rope, hose, SCBA,aining and medical equipment, for example, would require a concentrated effort to evaluate. Assura constant review and oversight and is everyones responsibility. point of contact within the organization for anyone with questions Recommendation: #30 It is recommended that the FCFRD develop and adopt a comprehensi Frederick County, Virginia Page 182 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 responsibility, employee reporting process, and line of authorit Recommendation: #31 It is recommended that the FCFRD appoint a senior fire officer a centralizing documents, reports, and organizational oversight. Strategies for Recruitment, Retention, and Training of careerpersonnel and Volunteers Many of the issues effecting paid personnel are addressed elsewh however are a different dynamic and must be recognized as having research has been done on this issue. Although the recruitment and retention challenges continue to gr maintain good membership while others continue to function with organizations that seek solutions and adapt to our changing persenvironment are successful. Individuals are still willing to give their time to volunteer em the following: • The experience is rewarding and worth their time. • The training requirements are not excessive. • The time demands are adaptable and manageable. • They are rewarded with a personal sense of value. • There is good leadership minimizing conflict. • There is ample support for the organization. The emergency services are the most demanding of volunteer activ demands associated with training; responding to incidents; maint equipment; fundraising; and administering a nonprofit corporation are grueling if not managed properly. In todays hectic world, strong leadership is required organizations that will attract and retain volunteers. As indica single reason for the decline in volunteers in most departments. However, there is a consensus that skilled department leadership is a key to resolvi recruitment problems usually can be traced to several underlying on peoples time in a hectic modern society; more stringent training require towns to urban centers; changes in the nature of small town indu leadership problems; and a decline in the sense of civic responsibility, among other factors. Although some regions are more affected than others, and the problems and even within States and counties, volunteer retention and recruit Specifically, it is a local issue and must be dealt with locally. Can the trend in declining volunteerism be reversed? Information that have taken steps to deal with the problems have seen a resu Frederick County, Virginia Page 183 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 indicates that many of the problems can be mitigated or eliminated if prop are given to them. This text will attempt to identify and share successful in recruitment and retention. Departments that have fed to address the problems and challenges of volunteering in todays world have been forced to or even close their doors. Several factors underlie todays retention and recruitment problice. It is a complex and multifaceted problem. Although stringent training and time constraints caused by increased family responsibilities--particularly in two-career families and single-parent households--seem to be the most common causes, there are many other factors contributing to the turnover that volunteer departments are curr frequently cited by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for are: Lack of time &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 44.7% Health/Medical problems &&&&&&&&&&&&&14.7% Family responsibilities &&&&&&&&&&&&&&..9 .5% Other &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&..8.2% No longer required/relevant&&&&&&&&&&&&..5.8% Wasnt interested&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&...4.3% Moved, transportation, expenses&&&&&&&&&&.4.2% No one asked&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&..3.2% Burnout&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&...2.4% No longer member of organization&&&&&&&&&...1.7% The following data are from the St. Josephs University Study in What makes your members leave your organization? * No time to volunteer&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&.93.3% Conflicts in organization&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&47.8% Organizational leadership created adverse atmosphere&....46.7% Too much training&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&..45.6% Attitude of existing personnel to newcomers&&&&&&..39.1% Criticism received from officers/older members&&&&&..38.0% Lack of camaraderie&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&.9.5% * Many respondents indicated more than one reason for leaving the https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/fa-310.pdf The causes of the problems are similar in all 50 States. No sing problems that are significantly different than those found in ot differences, however, in problems faced by urban versus rural co from the sociological differences in the urban versus rural comm Frederick County, Virginia Page 184 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Increased training requirements have had a major effect on reten. On-the-job training is no longer permitted as a substitute for formal train volunteer can start to go on calls and do other exciting dutie enthusiasm may be lost. Also, some volunteers are not good at taking written tests and may quit rather than face one, fail, and have to leave. Formal training, and career fire service more professional and effective. Increas particularly traumatic for older members who have no certifications certain calls. Some who once volunteered to simply join in and p no longer allowed to do so. During the same time in which the number of volunteers has declined, the volunteer fire servic had to contend with an increase in the volume of emergency calls when to call 9-1-1. The NFPA reports that fire department call volumes increase ag rates depending on the community. This means that volunteer fire depar fewer people, and that the overall demands on individual volunte I ncreasing E mergenc y M edical C all Volum e --Emergency medical calls have created the greatest increase in call volumes for fire departments. Years ago, most f EMS calls. Currently, more departments are becoming involved wit may only be at a first responder level; but regardless of the level, increases the response load considerably. I ncrease in the N umber of A utomatic A larm s --As previously noted, the volume of automatic alarms has grown steadily, particularly in areas with commercialave alarm systems. Fire departments have also experienced a sharp increase malfunctions. Many volunteers are growing tired of the time dema these malfunction false alarms. Some departments enact polices that, after a set number of malfunctions in each time period, the occupants are charged the reduce the unnecessary use of volunteer resources. In addition, unnecessary emergency responses. Less Emphasis on Social Aspects of Volunteering--The loss of the social aspects associated with volunteering has hurt recruitment and retention. Many volunteers involved not only to serve their community and help others in need, but also to develop social relationships. Some volunteers report that the time demands of v constraints of everyday life have left no time to develop social station with other firefighters. Likewise, many fire departments have closed poolrooms that historically have been social centers for many volunteers. M any retention and recruitment problems can be traced back directly or indirectly tship problems. Effective leadership helps retain members as well as reduce dissatisfactio common reason for a decline in membership. I nternal conflicts and other stresses drive members out Frederick County, Virginia Page 185 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 of fire departments. The two greatest problems with internal conflict in the volunteer fire se originate among leaders or between volunteer and career members T he erosion of the volunteer fire service in the United States has. The economic ramifications are obvious, as towns are forced to hire volunteers. The 75 percent of the country served by volunteer fi first line of defense in almost any type of emergency from fires and medical emergencies to technical rescues and hazardous materials spills. Volunteers are the initi county, State, or Federal backup emergency response teams for al over 30,000 fire departments in the United States, 88 percent are volu of the population. Fire Chiefs Jack Snook and Dan Olsen are national experts on ret their book, Recruiting, Training, and Maintaining Volunteer Firefighters, they identify four characteristics of a volunteer department that are essential to • The program must meet individual needs. • The program must provide its membership with reward and recognit • The program must provide adequate supervision and leadership. • The program must challenge members. The research by St. Josephs University confirmed these as core retention coupled with the issue that all recruitment and retention is local. Additionally, the needs, leadership, and challenges are all local. Volunteer Viewpoint If you want my loyalty, interests, and best efforts, remember th: 1. I need a sense of belonging, a feeling that I am honestly nee hands, nor because I take orders well. 2. I need to have a sense of sharing in planning our objectives. feel that my ideas have had a fair hearing. 3. I need to feel that the goals and objectives of the organizat sense to me. 4. I need to feel that what Im doing has a real purpose that co--that its value extends beyond my personal gain, or hours. 5. I need to share in making the rules by which, together, we shlive and work toward our goals. Frederick County, Virginia Page 186 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 6. I need to know with some clear detail just what is expected o--not only my detailed task but where I have opportunity to make personal and final decisions. 7. I need to have some responsibilities that challenge, that are interest, that contribute toward reaching my assigned goal, and 8. I need to see that progress is being made toward the goals we have set. 9. I need to be kept informed. What Im not up on, I may be down way to give me status as an individual.) 10. I need to have confidence in my superiors--confidence based upon assurance of consistent fair treatment, or recognition when it is due, and trust that loyalty The Effective Management of Volunteer Programs. J. Donald Philips, Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan. As volunteers quit or are unable to respond in the daytime, more to hire career firefighters. This may further diminish volunteer or it may lighten the volunteers workload, thereby increasing their w depends on how the concept is sold to the department and how bot managed. The greatest factor influencing the success of a combintion department is good leadership that encourages the career and volunteer members to w recognizing the need for and importance of each other. When career members are hired, fire departments must establish tties of career and volunteer members in a clear, written format. These s station duties and emergency calls. In the long run, written, de over who is supposed to do what. Some departments that have hired career members have found that volunteers feel like they are being replaced and no longer have a purpose i feeling, departments can give volunteers their own special role hnical rescue response, staffing the second engine, staffing a ladder truck (if career p fire ground support duties. INCENTIVES I ncentive programs are used throughout the volunteer fire serviceThey are necessary to help recruit and retain volunteers. Localities bene volunteers who are willing to stay active for years. Due to the firefighting, many departments find that members consider leaving the service after only 5 to 10 Frederick County, Virginia Page 187 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 years. Long-term (10 to 20 years) retention of members is important to ensur base of experienced members. There are many ways to set up an incentive system in a fire depast successful incentive programs today are diverse and appeal to volunteers of Any of the incentives listed previously could be offered, but fi themselves to one type of incentive program for all volunteers because one program may not appeal to all members. Instead, they should offer a menu of several dif volunteers could select to receive. Certain incentives are more -- such as older volunteers--than others. Since membership in the volunteer fire service has more diverse, fire departments must strive to find the right typ appeal to all or a majority of the members. However, it must be ed that these incentives can vary extensively for the different age groups within the dep The incentive system must be equitable. In other words, each ite on the menu should provide similar benefits so that volunteers who choose different items receive similar benefits. Volunteers should be allowed to choose the incentive (or combination of inc annual basis. Civic leaders are sometimes hesitant to provide financial incent benefits of retaining members by providing small financial incentives far excessive turnover or hiring full-time firefighters. While monetary benefits are becoming a higher priority in what a fire department, this should not be the primary purpose for joining. The time making the hourly return very low. Those who join strictly for t disheartened and leave. They need to be mentored and learn the cept that the real goal of volunteering is the desire to help others who are in need. Finan reward, have the psychological aspect of helping volunteers rati families that they are getting some tangible benefit from the extra hours. Types of Direct Financial Incentives • retirement/pension or length-of-service award programs (LOSAP); • individual retirement accounts; • pay per call or per hour, or though monthly pots; • annual reimbursements; • tax exemptions and tax deductions; • health insurance (for volunteers and their families) including d • tuition assistance; • housing assistance; • low-interest housing loans; • in-season bonuses; Frederick County, Virginia Page 188 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 • scholarships; • emergency funds (loans); and • death benefits Other Incentives There are many incentives that have little or no cost but can be These go a long way because they acknowledge dedication and hard members an equal opportunity to achieve them. • Select a member of the year or month, for both operational and a • Ask local merchants for discounts or gift certificates for volun • Recognize volunteers who complete training courses with certificlaques, or by featuring them in the local newspaper. • Award outstanding volunteers with subscriptions to fire or EMS m • Cover the reasonable expenses associated with sending a voluntee-of-town training class. • Award outstanding members with all-expense paid trips to State Firefighter Association meetings or training conferences. • Award a top responder with a family get-away trip to a local hotel or resort. • Occasionally excuse members who have given certain numbers of years of service from work details or mandatory duty nights. • Excuse the member of the month from housework. • Exempt volunteers from local utility bills (water, trash, etc.). • Issue officers fire department vehicles that they can take home. • Give the top responder of the department a reserved parking spot. • Give flowers to spouses on special occasions. • Permit members to use the station washer and dryer for personal • Provide an area and tools for car maintenance at the station. • Provide free videos, cable television, and movie channels at the station. • Create departmental trading cards with pictures of the volunteer • Provide physical fitness facilities at the station. • Provide free meals to members on duty or at training. • Give volunteers passes to local sporting events. (Local sporting teams often will donate to the department to give away.) Qualifying for benefits and incentives Fire departments must establish a base level of performance that for a particular level of awards. Many departments measure this participating in activities. Volunteers accrue points by running calls, attending training, attending meetings, and providing administrative or support service. Membe Frederick County, Virginia Page 189 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 of points in a year qualify for either a basic, mid-, or high-level award. They then are eligible to receive the incentive benefits they choose. The awards should be given only to members who meet all of the d addition to meeting point requirements. In other words, members certain level of training, attend a certain number of meetings, rform a certain amount of administrative work, or a certain amount of prevention duties to incentive system can be structured so that all members are eligi firefighters and EMTs, administrative members, public educators), or that only certain members receive them (firefighters, or only those participating on duty The system allows members, both operational and administrative, range of activities. Certain categories have restrictions about the number of points that earned. Others have no maximums so that volunteers are encourage activities. It is recommended that the points for the Public Eduuties categories be increased to encourage participation. Volunteers w requirements for a basic-level award can qualify for higher-level awards. A department may require volunteers to earn a certain minimum number of points in an area to qualify for any award (e.g., a volunteer must accrue at least 4 points in meetings, 8 points in Recommendation: #32 It is recommended that FCFRD create a standing committee, comprised of representation from FCFRD and the fire companies, to review, research, and develop a comprehensive policy that not only provides incentives but also addresses the success. Recommendation: #33 It is recommended that FCFRD conduct a personnel file review of evaluate the time frame in which most personnel leave the organi Recommendation: #34 It is recommended that FCFRD create, conduct, and document, form committee to have updated data reflecting the causes of separati Frederick County, Virginia Page 190 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Future Vision and Goals and Objectives for Future Growth Developing a System of Standards to Guide Performance Management The Frederick County Fire and Rescue system utilizes a variety o bring the system together to respond to requests for service. FCFR leadership has lead with inclusion and transparency and the collective working together to provide services. However, performance and due to the segmented approach to service delivery. Specifically the performance varies anytime the first due (career) staff are unavailable or require a multi-unit response within the first due territory as the volunteer performance may vary by time of day and organizati reasonable and a best practice to recognize that differentiate deployment plans m rural areas and urban or suburban areas. Therefore, a system of measures and thresholds that serve as tri Department and system in maintaining a commensurate manner in or to respond and mitigate like risks. In addition, these measures should establish baseline se of service or employment status. In other words, baseline serviished to provide a highly credible and reliable service to the citizen performance as the measure rather than whether the personnel are The following table summarizes initial recommendations to the County. However, FCFR should review and modify as necessary to best meet their needs. When r intended to be read as the desired performance is either less th When the reciprocal is true on any of the individual measures, it would be important for FCF review other like measures to determine if action must be taken. compare and contrast. First, if the unit hour utilization is .25 on a 24- hour staffed unit then action must be taken based on only the in immediacy of the change may have some flexibility if other perfo time and concurrency are within limits. Similarly, if the reliability begins to fall below the threshold, but the response time and workload is still acceptable, then a l acceptable. Frederick County, Virginia Page 191 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Figure 93: Summary of Recommended Baseline Service Objectives Type of Measure Performance Metric Career Volunteer 49 Review Period 5F Dispatch 2 Min at 90% 2 Min at 90%Quarterly Turnout Time 1.5 Min at 90%6 Min at 90% Quarterly Travel Time6 Min at 90% 15 Min at 90% Quarterly Minimum Engine Staffing 2 Firefighters 2 Firefighters Daily Station/Unit Minimum Ambulance 1 FF/PM1 PM and 1 EMT Daily Performance Staffing 1 FF/EMT *If cross staffed must be FF Certified Percentage of Calls with 1% 9.9%Quarterly no response StationService Area Risk Increases in Risk to Increases in Risk to Annually Rating Changing Moderate or High Moderate or High Reliability90% 90% Quarterly Call Concurrency15% 15% Quarterly System Design Call Volume 3,000 Initial1,800  Initial Annually and 500  Ongoing 300 - Ongoing Performance Unit Hour Utilization 0.25 on 24-hour units 0.25 on 24-hour units Quarterly 0.50 on 12-hour units 0.50 on 12-hour units Cross-Staffing <1,800 annual calls and <1,800 annual calls and Annually <15% Call Concurrency <15% Call Concurrency Recommendation: #35 It is recommended that FCFRD implement a Compliance Team to syst organization and make recommendations regarding needed or necess Recommendation: #36 It is recommended that FCFRD revise the existing Organizational and Volunteers. If Rural Stations are staffed 24-7 career personnel the Turnout Time should be equal to the career performance. 49 Frederick County, Virginia Page 192 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 DEFINITION OF TERMS 1.Standards of Cover  is a risk-based assessment to measure and establish standards of response activity to include response times, staffing, and risk mitigation strategies. This tenant document to be considered for accreditation by the Commis International (CFAI) and is considered a best practice for ensur transparent and uniformly evaluated and articulated. 2.Total Response Time  is the time from when 911 was called and the time of the first a unit on scene. 3.Travel Time  is the time from when the units are enroute the call and the tim arriving unit onscene. In other words, driving time. 4.Turnout Time  is defined as the time from when the crews/stations are notified incident and the time it takes to assemble and begin driving to 5.Risk  has many meanings in different contexts. For example, consider risk management the context or area of consideration can have considerable varia both prospective and retrospective risk defined as follows: a.Prospective Risk  is defined for these purposes as the inherent or potential risk associated with commercial occupancies. b.Retrospective Risk  is defined as the historical evidence of call demand/volume associated with community risks. 6.Occupancy Level Data  is the risk based data available to measure occupancies as defined as prospective risk. Occupancy level data is at the individual bui regional geographic data such as station response area or station service areas. 7.Risk-based  is defined as a systematic measure of both prospective and retrospective risk to guide decisions for response time, resource allocation, station considerations. A risk-based approach is a preferred best practice as opposed to less structure or objective processes. 8.Station Service Area  is defined as the assigned or responsible response area for each station. This is the unit of measure for response time, call vo concurrency, and prospective risks for planning and performance measurement. This term is synonymous with the following terms: a.First due station area b.Response area c.Fire Demand Zone (FDZ) 9.Community Service Demands  are defined as the requests for service received from the community. In other words, the fire/ems services generally do nn work. The requests for service are driven by the community needs. 10.Probability and Consequence Matrix  is a two-dimensional matrix designed to assist in identify how to best determine resource and staffing configurati mitigate categorized risks. 11.Critical Tasks  are defined as the critical and necessary tasks that must be acc successfully mitigate the different kinds of calls that occur an example, the department may require considerable more tasks to put out a structure fire then is needed for a trash can fire. 12.Concentric Station Areas  is defined as stations that are surrounded by other stations tha can respond into their districts or station demand zones. This s for central stations, but stations that are near the borders of communities Frederick County, Virginia Page 194 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 aid from one direction causing a longer duration response time w needed. 13.Reliability  is defined as the rate at which a call in a particular stations area is able to be responded to by a unit assigned to that station area. In other Station 11s area, was a unit assigned to Station 11 able to res 14.Overlapping Calls  is defined as the rate of simultaneous or concurrent calls that occur in each station area. In other words, what percentage of the time 11s area, and a 2 nd or greater request for service occurred at the same time prior t original request being mitigated and the unit returning back to available call. 15.Distribution of Resources  is defined as the geographic distribution of fire/ems stations a resources. Generally considered a single base-layer of services. 16.Concentration of Resources  is defined as the need for multiple resources or increased staffing concentrations at existing stations to meet the demands the first due response/demand zones. 17.Unit Hour Utilization (UHU)  a measure of time on task. UHUs are measured by all time on task, from dispatch to available for all call types and duration available hours in the schedule. Frederick County, Virginia Page 195 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Attachment A Data Report Frederick County, Virginia Page 196 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 Attachment B GIS Report Frederick County, Virginia Page 197 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover January 2018 February 2018 Data Analysis Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Prepared by: FITCH & ASSOCIATES, LLC 2901 Williamsburg Terrace #G Platte City Missouri 64079 816.431.2600 www.fitchassoc.com TABLE of CONTENTS METHODOLOGY _______________________________________________________________________________ 1 COMMUNITY RESPONSE HISTORY ________________________________________________________________ 2 Table 1: 2014  2016: Number of Incidents Dispatched by Category ________________________________________ 2 Table 2: Number of Incidents Dispatched by Category in 2016 _____________________________________________ 3 Figure 1: Percentage of Total Incidents Dispatched by Program in 2016 ______________________________________ 4 Table 3: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy T ______________________ 4 Table 4: Mutual Aid Workload by Unit ________________________________________________________________ 5 Figure 2: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Month _______________________________________________________ 8 Figure 3: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Weekday_____________________________________________________ 9 Figure 4: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Hour________________________________________________________ 10 Table 5: Overall Workload by Station ________________________________________________________________ 11 Table 6: Overall Workload by Unit ___________________________________________________________________ 11 Table 7: Average Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time of First Arriving Units by Prog ________________________ 15 Figure 5: Average Turnout and Travel Time by Call Category ______________________________________________ 16 Table 8: 90th Percentile Turnout and Travel Time of First Arriv __________________________ 17 Figure 6: All Calls: Distribution of Dispatch and Turnout Time ____________________________ 17 Figure 7: All Calls: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriv ________________________________________ 18 Table 9: EMS Calls: Average Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time o ______________ 18 Figure 8: EMS Calls: Average Turnout and Travel Time by EMD Code _______________________________________ 19 Table 10: EMS Calls: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout and Trav of First Arriving Units by EMD Code _______ 19 FS ________________________________________________________________________________ 20 IRE ERVICES Table 11: Number of Fire Incidents Dispatched by Category ______________________________________________ 20 Table 12: Total Fire Related Calls per Month __________________________________________________________ 20 Figure 9: Average Fire Related Calls per Month________________________________________________________ 21 Table 13: Total Fire Related Calls by Day of Week ______________________________________________________ 21 Figure 10: Average Fire Related Calls by Day of Week ___________________________________________________ 22 Table 14: Total and Average Fire Related Calls by Hour of Day ____________________________________________ 22 Figure 11: Average Fire Related Calls per Day by Hour of Day _____________________________________________ 23 Table 15: Workload by Station for Fire Calls ___________________________________________________________ 24 Table 16: Number of Responding Units by Fire Call Type _________________________________________________ 24 Figure 12: Percentage of Structure Fire Calls by Number of Resp ________________________________ 25 EMS ___________________________________________________________________ 25 MERGENCY EDICAL ERVICES Table 17: Number of EMS Incidents Dispatched by Category _____________________________________________ 25 Table 18: Annual Total and Average per Day of EMS Calls by Mont _________________________________ 26 Figure 13: Average EMS Calls per Day by Month of Year _________________________________________________ 26 Table 19: Annual Total and Average per Day of EMS Calls by Day __________________________________ 27 Figure 14: Average EMS Calls per Day by Day of Week __________________________________________________ 27 Table 20: Annual Total and Average per Day of EMS Calls by Hour ___________________________________ 27 Figure 15: Average EMS Calls per Day by Hour of Day ___________________________________________________ 28 Table 21: Workload by Station for EMS Incidents _______________________________________________________ 29 Transport _______________________________________________________________________________ 30 Table 22: EMS Transports by Call Category ____________________________________________________________ 30 Figure 16: Average EMS Calls and EMS Transports per Day by Hour ___________________________________ 30 Table 23: Total EMS Calls and EMS Transports and Average per Day by Hour of Day ___________________________ 31 REVIEW OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ______________________________________________________________ 32 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page i © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 CE ___________________________________________________________________________ 32 ASCADE OF VENTS Detection _______________________________________________________________________________ 32 Call Processing ___________________________________________________________________________ 32 Turnout Time ____________________________________________________________________________ 33 Travel Time ______________________________________________________________________________ 33 Total Response Time ______________________________________________________________________ 33 Figure 17: Cascade of Events _______________________________________________________________________ 34 Comparison of Workloads and Response Time by Demand Zone____________________________________ 34 Table 24: Number of Calls and Responses by First Due Station ____________________________________________ 35 Figure 18: Number of Incidents by Station Demand Zone ________________________________________________ 36 Figure 19: Workload by Station Demand Zone _________________________________________________________ 36 Figure 20: Station Level Unit Hour Utilization __________________________________________________________ 38 Table 25: Station Level Unit Hour Utilization __________________________________________________________ 38 RESPONSE TIME CONTINUUM ___________________________________________________________________ 39 F_______________________________________________________________________________________ 39 IRE Figure 21: Example of Traditional Time Temperature Curve _______________________________________________ 39 Figure 22: Ventilation Controlled Time Temperature Curve_______________________________________________ 40 EMS ______________________________________________________________________________________ 40 Figure 23: Cascade of Events for Sudden Cardiac Arrest with Shoc ______________________________ 41 DESCRIPTION OF FIRST ARRIVING UNIT PERFORMANCE ______________________________________________ 42 Table 26: Description of First Arriving Unit Emergency Response Performance _______________________________ 42 Figure 24: EMS Calls: Distribution of Dispatch and Turnout Time _________________________ 43 Figure 25: EMS Calls: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arri ______________________________________ 43 Figure 26: Fire Calls: Distribution of Dispatch and Turnout Tim __________________________ 44 Figure 27: Fire Calls: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arr ______________________________________ 44 Table 27: Average Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time of First Arriving Units by S ________________________ 45 Table 28: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time of First Ar __________________ 45 Table 29: ALS1/AL2: Average Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time by Arrival Sequence _________________________ 46 Table 30: ALS1/AL2: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time b ___________________ 46 FAURTSDZ___________________________________________ 47 IRST RRIVING NIT ESPONSE IME BY TATION EMAND ONE Table 31: Mean First Arrival Performance by First Due Station ____________________________________________ 47 Figure 28: Average Dispatch and Turnout and Travel Time by Stati ___________________________ 47 Table 32: 90th Percentile First Arrival Performance by Station F _________________________________________ 48 Figure 29: 90th Percentile Response time by Station FDZ ________________________________________________ 48 Figure 30: 90th Percentile Dispatch and Turnout Time by Station ______________________________________ 49 Figure 31: 90th Percentile Travel Time Performance by Station F________________________________________ 49 RF ___________________________________________________________________________ 50 ELIABILITY ACTORS Percentage of First Due Compliance __________________________________________________________ 50 Figure 32: Percentage Reliability by Station FDZ ________________________________________________________ 50 OSCA________________________________________________________ 51 VERLAPPED OR IMULTANEOUS ALL NALYSIS Figure 33: Probability of Overlapped Calls Occur by Station FDZ ___________________________________________ 51 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page ii © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 METHODOLOGY We collected three years of CAD data. In this report, we primarily focused our analysis on the 2016 calendar year. We focus on responses from Frederick County Fire and Rescue. We utilized two distinct measures of call volume and workload. First, is the number of requests for service that are defined as either dispatches or calls. Dispatches/calls are the number of times a distinct incident was created involving units from Frederick County Fire and Rescue. Conversely, responses are the number of times that an individual unit (or all. Responses will be utilized on all Agency, Station and Unit level analyses, which account for all elements of workload and performance. Calls have been categorized as EMS, Fire, Rescue, Hazard, Fire investigation, and Mutual aid calls respectively. We analyzed outcomes for the requests for EMS services. Transport calls are identified if any responding ambulance has rcorded a unit transport time. We analyzed dispatch and turnout time separately and concluded t turnout time was not reliable. Thus, dispatch and turnout time are reported together. In this report, dispatch and turnout time is calculated from the time a request or incident was created by dispatcher through the time a unit reported enroute. The time it took the dispatcher to answer the phone and create the incident was not captured in the dispatch t dispatch time, turnout time, travel time, and response time of the first arriving units. Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 1 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 COMMUNITY RESPONSE HISTORY In the year of 2016, Frederick County Fire Rescue responded to a total of 10,250 incidents 1, which represented a 2.8% growth from 2015. EMS service requests totaled 8,133, accounting for 79.3% of the total number of incidents. The number of fire related calls were 1,379, which accounted for 13.5% of the dispatched incidents. Rescue and hazmat calls totaled 323, which accounted for 3.2% of the total incidents. A total of 382 incidents were mutual aid requests. The number of individual unit responses will be more reflective of total workload since 54 percent of the calls resulted in multiple units responding. As summarized in Table 3, all units from the Frederick County Fire Rescue combined made 20,609 responses, and were busy on emergency calls 18,103 hours. On average, each response lasted 52.7 minutes from dispatched to clear. Table 1: 2014  2016: Number of Incidents Dispatched by Category Number of Calls Call Category 2014 2015 2016 Cardiac and stroke 1,013 1,010 1,138 Seizure and unconsciousness 687 673 731 Breathing difficulty787 871 729 Overdose and psychiatric 144 125 152 MVC505 578 582 Fall and injury 1,510 1,622 1,741 Illness and other2,791 3,043 3,060 EMS Total 7,437 7,922 8,133 Structure fire 130 123 113 Outside fire 142 102 117 Vehicle fire93 85 84 Alarm 493 437 476 Public service282 354 424 Move-up 51 56 47 Fire other 96 120 118 Fire Total1,287 1,277 1,379 Rescue 14 11 18 Hazmat 327 333 305 Fire Investigation 39 44 33 Mutual aid 383 380 382 Total 9,487 9,96710,250 Calls per Day 26.0 27.3 28.1 YoY GrowthNA 5.1% 2.8% 296 incidents were in CAD that did not have any Frederick County 1 incidents were included, the total call count in 2016 would be 1 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 2 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Table 2: Number of Incidents Dispatched by Category in 2016 Number of Calls per Call Call Category Calls Day Percentage Cardiac and stroke 1,138 3.1 11.1% Seizure and unconsciousness 731 2.0 7.1% Breathing difficulty729 2.0 7.1% Overdose and psychiatric 152 0.4 1.5% MVC582 1.6 5.7% Fall and injury 1,741 4.8 17.0% Illness and other 3,060 8.4 29.9% EMS Total 8,133 22.3 79.3% Structure fire 113 0.3 1.1% Outside fire 117 0.3 1.1% Vehicle fire 84 0.2 0.8% Alarm 476 1.3 4.6% Public service 424 1.2 4.1% Move-up 470.1 0.5% Fire other 118 0.3 1.2% Fire Total1,379 3.8 13.5% Rescue 18 0.0 0.2% Hazmat 305 0.8 3.0% Fire Investigation 33 0.1 0.3% Mutual aid 382 1.0 3.7% Total 10,25028.1100.0% Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 3 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Figure 1: Percentage of Total Incidents Dispatched by Program in 2016 Table 3: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by in 2016 Average Average Total Busy Percentage Number Number of Responses Busy Minutes per of Total Busy 2 Program of Calls Responses per Call Hours Response Hours EMS 8,133 15,408 1.9 13,971 54.4 77.2% Fire 1,379 3,488 2.5 2,703 46.5 14.9% Rescue3058042.648836.42.7% Hazmat 18 70 3.9 40 34.1 0.2% Fire Investigation 33 43 1.3 158 220.2 0.9% Mutual aid382 796 2.1 744 56.0 4.1% Total 10,250 20,609 2.0 18,103 52.7 100.0% 2 Hours are for apparatus or unit hours and not specifically personnel hours. The total personnel hourly commitment wo be calculated as the product of the total busy hours and the num Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 4 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Table 4: Mutual Aid Workload by Unit Avg. Busy Minutes Annual per Annual Total Station Unit Unit TypeResponse Busy Hours Responses E13 Engine 44.1 23.5 32 W13 Wagon 37.2 12.4 20 T13 Tanker69.8 15.1 13 Clear Brook A132 Medic Unit25.2 1.7 4 B13 Brush 32.0 1.6 3 Clear Brook Total 45.3 54.3 72 CH16Chief Officer 77.5 41.3 32 T16Tanker63.730.829 ALS1 ALS Chase Unit 102.7 24.0 14 TW16 Aerial 108.7 25.4 14 AT16 Attack 140.9 21.1 9 Gainesboro B16Brush 59.8 8.0 8 W16 Wagon 106.5 10.6 6 MO16Mobile155.3 12.9 5 E16 Engine 98.5 8.2 5 A162Medic Unit153.4 5.1 2 Gainesboro Total 90.7 187.5 124 E14Engine 75.9 12.7 10 T14 Tanker 69.0 9.2 8 AT14Attack 126.5 12.6 6 B14 Brush 105.0 10.5 6 Gore CH14 Chief Officer 118.9 7.9 4 SV14 Serve136.0 4.5 2 A142Medic Unit12.6 0.2 1 W14 Wagon 13.0 0.2 1 Gore Total 91.4 57.9 38 Q18 Aerial41.8 23.0 33 ALS2 ALS Chase Unit 18.9 6.0 19 E18 Engine 36.5 7.9 13 Greenwood A183Medic Unit 16.4 1.4 5 CH18 Chief Officer 43.6 1.5 2 A181 Medic Unit75.3 1.3 1 Greenwood Total33.7 41.0 73 RE12 Rescue Engine 21.7 23.1 64 A122Medic Unit26.2 8.7 20 Middletown ET12 Engine 59.7 15.9 16 A121 Medic Unit17.7 3.8 13 ALS12 ALS Chase Unit35.1 5.3 9 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 5 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Avg. Busy Minutes Annual per Annual Total Station Unit Unit TypeResponse Busy Hours Responses AT12 Attack 41.1 4.1 6 CH12Chief Officer 8.5 0.3 2 MO12Mobile17.00.31 Middletown Total 28.261.6 131 E21 Engine 48.6 13.8 17 RE21 Rescue Engine 5.4 0.8 9 Millwood A211 Medic Unit0.6 0.0 1 Millwood Total32.4 14.6 27 T19 Tanker 61.6 4.1 4 B19 Brush 69.9 3.5 3 CH19 Chief Officer 68.5 3.4 3 North Mountain AT19Attack 78.4 2.6 2 W19 Pumper 174.1 5.8 2 A191 Medic Unit47.5 0.8 1 North Mountain Total 81.0 20.215 BTL10Duty Officer Vehicle 56.0 58.8 63 CH10Chief Officer 3.8 0.1 2 FM103 Fire Marshal0.2 0.0 1 FM1 Fire Marshal 0.1 0.0 1 Public Safety Building FM102 Fire Marshal 60.2 1.0 1 TN10 Chief Officer 189.6 3.2 1 BTX10 Duty Officer Vehicle 8.1 0.1 1 Public Safety Building Total 54.263.3 70 E20 Engine 59.4 50.5 51 T20 Tanker70.2 45.7 39 AT20 Attack 80.4 25.4 19 CH20 Chief Officer 28.9 4.8 10 RE20 Rescue Engine 18.7 2.5 8 B201 Brush 10.0 1.2 7 Reynolds Store B203 Brush 3.5 0.2 3 MO20 Mobile 49.1 2.5 3 B202 Brush 146.7 4.9 2 A201Medic Unit7.2 0.2 2 A202Medic Unit28.4 0.5 1 Reynolds Store Total57.2 138.3 145 E15Engine 27.6 17.9 39 RE15Rescue Engine 42.8 5.0 7 Round Hill CH15 Chief Officer 34.5 2.3 4 A151 Medic Unit 2.1 0.1 2 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 6 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Avg. Busy Minutes Annual per Annual Total Station Unit Unit TypeResponse Busy Hours Responses A152 Medic Unit 19.0 0.6 2 Round Hill Total28.8 25.9 54 A171Medic Unit62.88.48 B17Brush 82.9 9.7 7 W17 Pumper 85.1 9.9 7 Star Tannery T17 Tanker87.7 7.3 5 E17 Engine 33.0 2.8 5 Star Tannery Total 71.3 38.0 32 Stephens City W11 Engine 72.8 7.3 6 Stephens City TW11 Aerial 49.9 1.7 2 Stephens City BT11 Boat 619.9 10.3 1 Stephens City BT112 Boat 603.3 10.1 1 Stephens City TRS11 Tech Rescue 593.1 9.9 1 Stephens City E11 Engine 2.0 0.0 1 Stephens City CH11 Chief Officer 33.2 0.6 1 Stephens City A111 Medic Unit71.8 1.2 1 Stephens City A112 Medic Unit0.1 0.0 1 Stephens City Stephens City Total 164.041.0 15 Frederick County Total 56.0 743.5 796 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 7 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Temporal analyses were conducted to evaluate patterns in communinds. These measures examined the frequency of requests for service by month, day of week, and hour of day. In the following temporal analysis, rescue, hazmat, fire investigation and mutual aid calls were grouped into the other category for presentation purpose. Overall, average requests per month ranged from a low of 26.4 per day in May to a high of 29.7 per day in November. The top three months with the most demands in the descending order are: November (29.7 per day), February (29.6 per day) and April (28.9 per day). Figure 2: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Month Similar analyses were conducted for requests by day of week. The data revealed that there is little variability in the demand for services by day of week. Wednesday was the lowest for the week at 26.7 calls per day. Monday has the highest frequency of requests for services at 29.2 calls per day. Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 8 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Figure 3: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Weekday Overall demands were evaluated by the hour of the day. Considerable variability exists in the time of day that requests for emergency services are received. The average number of calls per hour is 427 or 1.2 per hour. The data illustrates that the busiest times of the day are betwe1000 and 1700. The hour with the peak demand is at 1000. To provide a more granular understanding of the communitys demaes, this temporal analysis included the average number of calls per hour. In other words, when referring to the figure below, the busiest hour is at 1000 with 621 calls during that hour. The average number of calls per hour is a daily average for those 621 calls if they were equally distributed. Therefore, the busiest hour per day would be at 1000 with an average hourly call volume at 1.70 calls per day. The second busiest hour is at 1700 with 616 calls during the hour, and averaged 1.69 calls per hour. Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 9 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Figure 4: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Hour Overall, all units made 20,609 unit responses, and the total busy hours were 18,103 hours. On average, a Frederick County Fire Rescue unit spent 52.7 minutes from dispatch to clear. Units in the Greenwood station was dispatched most, totaling 4,453 runs a yea and 11.3 hours a day. Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 10 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Table 5: Overall Workload by Station Annual Avg. Busy Busy Total Annual Average Minutes Hours Unit Number ResponseBusy Responses per per Responses Station of Calls sHours per Call Response Dayper Day Clear Brook 1,123 1,316 1,235 1.2 56.3 3.4 3.6 Gainesboro 1,334 1,3901,2501.0 54.0 3.4 3.8 Gore 400 5805791.5 59.9 1.6 1.6 Greenwood 2,498 2,5602,3511.0 55.1 6.4 7.0 Middletown 1,184 1,6731,6081.4 57.7 4.4 4.6 Millwood 1,893 2,1721,5791.1 43.6 4.3 6.0 North Mountain 465 7546381.6 50.7 1.7 2.1 Public Safety 1,512 1,649 1,104 1.1 40.2 3.0 4.5 Building Reynolds Store 393 5525461.4 59.4 1.5 1.5 Round Hill1,822 2,2731,8061.2 47.7 4.9 6.2 Star Tannery 219 2493341.1 80.5 0.9 0.7 Stephens City 2,207 2,6742,4661.2 55.3 6.8 7.3 Total 10,250 17,842 15,495 1.7 52.1 42.548.9 Table 6: Overall Workload by Unit Avg. Busy Annual Minutes per Annual Busy Total StationUnit Unit Type Response HoursResponses A132 Medic Unit 65.0 527.3 487 A131 Medic Unit 66.8 387.5 348 E13 Engine 33.7 123.5 220 W13 Wagon 38.5 76.5 119 B13 Brush 39.7 44.4 67 Clear Brook T13 Tanker 54.3 57.0 63 CH13 Chief Officer 89.2 13.4 9 MO13 Mobile 139.3 4.6 2 SV13 Serve 46.6 0.8 1 Clear Brook Total 56.3 1,234.9 1,316 ALS1 ALS Chase Unit 58.1 846.1 874 CH16 Chief Officer 40.5 227.2 337 A162 Medic Unit 66.5 344.8 311 A161 Medic Unit 59.1 232.3 236 Gainesboro W16 Wagon 37.8 90.1 143 E16 Engine 44.9 66.5 89 T16 Tanker 53.8 69.0 77 MO16 Mobile 71.7 82.5 69 AT16 Attack 54.2 55.1 61 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 11 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Avg. Busy Annual Minutes per Annual Busy Total StationUnit Unit Type Response HoursResponses TW16 Aerial 59.8 37.8 38 ALS16 ALS Chase Unit 106.7 26.7 15 B16 Brush 82.6 17.9 13 BT16Boat 2.5 0.0 1 Gainesboro Total 55.5 2,096.0 2,264 A142 Medic Unit 70.4 195.9 167 A141 Medic Unit 69.6 141.6 122 E14 Engine 43.8 62.8 86 SV14 Serve 35.4 50.7 86 AT14 Attack 66.5 45.4 41 Gore CH14 Chief Officer 65.3 33.7 31 T14 Tanker 61.2 27.6 27 B14 Brush 84.8 17.0 12 W14 Wagon 29.1 2.9 6 MO14 Mobile 40.0 1.3 2 Gore Total 59.9 578.9 580 ALS2 ALS Chase Unit 55.8 1,761.9 1,893 A183 Medic Unit 65.0 1,132.8 1,046 A181 Medic Unit 60.3 764.2 760 E18 Engine 31.6 145.2 276 Q18 Aerial 26.9 103.9 232 Greenwood CH18 Chief Officer 22.5 62.5 167 A184 Medic Unit 132.3 130.1 59 B18 Brush 41.2 10.3 15 SV18 Serve 36.5 1.8 3 MO18 Mobile 8.3 0.3 2 Greenwood Total 55.4 4,112.9 4,453 A121 Medic Unit 66.2 453.3 411 A122 Medic Unit 68.9 434.9 379 ALS12 ALS Chase Unit 63.1 317.4 302 RE12 Rescue Engine 30.2 146.6 291 ET12 Engine 36.6 60.499 Middletown CH12 Chief Officer 58.7 78.3 80 AT12 Attack 44.0 38.9 53 MO12 Mobile 47.6 41.2 52 ATV12 ATV 363.7 36.4 6 Middletown Total 57.7 1,607.5 1,673 A211 Medic Unit 57.9 764.2 792 Millwood RE21 Rescue Engine 26.5 206.5 467 Station E21 Engine 27.0 207.4 460 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 12 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Avg. Busy Annual Minutes per Annual Busy Total StationUnit Unit Type Response HoursResponses A212 Medic Unit 56.3 314.4 335 A101 Medic Unit 48.7 62.5 77 SV21 Serve 34.7 22.6 39 CH21 Chief Officer 42.2 1.4 2 Millwood Station Total 43.6 1,578.9 2,172 A192 Medic Unit 62.8 174.9 167 A191 Medic Unit 69.4 173.4 150 CH19 Chief Officer 40.5 91.7 136 W19 Pumper 41.9 59.3 85 SV19 Serve 26.5 37.1 84 North Mountain AT19 Attack 33.4 36.7 66 T19 Tanker 54.9 43.9 48 B19 Brush 72.3 20.5 17 E19 Engine 0.1 0.0 1 North Mountain Total 50.7 637.6 754 BTL10 Duty Officer Vehicle 32.0 743.2 1,394 FM102 Fire Marshal 68.6 61.7 54 FM1 Fire Marshal 82.4 70.0 51 FM2 Fire Marshal 152.7 119.6 47 CH10 Chief Officer 34.1 17.6 31 OPS1 Chief Officer 26.4 11.0 25 FM103 Fire Marshal 176.5 50.0 17 BTX10 Duty Officer Vehicle 27.6 4.6 10 Public Safety Building TN102 Support Vehicle 20.6 1.7 5 HZM10 HazMat Truck 144.6 7.2 3 TN10 Chief Officer 84.5 4.2 3 E10 Engine 21.5 1.1 3 EM10 Support Vehicle 178.2 8.9 3 FM106 Fire Marshal 88.8 3.0 2 TN101 Support Vehicle 8.5 0.1 1 Public Safety Building Total 40.2 1,104.0 1,649 A202 Medic Unit 80.1 215.1 161 E20 Engine 49.8 102.2 123 T20 Tanker 62.6 55.3 53 A201 Medic Unit 71.7 60.9 51 Reynolds Store AT20 Attack 50.4 38.7 46 MO20 Mobile 40.8 26.5 39 RE20 Rescue Engine 31.3 16.2 31 CH20 Chief Officer 40.4 20.2 30 B201 Brush 18.4 3.4 11 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 13 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Avg. Busy Annual Minutes per Annual Busy Total StationUnit Unit Type Response HoursResponses B202 Brush 114.2 7.6 4 B203 Brush 3.5 0.2 3 Reynolds Store Total 59.4 546.2 552 A152 Medic Unit 60.9 988.4 974 RE15 Rescue Engine30.9 182.1 354 A151 Medic Unit 60.9 345.2 340 E15 Engine 26.0 107.2 247 Round Hill SV15 Serve 29.1 84.7 175 CH15 Chief Officer 33.4 58.4 105 B15 Brush 30.9 39.6 77 AT15 Attack 1.2 0.0 1 Round Hill Total 47.7 1,805.6 2,273 A171 Medic Unit 94.2 260.7 166 B17 Brush 52.7 24.6 28 W17 Pumper 50.8 16.9 20 Star Tannery T17 Tanker 64.4 21.5 20 E17 Engine 46.9 9.4 12 SV17 Serve 16.3 0.8 3 Star Tannery Total 80.5 333.9 249 A113 Medic Unit 61.8 974.8 947 A112 Medic Unit 65.3 592.3 544 A111 Medic Unit 64.1 401.4 376 CH11 Chief Officer 31.5 124.8 238 W11 Engine 35.8 118.7 199 E11 Engine 35.2 113.2 193 AT11 Attack 28.2 27.8 59 MO11 Mobile 23.8 20.2 51 TW11 Aerial 39.4 29.5 45 Stephens City TRS11 Tech Rescue 259.2 21.6 5 BT11 Boat 244.9 20.4 5 SV11 Serve 12.3 0.8 4 ALS11 Mobile 54.5 2.7 3 BT111 Boat 387.8 6.5 1 HZM11 Support Trailer 26.5 0.4 1 BT112 Boat 603.3 10.1 1 UT11 Utility 28.8 0.5 1 B11 Brush 38.30.6 1 Stephens City Total 55.3 2,466.2 2,674 Frederick County Total 52.7 18,102.8 20,609 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 14 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 This analysis utilized the first arriving units of all distinct incidents. CAD data does not differentiate dispatch and turnout times reliably, so dispatch and turnout time are reported to The mean (average) dispatch and turnout time was 312 seconds. The mean (average) travel time was 354 seconds (five minutes 54 seconds), and response time was 672 seconds (eleven minutes and 12 seconds). The average response time is the same as the sum of the average dispatch time and turnout and travel time. However, a more conservative and reliable measure of performance measure is more robust, or less influenced by outliers, than measures of central tendenc th mean. Best practice is to measure at the 90 percentile. In other words, 90% of all performance is captured expecting that 10% of the time the department may expermal conditions that would typically be considered an outlier. For example, if the department were to report an average response time of six minutes, then in a normally distributed set be longer than six minutes and half of the responses would be less than six minutes. The 90 th percentile communicates that 9 out of 10 times the department performance is predictable and thus more clearly articulated to policy makers and the community. th The performance for dispatch and turnout time at the 90percentile was 437 seconds (seven minutes and 17 second), travel time was 623 seconds (ten minutes and 23 seconds), and response time was 16.4 minutes. Please note that the summation of 90th percentile dispatch and turnout time, and 90th percentile travel time is not the same as 90th percentile response time. Table 7: Average Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time of First Arriving Units by Program Dispatch and Turnout Travel Response Sample 3 Program Time Time Time Size EMS5.3 5.911.17,519 Fire 4.8 6.4 11.2 1,088 Rescue 5.4 6.0 11.4 15 Hazmat 5.5 5.9 11.3 274 Total 5.2 5.9 11.2 8,896 The sample size is different from the totals reported in Tables sing data elements such as missing time 3 elements. Therefore, 87% of the total incidents are represented total population. Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 15 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Figure 5: Average Turnout and Travel Time by Call Category Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 16 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Table 8: 90th Percentile Turnout and Travel Time of First Arriving UniProgram Dispatch and Turnout Travel Response Sample Program Time Time Time Size EMS 7.3 10.1 16.1 7,519 Fire7.511.717.61,088 Rescue 8.6 9.6 17.6 15 Hazmat 8.0 10.7 17.1 274 Total 7.3 10.4 16.4 8,896 The average travel time varied by EMD code from 4.8 minutes for Echo calls to 8.3 minutes for Omega calls. The 90th percentile response times were consistently more than 14 minutes and the aggregate total response time was 16.1 minutes. Echo type of EMS calls has the shortest average and 90th percentile response time. The distributions of dispatch and turnout time and travel time w A total of 53% of calls had dispatch and turnout time of five minutes or less. A total of 47% of calls had travel time of five minutes or less, and 78% of calls had travel time of eight minutes or less. Figure 6: All Calls: Distribution of Dispatch and Turnout Time of FirstArriving Unit Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 17 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Figure 7: All Calls: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving Unit Table 9: EMS Calls: Average Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time of First Dispatch and Turnout Travel Response Sample Program Time Time Time Size Alpha 5.5 6.0 11.61,911 Bravo 5.5 5.7 11.2882 Charlie 5.6 6.0 11.61,407 Delta 5.3 5.8 11.11,931 Echo 4.2 4.8 9.0109 Omega 5.5 8.3 13.829 Missing 4.4 5.6 10.01,250 EMS Total 5.3 5.9 11.1 7,519 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 18 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Figure 8: EMS Calls: Average Turnout and Travel Time by EMD Code Table 10: EMS Calls: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time Dispatch and Turnout Travel Response Sample Program Time Time Time Size Alpha 7.4 10.3 16.51,911 Bravo 7.4 9.8 15.9882 Charlie 7.5 10.0 16.41,407 Delta 7.2 9.9 15.91,931 Echo 6.1 8.2 14.1109 Omega 7.0 12.9 18.7 29 Missing 6.8 10.6 15.6 1,250 EMS Total 7.3 10.1 16.1 7,519 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 19 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Fire Services Overall, there are 1,379 total fire incidents, averaging 3.8 per day. Structure, outside and vehicle fires totaled 314. The largest fire category was alarm and public service calls, averaging 1.3 and 1.2 per day. Table 11: Number of Fire Incidents Dispatched by Category Number Calls per Call Category of Calls Day Structure fire 1130.3 Outside fire 1170.3 Vehicle fire 84 0.2 Alarm 476 1.3 Public service 424 1.2 Move up 470.1 Fire other 1180.3 Fire Total1,3793.8 Temporal analyses were conducted to evaluate patterns in community services. These measures examined the frequency of requests for service in 2016 by month, day of week, and hour of day. Results found that there was variability by month. The three months with most fire calls in order were: April (4.5 per day), November (4.4 per day) and September (4.3 per day). The three months with least fire calls in order were: January and February (3.2 per day) and May (3.3 per day). Results are presented below. Table 12: Total Fire Related Calls per Month Number Calls per Call Month of Calls DayPercentage January 3.2 7.2 99 February3.2 6.5 90 March 3.5 7.9 109 April4.5 9.7 134 May 3.3 7.5 103 June 4.3 9.4 129 July3.9 8.7 120 August 3.5 7.9 109 September 4.3 9.4 130 October 3.8 8.6 118 November 4.4 9.6 132 December 3.4 7.7 106 Total 3.78 100.0 1,379 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 20 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Figure 9: Average Fire Related Calls per Month Similar analyses were conducted for fire related calls per day of week. The data revealed that there is some variability in the demand for services by day of week. Wednesday was the lowest for the week, averaging 3.3 per day r 12.5 percent of the fire related calls for the week. Saturday has the o highest frequency of requests for fire related services averaging 4.6 calls per day and 17.3%. Results for this analysis are presented below. Table 13: Total Fire Related Calls by Day of Week Day of Number Calls per Call Week of Calls Day Percentage Sunday 3.4 13.0 179 Monday 3.6 13.7 189 Tuesday 3.5 13.3 184 Wednesday 3.3 12.5 172 Thursday 3.9 14.9 206 Friday 4.1 15.3 211 Saturday 4.6 17.3 238 Total 3.78 100.0 1,379 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 21 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Figure 10: Average Fire Related Calls by Day of Week Fire related calls were evaluated by hour of the day. Considerable variability exists in the time of day that requests for fire related services are received. The hours that include 0100 to 0500 have the lowest demands. The middle of the day has the greatest frequency of calls, specifically from 1600 to 1800. The average number of calls per hour in a year is 57. Finally, in an effort to provide a more granular understanding of the communitys demand for fire related services, this temporal analysis included the average number of calls per hour. In other words, the Table below, the busiest hour is at 1800 with 106 calls during that hour in 2016. The average number of calls per hour is a daily average for those 106 calls if they were equally distributed. Therefore, the busiest hour per day would be at 1800 with an average hourly call volume of 0.29 calls per hour. Table 14: Total and Average Fire Related Calls by Hour of Day Hour of Number Calls per Call Day of Calls Day Percentage 0 0.07 1.9 26 1 0.06 1.7 23 2 0.05 1.5 20 3 0.04 0.9 13 4 0.06 1.5 21 5 0.06 1.7 23 6 0.10 2.7 37 7 0.12 3.0 42 8 0.19 5.0 69 9 0.18 4.7 65 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 22 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Hour of Number Calls per Call Day of Calls Day Percentage 10 0.21 5.6 77 11 0.20 5.4 74 12 0.17 4.4 61 13 0.22 5.8 80 14 0.21 5.5 76 15 0.22 5.9 81 16 0.27 7.0 97 17 0.28 7.5 104 18 0.29 7.7 106 19 0.24 6.2 86 20 0.16 4.4 60 21 0.17 4.4 61 22 0.12 3.0 42 23 0.10 2.5 35 Total 3.78 100.0 1,379 Figure 11: Average Fire Related Calls per Day by Hour of Day Frederick Fire and Rescue units made a total of 3,488 responses to fire related calls. The total time on task was 2,703 hours, and the average time on task was 46.5 minutes. Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 23 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Table 15: Workload by Station for Fire Calls Avg. Busy Annual Busy Unit Minutes per Annual Total Hours per Responses StationResponseBusy HoursResponses Day per Day Clear Brook 43.6 204 281 0.6 0.8 Gainesboro 63.6 427 403 1.2 1.1 Gore 55.9 116 124 0.3 0.3 Greenwood 41.5 357 516 1.0 1.4 Middletown 68.3 297 261 0.8 0.7 Millwood Station 28.1 183 391 0.5 1.1 North Mountain 42.0 132 189 0.4 0.5 Public Safety Building 48.6 367 453 1.0 1.2 Reynolds Store 48.3 77 96 0.2 0.3 Round Hill31.1 185 358 0.5 1.0 Star Tannery 50.7 34 40 0.1 0.1 Stephens City 51.7 324 376 0.9 1.0 Total 46.5 2,703 3,488 7.4 9.6 We analyzed number of responding units by call type. Overall, 42% of fire calls were responded by one unit; 23% were responded to by two units; 15% were responded to by three units, and 19% were responded to by four or more units. However, for structure fire calls, five or more units responded to 85% of calls. Ten or more units responded to a total of 24% of the structure f. Table 16: Number of Responding Units by Fire Call Type Number of Frederick Units Call Category Total 7 or 1234 5 6 more Structure fire 2 3 6 7 161366 113 Outside fire 19 21 29 14 111013 117 Vehicle fire 15 22 15 21 722 84 Alarm 161 142 109 54 820 476 Public service 288 88 34 4 532 424 Move-up 33 12 2 0 000 47 Fire other 67 30 14 3 310 118 Total 585 318 209 103 503183 1,379 Percentage 42.4% 23.1% 15.2% 7.5% 3.6%2.2%6.0% 100.0% Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 24 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Figure 12: Percentage of Structure Fire Calls by Number of Responding Units Emergency Medical Services Frederick Fire Rescue provides patient transport services. Requests for EMS are categorized as granular call categories using the CAD call description. On average, there were 22.3 EMS requests, and Cardiac and Stroke requests totaled 1,138 or 3.1 per day. Table 17: Number of EMS Incidents Dispatched by Category Number Calls per Call Category of Calls Day Cardiac and stroke 1,138 3.1 Seizure and unconsciousness 731 2.0 Breathing difficulty 729 2.0 Overdose and psychiatric 152 0.4 MVC 582 1.6 Fall and injury1,7414.8 Illness and other 3,060 8.4 EMS Total 8,133 22.3 Temporal analyses were completed to describe the communitys dem for emergency medical services. These analyses were completed by month of year, day oFebruary had the most EMS demand, averaging 23.9 per day. September had the lowest EMS demand, averaging 20.7 per day. Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 25 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Table 18: Annual Total and Average per Day of EMS Calls by Month of Year Number Calls per Call Month of Calls Day Percentage January 22.7 8.7 705 February 23.9 8.2 670 March 23.0 8.8 714 April 21.9 8.1 657 May 21.7 8.3 673 June 22.2 8.2 665 July 22.6 8.6 702 August 21.0 8.0 650 September 20.7 7.6 621 October 22.1 8.4 686 November 23.1 8.5 692 December 22.5 8.6 698 Total 22.3 100.0 8,133 Figure 13: Average EMS Calls per Day by Month of Year Similar analyses were conducted examining the frequency of requests for service by t week. Once again, there is variability in the demand for services by the day of the week. Monday receives the most requests for service and Saturday the least. Results are provided below. Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 26 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Table 19: Annual Total and Average per Day of EMS Calls by Day of Week Day of Number Calls per Call Week of Calls Day Percentage Sunday 22.0 14.1 1,146 Monday 23.0 14.7 1,195 Tuesday 22.7 14.5 1,182 Wednesday 21.9 14.0 1,139 Thursday 22.4 14.6 1,186 Friday 22.4 14.3 1,166 Saturday21.513.8 1,119 Total22.3100.0 8,133 Figure 14: Average EMS Calls per Day by Day of Week Finally, the analyses for EMS services are completed by identifying the EMS calls by hour of day and the average hourly rate of EMS calls per hour. The demand curve for requests for EMS service follows an expected pattern experienced in similar communities a frequency of service calls begins from 0900 to 1800 and each hour had more than 400 calls. The demand peaked at 1000 with 500 calls in a year. Results are provided below. Table 20: Annual Total and Average per Day of EMS Calls by Hour of Day Hour of Number Calls per Call Day of Calls Day Percentage 0 0.64 2.9 234 1 0.52 2.3 190 2 0.47 2.1 172 30.381.7 139 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 27 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Hour of Number Calls per Call Day of Calls Day Percentage 4 0.40 1.8 145 5 0.47 2.1 173 6 0.62 2.8 227 7 0.92 4.1 337 8 1.00 4.5 366 9 1.22 5.5 444 10 1.37 6.1 500 11 1.32 5.9 482 12 1.24 5.6 453 13 1.21 5.4 442 14 1.14 5.1 417 15 1.18 5.3 432 16 1.25 5.6 455 17 1.27 5.7 462 18 1.16 5.2 422 19 1.02 4.6 372 201.004.5 366 21 0.97 4.4 355 22 0.80 3.6 291 23 0.70 3.2 257 Total 22.28 100.0 8,133 Figure 15: Average EMS Calls per Day by Hour of Day Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 28 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 A total of 53 percent of the EMS incidents had multiple responding units. On average, 1.9 units were dispatched per EMS call. Motor Vehicle Collision (MVC) is the category that had 95% of the incidents with two or more units responding. Frederick Fire Rescue units made a total of 15,408 responses to EMS calls. The total time on task was 13,971 hours, and the average time on task was 54.4 minutes. Greenwood, Stephens City, and Round Hill were the top three stations in terms of total unit responses. Table 21: Workload by Station for EMS Incidents Avg. Busy Annual Busy Unit Minutes per Annual Total Hours per Responses StationResponseBusy HoursResponses Day per Day Clear Brook 62.0 939 909 2.6 2.5 Gainesboro 46.0 657 858 1.8 2.4 Gore 59.8 391 392 1.1 1.1 Greenwood 58.0 1,952 2,021 5.3 5.5 Middletown 60.5 1,213 1,203 3.3 3.3 Millwood Station 48.3 1,306 1,622 3.6 4.4 North Mountain 54.4 462 509 1.3 1.4 Public Safety Building 27.5 441 962 1.2 2.6 Reynolds Store 65.4 312 286 0.9 0.8 Round Hill 52.5 1,561 1,784 4.3 4.9 Star Tannery 91.7 249 163 0.7 0.4 Stephens City 56.1 2,029 2,171 5.6 5.9 Total 53.611,511 12,880 31.5 35.3 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 29 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Transport We analyzed outcomes for the requests for EMS services. The number of EMS transports totaled 5,996, averaging 16.4 transports per day. Approximately 74% of EMS calls resulted in a patient transport. Duration of a call is defined as the difference between the earliest dispatch time and the last unit clear time. On average, the duration of a non-transport EMS call was 27.1 minutes. The duration of a transport EMS call was averaged 86.5 minutes, which was one hour or three times longer than a non-transport EMS call. Table 22: EMS Transports by Call Category Non-Transport Transport Number Number Transport Call Category Duration of Calls Duration of Calls Rate Cardiac and stroke 31.7 177 91.3 961 84.4% Seizure and unconsciousness 26.9 152 91.7 579 79.2% Breathing difficulty 22.9 75 90.7 654 89.7% Overdose and psychiatric 24.2 46 87.7 106 69.7% MVC 43.7 280 98.7 302 51.9% Fall and injury 17.9 582 82.7 1,159 66.6% Illness and other 27.4 825 82.1 2,235 73.0% Total 27.1 2,13786.55,996 73.7% We analyzed variation of total EMS requests and transport requests by the hour of the day and the average hourly rate of requests. The variation of total EMS requests and EMS transport reports followed a similar pattern. The busiest period for EMS and EMS transport requests was between 0900 and 1800. From 0900 to 1300, on average one EMS transport occurred per hour per day. Requests by hour of the day are represented below. Figure 16: Average EMSCalls and EMSTransports per Day by Hour of Day Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 30 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Table 23: Total EMS Calls and EMS Transports and Average per Day by Hour of Day Number of Number EMS EMS of EMS Transports EMS Calls Transport HourTransports Calls per Dayper Day Rate 0 161 234 0.4 0.6 68.8 1 133 190 0.4 0.5 70.0 2 122 172 0.3 0.5 70.9 31031390.30.474.1 4103 145 0.3 0.4 71.0 5 130 173 0.4 0.5 75.1 6 158 227 0.4 0.6 69.6 7 259 337 0.7 0.9 76.9 8 267 366 0.7 1.0 73.0 9 348 444 1.0 1.2 78.4 10 376 500 1.0 1.4 75.2 11361 482 1.0 1.3 74.9 12 347 453 1.0 1.2 76.6 13 348 442 1.0 1.2 78.7 14309 417 0.8 1.1 74.1 15 324 432 0.9 1.2 75.0 16 334 455 0.9 1.2 73.4 17 310 462 0.8 1.3 67.1 18 313 422 0.9 1.2 74.2 19 266 372 0.7 1.0 71.5 20274 366 0.8 1.0 74.9 21 259 355 0.7 1.0 73.0 22 208 291 0.6 0.8 71.5 23 183 257 0.5 0.7 71.2 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 31 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 REVIEW OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE The first step in determining the current state of the systems deployment model is to establish baseline measures of performance. This analysis is crucial to ts to the status quo and in identifying opportunities for improvement. This portion of the analysis will focus efforts on elements of response time and the cascade of events t the appropriate apparatus and personnel to mitigate the event. Response time goals should be looked at in terms of total reflex time, or total response time, processing time, turnout time, and travel time, respectively. Cascade of Events The cascade of events is the sum of the individual elements of time beginning with a state of normalcy and continuing until normalcy is once again returned through the mitigation of the ev The elements of time that are important to the ultimate outcome tical medical emergency begin with the initiation of the event. For e-set of chest pain begins the biological and scientific time clock for heart damage Similarly, a fire may begin and burn undetected for a period of time before the fire department is notified. The emergency response system does not have control o recognition or the choice to request assistance. Therefore, Frederick Fire and Rescue utilizes quantifiable hard data points to measure and manage system performance. These elements include alarm processing (with updated CAD), turnout time, travel time, and the time spent on-scene. An example of the cascade of events and the elements of performance utilized is provided as Figure 17 below.4 Detection Is the element of time between the time an event occurs and someone detects it and the emergency response system has been notified. This is typically accomplish Answering Point (PSAP). Call Processing This is the element of time measured between when 911 answers th information, and subsequently dispatches emergency responders. Olathe Fire Department. (2012). Adapted from Community Risk and Emergency Services Analysis: Standard of Cover. 4 Olathe, Kansas: Author. Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 32 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Turnout Time This is the element of time that is measured between the time the fire department is dispatched or alerted of the emergency incident and the time when the fire app the call. It is understood that for Frederick County, the Call Processing combined, as they are not currently differentiated in the data capture Travel Time The travel time is the element of time between when the unit wen the incident, and their arrival on-scene. Total Response Time The total response time, or total reflex time, is the total time requ-scene beginning with 911 answering the phone request for service and the time th-scene. Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 33 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Figure 17: Cascade of Events Comparison of Workloads and Response Time by Demand Zone Another method of assessing the effectiveness of the distributio for services across the distribution model. Workload is assessed at the first due station demand zone level and at the individual unit level. Of requests in the jurisdiction of Frederick County Fire Rescue, analyses illustrate that Station Demand Zones Greenwood accounted for 21.7% of the total demand, station demand Stephens City accounted for 18.0%, and station Round Hill Community accounted for 12.2% of the total. The workload of the top three station demand zones accounted for 52% Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 34 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Table 24: Number of Calls and Responses by First Due Station 5 Number of Percent of Number of Unit Responses Department First Due Station Calls Responses per Day Workload 10 - Frederick County100 160 0.40.8 11 - Stephens City2,216 3,714 10.218.0 12 - Middletown 744 1,279 3.56.2 13 - Clear Brook981 2,053 5.610.0 14- Gore290 740 2.03.6 15 - Round Hill Community 1,402 2,522 6.912.2 16 - Gainesboro 422 1,149 3.1 5.6 17 - Star Tannery 178 362 1.0 1.8 18 - Greenwood 1,990 4,470 12.221.7 19 -North Mountain356 979 2.74.8 20 -Reynolds Store 316 762 2.13.7 21 - Millwood Station 979 1,893 5.29.2 Berkeley County 28 35 0.10.2 Clarke County 27 58 0.20.3 Hampshire County 42 88 0.20.4 Hardy County 8 11 0.0 0.1 Jefferson County 5 10 0.00.0 Morgan County 42 101 0.30.5 Out of County 3 4 0.00.0 Warren County 4 8 0.00.0 Winchester 117 211 0.61.0 Total 10,250 20,609 56.5 100.0 The CAD data provided did not have a method to determine calls i 5 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 35 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Figure 18: Number of Incidents by Station Demand Zone Figure 19: Workloadby Station Demand Zone Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 36 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Another measure, time on task, is necessary to evaluate best practices in efficient sy and consider the impact workload has on personnel. Unit Hour Ut developed by mathematical model. This model includes both the pls handled in each major service area (Fire, EMS, Rescue, and Hazmat) and total uni categories in 2016. The resulting UHUs represent the percentag is utilized responding to requests for service. Historically, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) has recommended that 24-hour units utilize 0.30, or 30% workload as an upper threshold.6 In other words this recommendation would have personnel spend no (8) hours per day on emergency incidents. These thresholds take into consideration the necessity to accomplish non-emergency activities such as training, health and wellness, publ inspections. The 4 th edition of the IAFF EMS Guidebook no longer specifically identifies an upper threshold. However, FITCH recommends that an upper unit utilization threshold of approxima .30, 0r 30%, would be considered best practice. In other words, units and personnel should not exceed 30%, or eight (8) hours, of their workday responding to calls. These recommendations are also validated in the literature. For example, in their review of the City of Rolling Meadows, the Illinois Fire Chiefs Association utilized a UHU threshold of .30n to add additional resources.7 Similarly, in a standards of cover study facilitated by the Cent Excellence, the Castle Rock Fire and Rescue Department utilizes 8 their standards of cover due to the necessity to accomplish other non-emergency activities. These thresholds take into consideration the necessity to accomp-emergency activities such as training, health and wellness, public education, and fire inspections. We grouped cross-staffed units together and conduct UHU analysis at station level. Greenwood Station has the highest workload at 0.44, followed by Stephens City station at 0.24, Greenwood at 0.22, and Round Hill at 0.19. North Mountain, Gore, Reynolds Ststations all had UHU less than or equal to 5%. International Association of Firefighters. (1995). Emergency Medical Services: A Guidebook for Fire-Based Systems. 6 Washington, DC: Author. (p. 11) Illinois Fire Chiefs Association. (2012). An Assessment of Deployment and Station Location: Rolling Meadows 7 Department. Rolling Meadows, Illinois: Author. (pp. 54-55) Castle Rock Fire and Rescue Department. (2011). Community Risk Analysis and Standards of Cover. Castle Rock, Colorado: 8 Author. (p. 58) Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 37 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Figure 20: Station Level Unit Hour Utilization Note: Greenwood station assumed one unit was staffed by full-time firefighters 24/7. Table 25: Station Level Unit Hour Utilization Station Unit Busy Hours UHU IAFF IAFC Greenwood A181/A183/A814/E18/ALS2 3,934 0.45 0.30 0.30 Stephens City A111/A112/A113/E11 2,082 0.24 0.30 0.30 Round Hill A151/A152/RE15/E15 1,623 0.19 0.30 0.30 Millwood A211/A212/RE21/E21 1,493 0.17 0.30 0.30 Gainesboro A161/A162/E16/ALS1 1,490 0.17 0.30 0.30 Middletown A121/A122/ALS12/RE12/ET12 1,413 0.16 0.30 0.30 Clear Brook A131/A132/E13 1,038 0.12 0.30 0.30 North Mountain A191/A192/W19 408 0.05 0.30 0.30 Gore A141/A142/E14400 0.05 0.30 0.30 Reynolds Store A201/A202/E20 378 0.04 0.30 0.30 Star TanneryA171/E172700.030.300.30 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 38 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 RESPONSE TIME CONTINUUM Fire The number one priority with structural fire incidents is to sav property damage. A direct relationship exists between the timeliness of the respo survivability of unprotected occupants and property damage. The behavior is Flashover. Flashover is the point in fire growth where the contents of an entire area, including the smoke, reach their ignition temperature, resulting in a rapid-fire growth rendering the area un-survivable by civilians and untenable for firefighters. Best practices would and attacking the fire prior to the point of flashover. A representation temperature curve and the cascade of events are provided as Figure 19 below.9 Figure 21: Example of Traditional Time Temperature Curve http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/coffee- Example of Traditional Time Temperature Curve. Retrieved at 9 break/time-vs-products-of-combustion.pdf Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 39 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Recent studies by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) have found that i structure fires, flashover occurs within 4 minutes in modern fir research has identified an updated time temperature curve due to fires being ventilation controlled rather than fuel controlled as represented in the traditional ti ventilation controlled environment continues to provide a high r smoke and high heat, it does provide some advantage to property conservation efforts as wa be applied to the fire prior to ventilation and the subsequent f ventilation controlled time temperature curve is provided as Fig20 below.10 Figure 22: Ventilation Controlled Time Temperature Curve EMS The effective response to Emergency Medical Service (EMS) incide the ability to respond within a specified period of time. Howev structure fires, responding to EMS incidents introduces considerable variability in the leve perspective, the association of response time and clinical outco of the injury or the illness. Research has demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of requ for EMS services are not time sensitive between 5 minutes and 11 http://www.nist.gov/fire/fire_behavior.cfm UL/NIST Ventilation Controlled Time Temperature Curve. Retrieve 10 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 40 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 11 minutes for non-emergency responses. The 12-minute upper threshold is only the upper limit of the available research and is not a clinically significant time meas a significantly different clinical outcome when the 12-minute threshold was exceeded.12 Out of hospital sudden cardiac arrest is the most identifiable and measured incident type for EMS. In an effort to demonstrate the relationship between response time representation of the cascade of events and the time to defibril 21 below. The American Heart Association (AHA) has determined that brain damag occur between four and six minutes and become irreversible after Modern sudden cardiac arrest protocols recognize that high quali-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) at the Basic Life Support (BLS) level is a quality interve 13 in shockable rhythms. Figure 23 below is representative of a sudden cardiac arrest that is presenting in a shockable heart rhythm such as Ventricular Fibrillation or Ventricular Tachycard Figure 23: Cascade of Events for Sudden Cardiac Arrest with Shockable Rhyth Blackwell, T.H., & Kaufman, J.S. (April 2002). Response time ef 11 an urban emergency medical services system. Academic Emergency Medicine, 9(4): 289-295. Blackwell, T.H., et al. (Oct-Dec 2009). Lack of association between prehospital response tim 12 Prehospital Emergency Care, 13(4): 444-450. Olathe Fire Department. (2012). Adapted from Community Risk and Emergency Services Analysis: Standard of Cover. 13 Olathe, Kansas: Author. Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 41 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 DESCRIPTION OF FIRST ARRIVING UNIT PERFORMANCE Analyses of the response characteristics of the first arriving units were conducted. Overall the system had a mean dispatch and turnout time of 312 seconds, and 437 seconds at the 90 th percentile. The travel time for all first arriving unit responses were calcussigned station FDZ. In other words, this analysis describes the first . The mean travel time was 354 seconds, or five minutes and 54 seconds. Performance at the 90 th percentile was 623 seconds, or ten minutes and 23 seconds. The total response time is defined as from call entry through unit arrivi. The mean th response time is 672 seconds, or eleven minutes and 12 seconds. Performance at the 90 percentile is 981 seconds, or 16 minutes and 21 seconds. Results of first arriving unit performance are provided below. Table 26: Description of First Arriving Unit Emergency Response Performance 90th Measure Average Percentile Dispatch and Turnout Time 5.27.3 Travel Time 5.910.4 Response Time 11.216.4 The 90th percentile dispatch and turnout time for EMS and fire c respectively. For EMS calls, a total of 51% of calls had dispatch and turnout time of five minutes or less. For fire calls, a total of 65% of the calls had dispatch and turnout time of five minutes or less. The 90th percentile travel time for EMS and fire calls were 10.1 For EMS calls, a total of 47% of the calls had travel time of five minutes or less. For fire calls, a total of 46% of calls had travel time of five minutes or less. Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 42 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Figure 24: EMS Calls: Distribution of Dispatch and Turnout Time of First Arriving Unit Figure 25: EMS Calls: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving Unit Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 43 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Figure 26: Fire Calls: Distribution of Dispatch and Turnout Time of FirsArriving Unit Figure 27: Fire Calls: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving Unit Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 44 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 In the following analysis, we focused on units staffed by career Greenwood units had the fastest average and 90th percentile response time, followed Millwood Station and Round Hill. Table 27: Average Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time of First Arriving Units by Statio Dispatch and Turnout Travel Response Sample StationUnit Time Time Time Size Clear Brook A131/A132/E13 5.1 6.211.3697 GainesboroA162/A161/E165.26.912.1256 Gore A141/A142/E145.3 6.211.5207 Greenwood A184/A183/A181/E18 5.1 5.110.21,431 Middletown A121/A122/RE12/ET12 5.2 6.912.0541 Millwood Station A211/A212/RE21/E215.2 5.810.9945 North Mountain A192/A191/W196.5 6.413.0220 Reynolds Store A202/A201/E20 5.3 6.1 11.5 177 Round Hill A151/A152/RE15/E15 5.1 5.9 11.0 1,109 Star Tannery A171/E17 4.9 9.6 14.6 127 Stephens City A111/A112/A113/E11 5.1 5.911.01,641 Total5.26.0 11.17,325 Table 28: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time of First Arriving Units by Station Dispatch and Turnout Travel Response Sample StationUnit Time Time Time Size Clear Brook A131/A132/E13 7.2 10.516.4697 Gainesboro A162/A161/E16 7.4 11.417.8256 Gore A141/A142/E147.9 13.219.3207 Greenwood A184/A183/A181/E18 7.0 8.3 14.1 1,431 Middletown A121/A122/RE12/ET12 7.3 11.9 18.1 541 Millwood Station A211/A212/RE21/E216.9 10.015.9945 North Mountain A192/A191/W199.9 11.218.4220 Reynolds Store A202/A201/E20 7.8 12.217.6177 Round HillA151/A152/RE15/E15 6.9 9.815.41,109 Star Tannery A171/E17 7.1 15.520.5127 Stephens City A111/A112/A113/E11 7.0 9.515.41,641 Total7.1 10.3 16.1 7,325 ALS1 and ALS2 responded to countywide incidents, and they only arrived first on scene 28% of the time. Of all their responses, ALS1s average response time was 15.6 minutes, and the 90th pe response time was 22.1 minutes. ALS2s average response time was 12.1 minutes, and the 90th th percentile response time was 16.9 minutes. When they arrived first on scene, ALS1 90 percentile response time was 17.9 minutes, and ALS2 90 th percentile response time was 13.2 minutes. Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 45 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Table 29: ALS1/AL2: Average Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time by Arriva Arrival Dispatch and Travel Response Sample Station Unit SequenceTurnout Time Time Time Size 1 5.1 7.6 12.8 132 2 5.9 10.4 16.3 281 Gainesboro ALS1 3 or later 5.311.717.0 129 Total 5.610.015.6 542 1 5.04.59.5 143 2 5.57.212.7 219 Greenwood ALS2 3 or later 8.58.316.9 51 Total 5.76.412.1 413 Table 30: ALS1/AL2: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time b Arrival Dispatch and Travel Response Station Unit Sequence Turnout Time Time Time Sample Size 1 7.0 11.9 17.9 132 2 7.7 15.6 22.8 281 Gainesboro ALS1 3 or later 7.6 17.3 23.1 129 Total7.6 15.6 22.1 542 1 7.0 8.1 13.2 143 2 7.5 11.4 18.0 219 Greenwood ALS2 3 or later 13.4 11.1 22.7 51 Total7.8 10.4 16.9 413 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 46 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 First Arriving Unit Response Time by Station Demand Zone Further analyses were conducted to measure the performance of tht arriving unit in each demand zone. Response times are reported below at both the mean and 90 th percentile respectively. Station demand zone Millwood Station had the best response time performance, and the average response time was 10.0 minutes, and the 90th percentile response time was 14.1 minutes. The second fastest station demand zone is Greenwood. Table 31: Mean First Arrival Performance by First Due Station Dispatch and Turnout Travel Response Sample JurisdictionTime Time Time Size 21 - Millwood Station 5.1 4.9 10.0 840 18 - Greenwood 5.2 5.2 10.3 1,862 10 - Frederick County 5.0 5.6 10.6 89 12 - Middletown 5.0 6.0 11.0 519 15 - Round Hill 5.2 5.8 11.0 1,291 11 - Stephens City 5.2 6.2 11.4 2,095 13 - Clear Brook 5.1 6.3 11.5 867 14 - Gore 5.4 6.8 12.1 248 16 - Gainesboro 5.2 6.9 12.2 382 20 - Reynolds Store 5.6 6.7 12.3 221 19 - North Mountain6.2 6.6 12.8 331 17 - Star Tannery 5.6 9.9 15.5 151 Total 5.2 5.9 11.2 8,896 Figure 28: Average Dispatch and Turnout and Travel Time by Station Demand Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 47 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Table 32: 90th Percentile First Arrival Performance by Station FDZ Dispatch and Turnout Travel Response Sample First Due StationTime Time Time Size 21 - Millwood Station 7.1 8.5 14.1 840 18 -Greenwood7.18.514.41,862 15 - Round Hill 7.0 9.7 15.6 1,291 10 - Frederick County 7.0 10.5 15.9 89 11 - Stephens City 7.2 10.5 16.4 2,095 12 - Middletown 7.1 11.0 16.4 519 13 - Clear Brook 7.2 10.7 16.7 867 16 - Gainesboro 7.4 11.5 17.9 382 20 - Reynolds Store 8.1 12.7 19.1 221 14 - Gore 8.6 13.2 19.4 248 19 - North Mountain9.8 12.6 19.5 331 17 - Star Tannery 7.9 15.7 20.8 151 Total 7.3 10.4 16.4 8,896 Figure 29: 90th Percentile Response time by Station FDZ The data were further analyzed to compare the individual station FDZ performances. Regarding dispatch and turnout time, performances for calls in Round Hill, Millwood Station, and Middletown were the fastest. With respect to travel time performance, performances for calls in station Greenwood, Millwood Station, and Round Hill were the fastest Calls in Reynolds Store, Gore and Star Tannery had the longest 90th percentile travel time. Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 48 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Figure 30: 90th Percentile Dispatch and Turnout Time by Station FDZ Figure 31: 90th Percentile Travel Time Performance by Station FDZ Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 49 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Reliability Factors Percentage of First Due Compliance The reliability of the distribution model is a factor of how oft able to respond to the call within the assigned demand zone. If at least one unit from the first due station is able to respond to a call, we consider the station is able to response to the call within the assigned demand zone. Utilizing the Fire Station Demand Zones (FDZ), analyses reveal that all stations except Millwood Station had reliability of 90% or above. We also only analyzed reliability of career units and only Frede reliability of 90% or above. Star Tannery had the lowest career unit reliability at 75.5. Figure 32: Percentage Reliability by Station FDZ Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 50 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Overlapped or Simultaneous Call Analysis Overlapped calls are defined as the rate at which another call was received for the same first due station while there were one or more ongoing calls in the same first due station. For example, if there is one call in station Stephens Citys zone, before the call was cleared another request in Stephens Citys zone occurred and those two calls would be captured as overlapped calls. Some studies also refer as simultaneous calls. Understanding the probability of overlapped or simultaneous calls occurs will help to determine the number of units to staffstation. In general, the larger the call volume a first due station has, it is more likely to have overlapped or simultaneous calls. The distribution of the demand throughout the day will impact th having overlapped or simultaneous calls. The duration of a call will also have major influences, since the longer time it takes to clear a request, the more likely to have an overlapped request. Station Stephens City had the highest probability of having overlapped calls at 42.5% since it has the highest demand at 2,216 requests in 2016, and the average durati Station Greenwood had the second highest probability of overlapped calls at 39.2%. Greenwood station has the second highest demand at 1,990 requests in 2016 and the aver Figure 33: Probability of Overlapped Calls Occur by Station FDZ Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 51 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Page 52 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Data Report February 2018 February 2018 GIS Analysis Frederick County Fire Rescue, Virginia Prepared by: FITCH & ASSOCIATES, LLC 2901 Williamsburg Terrace #G Platte City Missouri 64079 816.431.2600 www.fitchassoc.com City of City of Joliet, IL Page i © Fitch & Associates, LLC Draft GIS Report December2016 DRAFT GIS Analysis Frederick County, VA TABLE of CONTENTS ESTABLISHING BASELINE PERFORMANCE ___________________________________________________________ 3 Table 1: 90th Percentile Turnout and Travel Time of First Arriving Units by Program ___________________________ 3 Table 2: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time of F ____________________ 4 CNR ______________________________________________________________ 4 OMPARISON TO ATIONAL EFERENCES Table 3: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 8-Minute Travel Time _______________________________________ 5 Figure 1: Current Fire Station Bleed Maps for 8-Minute Travel Time ________________________________________ 6 VPA _________________________________________________________________ 7 ALIDATION OF LANNING NALYSIS IPO_________________________________________________________________ 7 NTERNAL ERFORMANCE BJECTIVES EVALUATION OF VARIOUS DISTRIBUTION MODELS __________________________________________________ 8 CSDP_______________________________________________________________ 8 URRENT TATION ISTRIBUTION LANS 10-Minute Travel Time ______________________________________________________________________ 8 Table 4: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 10-Minute Travel Time All Incidents __________________________ 8 Figure 2: Current Stations with an 10-Minute Travel Time at the 90 Percentile _______________________________ 9 th 12-Minute Travel Time _____________________________________________________________________ 10 Table 5: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 12-Minute Travel Time All Incidents _________________________ 10 Figure 3: Current Stations with an 12-Minute Travel Time at the 90 Percentile ______________________________ 11 th Table 6: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 13-Minute Travel Time All Incidents _________________________ 12 Figure 4: Current Stations with a 13-Minute Travel Time at the 90 Percentile _______________________________ 13 th DSMU/SR ________________________________________ 14 IFFERENTIATED ERVICE ODELS FOR RBAN UBURBAN AND URAL 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel___________________________________________ 14 Table 7: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time ______ 14 Figure 5: Travel Time Bleed Maps for 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Times ______________ 15 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel _________________________________________ 16 Table 8: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time _____ 16 Figure 6: Travel Time Bleed Maps for 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Times _____________ 17 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel - Frederick County Only _______________________ 18 Table 9: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time ______ 18 Figure 7: Travel Time Bleed Maps for 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Times ______________ 19 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel  Frederick Stations Only _____________________ 20 Table 10: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time ____ 20 Figure 8: Travel Time Bleed Maps for 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Times _____________ 21 OSDP _____________________________________________________________ 22 PTIMIZED TATION ISTRIBUTION LANS 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time ______________________________________ 22 Figure 9: Optimized Station Deployment Plan - 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time ______ 22 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time _____________________________________ 23 Figure 10: Optimized Station Deployment Plan - 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time ____ 24 12-Minute Travel Time _____________________________________________________________________ 25 Figure 11: Optimized Station Deployment Plan  12--Minute Travel Time ___________________________________ 25 GCCCD_____________________________________ 26 EOGRAPHIC OVERAGE WITHOUT ONSIDERATION FOR ALL ISTRIBUTION Engine/Ladder Coverage 2.5 Miles ___________________________________________________________ 26 Frederick County, VA Page i © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Figure 12: All Current Stations - ISO 2.5 Mile__________________________________________________________ 27 Figure 13: All Current Stations - ISO 5 Mile ____________________________________________________________ 28 EFFECTIVE RESPONSE FORCE MAPPING ___________________________________________________________ 29 Figure 14: 10-Minute ERF  All Current Stations ________________________________________________________ 30 Figure 15: 13-Minute ERF from All Current Stations _____________________________________________________ 31 Figure 16: 18-Minute ERF from All Current Stations _____________________________________________________ 32 DISTRIBUTION OF RISK ACROSS THE JURISDICTION _________________________________________________ 33 DDPA ________________________________________________________ 33 ISTRIBUTION OF EMAND BY ROGRAM REAS Figure 17: Heat Map for Fire Related Incidents ________________________________________________________ 33 Figure 18: Heat Map for EMS Related Incidents ________________________________________________________ 34 Figure 19: Heat Map for All Incidents ________________________________________________________________ 35 Figure 20: Urban and Rural Call Density Map with Current Statio ________________________________________ 36 L-TSMP __________________________________________________ 37 ONGERM USTAINABILITY OF THE ODELS RESENTED PG ___________________________________________________________________________ 38 ROJECTED ROWTH Figure 21: Projected Growth of 4.02% _______________________________________________________________ 38 PC____________________________________________________________________ 39 OPULATION HARACTERISTICS Figure 22: Median Age - 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ 39 Figure 23: Population Density by Census Block - 2016 ___________________________________________________ 40 Figure 24: Annual Population Change 2016-2021 _______________________________________________________ 41 Figure 25: Median Household Income -2016 __________________________________________________________ 42 Figure 26: Unemployment Rates -2016 _______________________________________________________________ 43 Frederick County, VA Page ii © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 ESTABLISHING BASELINE PERFORMANCE The first step in completing GIS planning analyses is to establiesired performance parameters. Measures of total response time can be significantly influenced ernal and external influences. For example, the dispatch time, defined as the time from pick up center to the dispatching of units, contributes to the customers overall response time experience, but may be outside of a Departments direct control. Another element in the total response time continuum is the turnout time, defined as the time from when the until they are actually responding. Turnout time can have a significant impact to the overall respon time for the customer and is generally considered under managements control. Understandably, turnout time may vary considerably depending on the staffing and notifications processes utilized by each department. However, the travel time, defined as the period from when the un arrival at the incident is a factor of the number of fire statioded on the road network, the existing road networks ability to navigate thd the availability of the units. Largely, travel time is the most stable variable to utilize in s response time performance. Therefore, these GIS planning analyses will focus on travel time capability as the unit of measure. The calendar year (CY) 2016 performance for travel time across programs is provided below. Overall, the travel time is 10.4 minutes or less for 90% of the incidents. Table 1: 90th Percentile Turnout and Travel Time of First Arriving Uni Dispatch and Travel Response Sample Program Turnout Time Time Time Size EMS7.310.1 16.1 7,519 Fire 7.511.7 17.6 1,088 Rescue 8.69.6 17.6 15 Hazmat 8.010.7 17.1 274 Total 7.3 10.416.4 8,896 More granular analyses recognize that variability exists within individual station performance. The 90th percentile performance for each agency is provided below. This analysis generally combined the most utilized apparatus from each station area to approximate the staffed performance. Frederick County, VA Page 3 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Table 2: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout and Travel Time of First Ar Dispatch and Turnout Travel Response Sample StationUnit Time Time Time Size Clear Brook A131/A132/E13 7.2 10.516.4697 Gainesboro A162/A161/E16 7.4 11.417.8256 Gore A141/A142/E147.9 13.219.3207 Greenwood A184/A183/A181/E18 7.0 8.314.11,431 Middletown A121/A122/RE12/ET12 7.3 11.9 18.1 541 Millwood Station A211/A212/RE21/E21 6.9 10.0 15.9 945 North Mountain A192/A191/W19 9.9 11.2 18.4 220 Reynolds Store A202/A201/E20 7.8 12.217.6177 Round HillA151/A152/RE15/E156.99.815.41,109 Star Tannery A171/E17 7.1 15.520.5127 Stephens City A111/A112/A113/E11 7.0 9.515.41,641 Total7.1 10.3 16.1 7,325 Comparison to National References There are two notable references for travel time available to th 12 Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 and the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI). th NFPA 1710 suggests a 4-minute travel time at the 90percentile for first due arrival of Basic Life Support (BLS) and Fire incidents and the CFAI recommends a 5 minute and 12 seconds travel time for first due arrival in an urban/suburban population density and 13 minutes travel time for rural populations. The arrival of an Advanced Life Support (ALS) unit is recommende-minutes travel time by NFPA 1710. It is important to note that the latest edition (9 th edition) of the CFAI guidelines have de-emphasized response time and only reference the legacy standards with a separately 3 provided companion document. The CFAI recommendations are more closely aligned with the deparments historical performance th as the aggregate performance is 10.3 minutes at the 90percentile. However, the department is not currently capable of meeting the more restrictive recommendation th the 90 percentile. Analyses were conducted to determine the capacity of the departments to meet NFPA 1710. With the current configuration of stations, the departments couldachieve approximately 84% coverage within 8 minutes with the inclusion of some of the Winchester stations. However, it would require 11 stations to meet 8-minutes for all urban responses. National Fire Protection Association. (2010). NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression 1 Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations. Boston, MA: National Fire Protection Association. CFAI. (2009). Fire & emergency service self-assessment manual, (8 ed.). Chantilly, Virginia: Author. (page 71) 2th CFAI. (2016). Fire & emergency service self-assessment manual, (9 ed.). Chantilly, Virginia: Author. 3th Frederick County, VA Page 4 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 When referring to the marginal utility analysis provided below, stations capability to cover risk (incidents) in relation to thple period (CY 16). The Station number is the current Fire Department fire station identifier. The station capture is the number of calls the station would capture within an 8-minute travel time. The total capture is the cumulative number of calls captured with the addition of each fire station. The percent capture is the total cumulative percentage of risk cover The goal would be to achieve at least 90 percent capture. Therefore, the station that contributed the most to the overall systems performance was Station 1 on the first row and would capture 27.01% of the risks within 8-minutes. Station 11 would cover an additional 18.18% of the risk bringing the cumulative total to 45.19% between Stations 1 and 11. In total, with 14 fixed fire stations, 84.42% of the incidents could be responded to within 8-minutes travel time. Results are provided as Table 3 and in drive time mapping format as Figure 1 below. Table 3: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 8-Minute Travel Time Rank Station Number Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 112,6222,62227.01% 2111,7644,38645.19% 3151,0495,43556.00% 4 135395,974 61.55% 5 214596,433 66.28% 6 182876,720 69.24% 7 122546,974 71.85% 8 162507,224 74.43% 9 192277,451 76.77% 10 141997,650 78.82% 11 201867,836 80.73% 12 41708,006 82.49% 13 171568,162 84.09% 14 5328,194 84.42% Frederick County, VA Page 5 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Figure 1: Current Fire Station Bleed Maps for 8-Minute Travel Time Frederick County, VA Page 6 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Validation of Planning Analysis The first step in this validation analysis is to utilize the historical performance to validate th analyses utilized by the GIS system. The historical performance demonstrated a 10.4 overall department capability from the existing fire stations at the 90 th percentile. The planning assessments estimated approximately 93.42% at 10-minutes travel time. Therefore, there is high degree of agreement between the planning tools and the actual historical p Internal Performance Objectives The Department does not currently utilize a uniform system of internal performance objectives. Therefore, in addition to the previous 8-minute travel time analysis, 10 and 12minute travel time plans were developed to understand and validate the current configuration for the aggregate response time performance. Frederick County, VA Page 7 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 EVALUATION OF VARIOUS DISTRIBUTION MODELS As previously discussed, these analyses utilized CY 2016 historical performance as the desired performance for system designs. Therefore, the 8-minute travel time will be utilized to most closely represent both current and future performance if service levels are maintained. The following additional analyses are utilized to compare and contrast the various potential distribution models. Current Station Distribution Plans 10-Minute Travel Time The analysis demonstrates that the current station configurationly 90% of the incidents within 10 minutes. The planning tools utilize average road speeds and current road networks that will more closely replicate the large fire apparat While it is understood that fire stations may be placed for a wi operational standpoint, area fire departments could achieve a 10-minute travel time performance for 91% of the incidents with a total of 9 fixed facilities. Table 4: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 10-Minute Travel Time  All Incidents RankStation Number Station Capture Total CapturePercent Capture 114,2364,23643.64% 2112,4206,65668.58% 3156177,27374.93% 413 3637,636 78.67% 520 3187,954 81.95% 614 2518,205 84.54% 719 2318,436 86.92% 821 2038,639 89.01% 917 1698,808 90.75% 1016 1208,928 91.98% 1112 1059,033 93.07% 124 229,055 93.29% 1318 129,067 93.42% Frederick County, VA Page 8 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 th Figure 2: Current Stations with an 10-Minute Travel Time at the 90 Percentile Frederick County, VA Page 9 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 12-Minute Travel Time The analysis demonstrates that the current station configuratione approximately 90% of the incidents within 12 minutes. The planning tools utilize average road speeds and current road networks that will more closely replicate the large fire apparat While it is understood that fire stations may be placed for a wie variety of options, from a purely operational standpoint, area fire departments could maintain a 12-minute travel time performance for 90% of the incidents with a total of 5 fixed facilities. Table 5: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 12-Minute Travel Time  All Incidents Rank Station Number Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1215,9945,99461.76% 2161,4027,39676.20% 3117548,15083.97% 419 3978,547 88.06% 513 2788,825 90.92% 614 1708,995 92.67% 720 1149,109 93.85% 815 969,205 94.84% 917 679,272 95.53% 1012 589,330 96.13% 1118 359,365 96.49% 124 179,382 96.66% Frederick County, VA Page 10 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 th Figure 3: Current Stations with an 12-Minute Travel Time at the 90 Percentile Frederick County, VA Page 11 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Similarly, we evaluated a 13-minute travel time plan. With the current configuration, agencies could maintain a 13-minute travel time to all incidents 90% of the time 4 fixed facilities. Table 6: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 13-Minute Travel Time  All Incidents Rank Station Number Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1216,5836,58367.82% 2161,1967,77980.15% 3117258,50487.62% 419 3988,902 91.72% 513 1659,067 93.42% 620 1599,226 95.05% 714 949,320 96.02% 817 729,392 96.76% 912 369,428 97.14% 1015 179,445 97.31% 114 19,446 97.32% Frederick County, VA Page 12 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 th Figure 4: Current Stations with a 13-Minute Travel Time at the 90 Percentile Frederick County, VA Page 13 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Differentiated Service Models for Urban/ Suburban and Rural 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel The 8-minute travel time modeling suggests that a 14-station configuration would achieve a travel time of 8-minutes or less to 84% of the incidents in the Development area. This scenario would require the commitment of three Winchester stations, 1, 4, and 5, respectively. A detailed and comprehensive discussion between Frederick County and Winchester would be needed to contemplate any significant collaboration as would be is scenario with the associated potential call volume. At the least, what this analy Winchesters stations are well located to serve the County areas in a controlled and responsible manner when needed. This scenario falls short of the urban/suburban response of 8-minutes at 90% but does utilize the stations already in the plan to capture nearly 97% of the incidents 13-minutes. Therefore, approximately 3.3% of the incidents in the rural areas would recr than 13-minutes. Table 7: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Rank Station Number Station CaptureTotal CapturePercent Capture 112,6222,62227.01% 2111,7644,38645.19% 3151,0495,43556.00% 4135395,97461.55% 5214596,43366.28% 6182876,72069.24% 7122546,97471.85% 8162507,22474.43% 9192277,45176.77% 10141997,65078.82% 11201867,83680.73% 124 170 8,006 82.49% 1317 156 8,162 84.09% 145 32 8,194 84.42% 1511 572 8,766 90.32% 1616 244 9,010 92.83% 1713 169 9,179 94.57% 1819 91 9,270 95.51% 1914 69 9,339 96.22% 205 47 9,386 96.70% Frederick County, VA Page 14 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Figure 5: Travel Time Bleed Maps for 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Times Frederick County, VA Page 15 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel The 10-minute travel time modeling suggests that a 9-station configuration would achieve a travel time of 10-minutes or less to 90.75% of the incidents in the Urban/Suburban areas and over 97% of the rural incidents in 13-minutes or less. Similar to the previous analysis, this assumes collaboration with the City of Winchester. Winchesters Station 1 would be the onl rural coverage and Station 16 is the only station that is needed for rural co already included in the requisite stations for the urban and sub Therefore, this configuration would require a 10-station deployment model to continue to meet 10- minutes urban/suburban and 13-minutes rural responses for greater than 90% of the incidents. model, 2.7% of the rural incidents would have a response time greater than 13 minutes. Table 8: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Rank Station Number Station CaptureTotal CapturePercent Capture 114,2364,23643.64% 2112,4206,65668.58% 3156177,27374.93% 4133637,63678.67% 5203187,95481.95% 6142518,20584.54% 7192318,43686.92% 821 203 8,639 89.01% 917 169 8,808 90.75% 1016 227 9,035 93.09% 1111 223 9,258 95.38% 1213 68 9,326 96.08% 1312 36 9,362 96.46% 1420 31 9,393 96.78% 1519 25 9,418 97.03% 1614 10 9,428 97.14% 1715 9 9,437 97.23% 1817 7 9,444 97.30% 1921 2 9,446 97.32% 2012 1 9,447 97.33% Frederick County, VA Page 16 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Figure 6: Travel Time Bleed Maps for 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Times Frederick County, VA Page 17 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel - Frederick County Only The 8-minute travel time modeling suggests that an 11-station configuration would achieve a travel time of 8-minutes or less to approximately 80% of the incidents in the urban/suburban areas without utilizing the City of Winchester. While it is less efficient than with utilizing Winchester statio accounts for approximately 4% loss of coverage. This scenario falls short of the urban/suburban response of 8-minutes at 90% and continues to require all 11 current fire station locations. This model would provide for greater than 97% co of rural incidents within 13-minutes or less. Therefore, approximately 2.7% of the incidents in the rural areas would receive service longer than 13-minutes. Table 9: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Rank Station Number Station CaptureTotal CapturePercent Capture 1181,9531,95320.12% 2111,7643,71738.30% 3151,3155,03251.84% 4217255,75759.31% 5137206,47766.73% 6122546,73169.35% 7162506,98171.92% 8192277,20874.26% 9141997,40776.31% 10201867,59378.23% 11171567,74979.84% 1221 942 8,691 89.54% 1311 235 8,926 91.96% 1416 210 9,136 94.13% 1519 91 9,227 95.06% 1613 86 9,313 95.95% 1714 69 9,382 96.66% 1820 25 9,407 96.92% 1912 16 9,423 97.08% 2015 14 9,437 97.23% 2117 9 9,446 97.32% Frederick County, VA Page 18 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Figure 7: Travel Time Bleed Maps for 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Times Frederick County, VA Page 19 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel  Frederick Stations Only The 10-minute travel time modeling suggests that a 9-station configuration would achieve a travel time of 10-minutes or less to 90.87% of the incidents in the Urban/Suburban areas and approximately 97% of the rural incidents in 13-minutes or less. Similar to the previous analysis, Station 18 would be the only station that does not provide any rural coverage and no additional stations are needed for rural coverage that were not already included in the requisite stations for the urban and areas. Therefore, this configuration would require a 9-station deployment model to continue to meet 10- minutes urban/suburban and 13-minutes rural responses for greater than 90% of the incidents. This model requires one less station than if the City of Winchester provided coverage. In this model, 3.4% of the rural incidents would have a response time greater than 13 m Table 10: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Rank Station Number Station CaptureTotal CapturePercent Capture 1213,6583,65837.69% 2111,6945,35255.14% 3151,5356,88770.96% 4135607,44776.73% 5184047,85180.89% 6203188,16984.16% 7142518,42086.75% 819 231 8,651 89.13% 917 169 8,820 90.87% 1011 223 9,043 93.17% 1120 163 9,206 94.85% 1215 85 9,291 95.72% 1313 56 9,347 96.30% 1417 15 9,362 96.46% 1514 11 9,373 96.57% 1619 6 9,379 96.63% 1721 2 9,381 96.65% Frederick County, VA Page 20 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Figure 8: Travel Time Bleed Maps for 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Times Frederick County, VA Page 21 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Optimized Station Distribution Plans 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Analyses were completed to develop an optimized station distribun 8-minute travel time as well. This evaluation suggests, that an optimized 11-station model can provide for 90.6% effectiveness covering all incidents within 8-minutes or less travel time in the urban/suburban areas and 96.96% in 13-minutes in the rural areas. In comparison, the current station distribution would require more than 14 stations. Alternatively, the current 11-station configuration can achieve 84% at 8-minutes. A graphic illustration is presented below. Figure 9: Optimized Station Deployment Plan - 8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Frederick County, VA Page 22 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Analyses were completed to develop an optimized station distribution model for a 10-minute travel time as well. This evaluation suggests, that an optimized 7-station model can provide for greater than 90% effectiveness covering all incidents within 10-minutes or less travel time for urban/suburban areas and 96.57% within 13-minutes in the rural areas. In comparison, the current station configuration would require 9 stations for commensurate service. A graphic illustration is presented below. Frederick County, VA Page 23 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Figure 10: Optimized Station Deployment Plan - 10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Frederick County, VA Page 24 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 12-Minute Travel Time Analyses were completed to develop an optimized station distribution model for a 12-minute travel time. This evaluation suggests, that an optimized 4-station model can provide for greater than 90% effectiveness covering all incidents within 12-minutes. A graphic illustration is presented below. When referring to the figure below, it is evident that the optimized station locations would require 4- fixed facilities to meet the geographic limitations within the response jurisdiction. For reference, the current configuration would require a total of 5-fixed facilities to meet 90% of the incidents within the desired performance window. Figure 11: Optimized Station Deployment Plan  12--Minute Travel Time Frederick County, VA Page 25 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Geographic Coverage without Consideration for Call Distribution While there are multiple deployment strategies that may be adoptclear policy positions emerge in communities. First, position stations that are best prepared to meet the communitys historical distribution of calls or demand for services. The advantage to this approach is that it is a more efficient model to address meeting 90% of the risk within the desired performance. This is a very stable outlook for communities that are established and are growing in density or in-fill rather than through significant annexations or urban growth. A second strategy is to provide station response coverage purely on a geographic lens without any consideration for how calls are distributed throughout the community. In addition, this analysis utilized distance without consideration to the relative impendenobustness of the road network. For example, when time is the unit of measure, a station could trave a highway then through a school zone but this approach caps the regardless of available travel speeds. This strategy more closely follows the recommendations of the Insurance Services Office (ISO). Therefore, the following analyses examine the current coverage areas through the lens of ISO utilizing 1.5-mile engine, 2.5-mile truck polygons, and 5-mile station locations, respectively. However, analyses at the 2.5-mile polygon demonstrated that the distances between stations would far exceed the capability to cover within-miles. Engine/Ladder Coverage 2.5 Miles When examining the 2.5-mile polygons for truck coverage, the Department does not have sufficient coverage based on the potential geographic coverage only and without consideration for the distribution of risk or built-upon areas. ISO will afford additional points for having either a ladder/tower truck or quint at more than 50% of the stations. Results are provided below. Frederick County, VA Page 26 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Figure 12: All Current Stations - ISO 2.5 Mile Frederick County, VA Page 27 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Finally, analyses of the ISO 5-Mile distance between stations and built-upon property, suggests that only Star Tannery Station 17 in the southwestern end is outside of the 5-road miles. Mapping is provided below. Figure 13: All Current Stations - ISO 5 Mile Frederick County, VA Page 28 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 EFFECTIVE RESPONSE FORCE MAPPING Similar to previous discussion, there are two prevailing recommens for the time to assemble an effective response force for structure fires. First, NFPA 1710 suggests that the Effective Response Force (ERF) should arrive in eight (8) minutes travel time or less in the urban areas. Second, the CFAI provides a baseline travel time performance objective of 10 minutes and 24 seconds 90 or less in the urban areas. Additionally, the CFAI allows for 13-minutes in the suburban areas and 18 minutes in the rural areas. Therefore, both 10, 13, and 18-minute travel times were created to demonstrate the relative coverage throughout the jurisdiction. Overall, the ERF coverage is more robust near the municipal centers where the greatest historical demand exists. The rural areas of the county are more challenged since they do not benefit from concentric response zones. Frederick County, VA Page 29 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Figure 14: 10-Minute ERF  All Current Stations Frederick County, VA Page 30 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Figure 15: 13-Minute ERF from All Current Stations Frederick County, VA Page 31 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Figure 16: 18-Minute ERF from All Current Stations Frederick County, VA Page 32 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 DISTRIBUTION OF RISK ACROSS THE JURISDICTION Distribution of Demand by Program Areas Heat maps were created to identify the concentration of the hist program area. Therefore, the following mapping will present the relative concentration of service demands by fire and EMS, respectively. The Blue areas have the least demand and the dark red areas have the highest concentration of demand. When reviewing the heat maps, it is clear that the greatest relative density of service demands is generally located near Stations 11, 21, and 18 and around the perimeter of the City of Winchester. However, the rather infrequent experience of the fire demands le profile across the County. Figure 17: Heat Map for Fire Related Incidents Frederick County, VA Page 33 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 The distribution of EMS calls follow a similar pattern as the fir distribution may be more concentrated than with the fire incidents. Therefore, the concentration of incidents is much more clearly defined in and around Stations 11, 21, 18, and 15 around the of Winchester. Since the majority of calls are for EMS incident The mapping output is provided below. Figure 18: Heat Map for EMS Related Incidents Frederick County, VA Page 34 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Figure 19: Heat Map for All Incidents Frederick County, VA Page 35 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Finally, we calculate call density based on the relative concent approximately 0.5-mile geographic areas as well as the adjacent 0.5-mile areas. The results demonstrate an urban and rural designation based on call densitybased on population. The red areas are designated as urban service areas and the green areas are designated as rural service areas. Any area that is not colored has less than one call every six mo- mile area and the adjacent areas. Figure 20: Urban and Rural Call Density Map with Current Stations Frederick County, VA Page 36 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Long-Term Sustainability of the Models Presented It is important to understand that the distribution models are r limitations of the jurisdiction and the historical demand for services. Therefore, the number of stations is descriptive of the number of fixed facilities required from which to deploy resources. These analyses do not specifically describe the concentration of station facility to adequately handle the demand for services. For example, some stations may require two or more units in order to handle the demand for services. With respect to the long-term sustainability of the deployment models presented here, the will remain accurate for as long as the jurisdictions overall coverage area has not expanded. In other words, since the Countys square mileage will remain constant, then the deployment strategy will be sustainable indefinitely with respect to the coverage area. As other variables such as population density or changes in socioeconomic status change over time, there may be a concentration of resources necessary to meet the growing demand , but not additional stations. The most prominent reason that the geographic distribution modeluld need to be updated is for changes in traffic impedance that significantly limit the historical average travel speed. Monitoring travel time performance, system reliability, and call feedback for changes in the environment that could impact the distribution model. Frederick County, VA Page 37 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Projected Growth The available data set was restricted to two years with an annualized growth of approximately 4%. The following straight-line projection should be used with caution due to the variability across years. Therefore, data must be reviewed annually to ensure timely updates to projections with the goal of utilizing at least 5-years of continuous data. Figure 21: Projected Growth of 4.02% Projected Growth 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025 Low 2.8%High 5.1%Actual - 4% Assuming that future demands will be reasonably distributed across the various stations in the system, the system will require a redistribution of workload and ultimately reinves to meet the growing demand. While the system should be evaluated continuously for performance and desired outcomes, the department should specifically re-evaluate workload and performance indicators for every 1,000-call increase to ensure system stability. Frederick County, VA Page 38 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Population Characteristics Generally, older populations and very young populations are considered to be most vulnerable to the frequency and incidents of fire. In addition, older populations historically utilize EMS services with greater frequency. It is important to understand, what field crews often recognize the distribution of population risks are not uniform across the jurisdiction. According to these data, overall the median age is less than 52. The median age is provided below. Figure 22: Median Age - 2016 Frederick County, VA Page 39 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 The population density in the County is largely of a rural density with some urban/suburban areas near the municipal boundaries. Figure 23: Population Density by Census Block - 2016 Frederick County, VA Page 40 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 However, as a growing community, the population change is increasing at a moderate rate. The greatest growth areas are to the northwest, northeast, and south are no reductions in population projected. Figure 24: Annual Population Change 2016-2021 Frederick County, VA Page 41 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Population alone is not the sole variable that influences the demand for ser and demographic factors have greater influence over demand. The median household income was evaluated to determine the degree to which the community had undpopulations. Figure 25: Median Household Income -2016 Frederick County, VA Page 42 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Finally, unemployment rates were evaluated across the county. Figure 26: Unemployment Rates -2016 Frederick County, VA Page 43 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018 Frederick County, VA Page 44 © Fitch & Associates, LLC GIS Report February 2018