The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/26/2013 04 Trial Fire Response Protocal � S BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. t For Meeting of: February 26, 2013 ITEM TITLE: Fire Response Protocal Trial SUBMITTED BY: Dave Willson, Fire Chief CONTACT Dave Willson, 575 -6165 PERSON /TELEPHONE: SUMMARY EXPLANATION: See attached memorandum. Resolution Ordinance Other (specify) Contract: Mail to: Contract Term: Amount: Expiration Date: Insurance Required? No Funding Phone: Source: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: City Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: Click to download ❑ memo Administration Fire Suppiession Fire Investigation 44 * Iof & Education ' 401 North Front Street, Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-6060 Training Fax (509) 576-6356 Communications MEMORANDUM February 4, 2013 TO: Dave WiUson, Fire Chef FROM: Bob Stewart, Deputy Fire Chef SUBJECT: Deployment Model Late in 2012, concern over the periodic brown-out of our 6 apparatus warranted the reassessment of our deployment model to identify and implement efficiencies. The two sources used as a measuring tool for this reassessment were deployment models from comparable agencies identified through the collective bargaining process and a study ofYFD'a own response data. B&ow for your review are the findings from the assessment and informaflon spedfic to each. Comparable Agencies The following shows the number of personne deployed as an average from the 7 comparable agencies surveyed to 1 alarm structure fires: Incident Type Average personnel Yakima personnel Possible Structure Fire - Residential 10.5 Possible Structure Fire - Commercial 11.0 ommis 16 Confirmed Structure Fire - Residential Confirmed Structure Fire - Commercial *Depictsadditiona|personne|dep|oynnenttocombatconfirnoedor"wnrking''fines^ Though comparing an agency with another is a valuable tool in the identification of industry trending, emulation of a like-sized agency's model in wholesale fashion is ill-advised due to distinct differences in the make-up of a city/agency and its corresponding needs. ¥FD Deployment Statistics Analysis of YFD's own statistical data provides a more reliable indicator in which to perform periodic adjustments to resource deployment in order to meet current needs and goals. Using 2012 as the evaluation period, the foliowing tools were employed for this analysis: • Spillman CAD - reveals YKFD was dispatched to 152 (reported) structure fires • Emergency Reporting System (ERS) - reveals 70 (actual) or "working" structure fires The numbers obtained through those queries demonstrate that of 152 1 alarm structure fire dispatches, 54Y6 of those responses resulted in either false alarms, or situations that were effectively mitigated by one or two of the first-arriving units. Conclusion This reassessment exercise has clearly illustrated the opportunity for implementation of changes within YFD's current deployment model with the purpose of increasing efficiency. Of principal focus are the numbers of fire apparatus that are in some cases being deployed unnecessarily. However, any alteration of the model must take into consideration checks and balances that prevent the occurrence of under- deployment. Major benefits of reduced deployment to (unconfirmed) structure fires: • The city will not become unnecessarily stripped of resources — leaving all-hazard response resources available in the event of concurrent incidents • AweU'executed reduction in fire apparatus response translates directly to a reduction in risk for motorists and pedestrians who share the road • Reducing the number of responding fire apparatus will yield a corresponding reduction in fuel, repair and maintenance costs Examples that will (continue) to trigger a full response versus a reduced response: • 911/Dispatch receives multiple reports • 911/Dispatch receives a report of active fire within the structure • Smoke column and/or fire visible to responders • Law Enforcement nearby confirming smoke/flames visible Recommendation If you concur, | will make the changes identified below to our deployment model with an implementation date of March 1, 2013 (to address necessary notification/education): • Full first-alarm assignment based upon the bullet point triggers listed above (current policy) o 4 Engines o 1 Ladder Truck o 1 Battalion Chief • Reduced first-alarm assignment based upon the premise of a "possible" structure fire o 2 Engines o 1 Ladder Truck o 1 Battalion Chief Fire Department Deployment Model Comparison 2012 I ' Possible Structure Possible Structure 1 Staffing - Staffing - !Confirmed Structure Fire Confirmed Structure Staffing - Staffing - I Fire - Fire - Agency Rescue, Medic, , Command - Residential/Totof Fire - Commercial/Total Engine Truck Residental/Total Commercial/Total . Aid Car Unit Personnel Personnel , Personnel Personnel 4 Engines, 1 Truck, 4 Engines, 1 Truck, 3 Engines, 1 Medic, 3 Engines, 1 Medic, Bellingham 3 3 2 1 2 Medics, 2 Medics, 1 Command/12 1 Command/12 1 Command/ 20 1 Command/ 20 3 Engines, 1 Truck, 3 Engines, 1 Truck, 3 Engines, 1 Truck, 3 Engines, 1 Truck, i I Federal Way 3 3 2 1 1 Aid Car, 1 1 Aid Car, 1 Aid Car, 1 Aid Car, t 1 Command/15 / 1 Command/15 1 Command/15 1 Command/15 t 5 Engines, 2 Engines, 2 Engines, 5 Engines, 1 Medic, Kennewick 3 3 2 1 2 Trucks, 1 Medic, 1 Command/7 1 Command/7 1 Command/18 1 Command/24 , * 4 Engines, 1 Truck, 4 Engines, 1 Truck, Kent 3 3 2 1 2 Engines, 2 Engines, 1 Medic, 1 Medic, 1 Command/7 1 Command/7 2 Command, 2 Command, 1 Ingvestigator/20 1 ingvestigator/20 I ; 4 Engines, 1 Engine, 1 Truck, 1 Engine, 1 Truck, 4 Engines, 1 Truck, First-Due 4, First-Due 4, / 2 Trucks, Pasco 2 1 1 Medic, 1 Medic, 2 Medics, others 2 others 2 i 3 Medics, 1 Command/9 1 Command/9 1 Command/ 18+! 1 Command/25+i- 5 Engines, 2 Engines, 2 Engines, 5 Engines, 1 Medic, Richland 1 3 3 2 1 2 Trucks, 1 Medic, 1 Command/7 1 Command/7 1 Command/18 1 Command/24 3 Engines, 1 Truck, 4 Engines, 1 Truck, 3 Engines, 1 Truck, 4 Engines, 1 Truck, 1 West Pierce 3 3 2 1 2 Medics, 2 Medics, 2 Medics, 2 Medics, 1 Command/17 1 Command/20 1 Command/17 1 Command/20 I I 1 1 4 Engines, 1 Truck, 4 Engines, :Truck, 4 Engines, 1 Truck, 4 Eng nes, 1 Truck, Yakima 3 i 3 2 I 1 Commard/16 = 1 Corrarlaid/16 1 Command1/6 1 Command//6 ' = = STRUCTURE FIRE MATRIX CITY P #FF FF /1000 ST 1 Bellevue 122363 247 2.019 IIMMIIIIIIINIIIMI Everett , 190 1.844 7 + B.C. 103 019 1 0 i V 109 165 1.591 6 + B.C. S *okane Vl 125, Renton 100,000 163 1.630 8 + B.C. Bailin. ham 80,1}65 99 5 + B.C. S/ (,)OCS 5 s 13.x' Valle Fire 79,222 86 1.086 111111 1111111 M sville 61,000 85 1.393 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINI ��Yu4�nu�rll�i IVII i5�� 73 ,91"7 78 1.055 8 B.C. + MEDICAL CALL MATRIX City ALS BLS 2 FD paramedics 3 EMT's on engine Bellevue 3 EMT's on engine Private ambulance transport FD tr s *ores Everett 2 FD paramedics 3 FD EMT's on engine 3 EMT's on engine 2 FD EMT's on FD aid FD transports FD transports when aid car is staffed. When aid car is not staffed, private ambulance transtorts. Kent 3 FD EMT's on all medical calls S. King 3 FD EMT's on all calls Co. medics also on all ALS calls, and Private ambulance company transport for all ALS calls. transports non ALS calls. FD transports all Kent employees at no char ei person EMT Spokane Vly Closest 3 person EMT Closest 3 p 3 person medic apparatus Private ambulance if needed for AMR ,rovid s all trans #tart. trans #art. Renton IIOIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIMIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIII Bellingham 3 FD EMT's on engine 3 FD EMT's on engine /aid car FD paramedic transport ambulance. Paramedic ambulance if severe BLS calls. FD does all °$ so tit ALS & BLS N �t. i ma C lo 2 '� l `3 � vas i:3 °ppts 202s Valley Fire Closest 2/ 3 EMT's on FD apparatus Closest 2/ 3 EMT's on FD apparatus County paramedic Private ambulance transports FD does not trans #ort Marysville 2 FD paramedics 2 FD EMT's 2 FD EMT's. FD transports FD trans #o .... "` 2 person FD Kennewick 2 person FD paramedic paramedic on apparatus P P 2 EMT's on FD apparatus FD trans. orts