Lewiston City Council Agenda for December 15, 2020

LEWISTON CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DECEMBER 15, 2020

SESSION WILL BE CONDUCTED REMOTELY AND MEMBERS WILL ONLY PARTICIPATE ELECTRONICALLY. THE MEETING CAN BE VIEWED ONLINE AT

https://www.lewistonmaine.gov/2020cc

Public Comment on any item appearing on the agenda may be sent to [email protected] prior to or during the meeting, and all comments received will be forwarded to the City Council. Members of the public who do not have internet access and who would like to access the meeting by phone may contact (207) 513-3021 for the access code before 5pm on the day of the meeting.

6:00 p.m. Workshop A. Presentation of Fire Operational & Administrative Analysis Final Report

7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting

Update on City Actions Regarding COVID-19 Pandemic Situation

Acceptance of the minutes of the December 1, 2020 meeting.

Public Comment period – Any member of the public may make comments regarding issues pertaining to Lewiston City Government (3 minutes per speaker; maximum time for all comments is 15 minutes)

ALL ROLL CALL VOTES FOR THIS MEETING WILL BEGIN WITH THE COUNCILOR OF WARD 2.

REGULAR BUSINESS:

1. Public Hearing on the renewal application for a Special Amusement Permit for Live entertainment for Cowbell Grill & Tap, 49 Lisbon Street. 2. Public Hearing and Final Passage to amend the Land Use Code and Map to amend the existing conditional zoning of Neighborhood Conservation “B” (NCB) at 299 River Road, by increasing the allowable office space from 5,000 sf. to 25,000 sf. 3. Amendment to the Policy Manual regarding Personnel Policies and Earned Leave Time. 4. Resolve, Authorizing reallocation of $16,485 from the Library Carpeting Replacement Project to the Library Roof Restoration Project. 5. Order, Taking Possession of the Following Properties and Authorizing that they Be Offered for Sale Through the Competitive Bid Process: 8 Ann Street, 35 Beechwood Avenue, 71 Brigham Street, 1 Carver Street, 9 Ceres Avenue, 1 James Avenue, 68 Jones Avenue, 47 Payne Street, and 120 Prospect Avenue. 6. Authorization to accept transfer of forfeiture funds. 7. Reports and Updates 8. Any other City Business Councilors or others may have relating to Lewiston City Government. 9. Executive Session to discuss labor negotiations regarding the International Association of Firefighters, Local 785.

City of Lewiston is an EOE. For more information, please visit our website @ www.lewistonmaine.gov and click on the Non-Discrimination Policy

LEWISTON CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2020 6:00PM

A. Fire Department Review

The City contracted with the Center for Public Safety Management (CPSM) to conduct an operational and administrative analysis of the Lewiston Fire Department. A representative from CPSM will present the report findings and recommendations.

1 C L L , T N E M E G A N A M Y T E F A S C I L B U P R O F R E T N E C FIRE OPERATIONAL & ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYSIS LEWISTON, MAINE Final Report

CENTER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY MANAGEMENT, LLC 475 K STREET NW, STE 702 • WASHINGTON, DC 20001 WWW.CPSM.US • 716-969-1360

Exclusive Provider of Public Safety Technical Services for International City/County Management Association

THE ASSOCIATION & THE COMPANY

The International City/County Management Association is a 103-year-old, nonprofit professional association of local government administrators and managers, with approximately 13,000 members located in 32 countries.

Since its inception in 1914, ICMA has been dedicated to assisting local governments and their managers in providing services to its citizens in an efficient and effective manner. ICMA advances the knowledge of local government best practices with its website (www.icma.org), publications, research, professional development, and membership. The ICMA Center for Public Safety Management (ICMA/CPSM) was launched by ICMA to provide support to local governments in the areas of police, fire, and emergency medical services.

ICMA also represents local governments at the federal level and has been involved in numerous projects with the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security.

In 2014, as part of a restructuring at ICMA, the Center for Public Safety Management (CPSM) was spun out as a separate company. It is now the exclusive provider of public safety technical assistance for ICMA. CPSM provides training and research for the Association’s members and represents ICMA in its dealings with the federal government and other public safety professional associations such as CALEA, PERF, IACP, IFCA, IPMA-HR, DOJ, BJA, COPS, NFPA, and others.

The Center for Public Safety Management, LLC, maintains the same team of individuals performing the same level of service as when it was a component of ICMA. CPSM’s local government technical assistance experience includes workload and deployment analysis using our unique methodology and subject matter experts to examine department organizational structure and culture, identify workload and staffing needs, and align department operations with industry best practices. We have conducted more 315 such studies in 42 states and provinces and 224 communities ranging in population from 8,000 (Boone, Iowa) to 800,000 (Indianapolis, Ind.).

Thomas Wieczorek is the Director of the Center for Public Safety Management. Leonard Matarese serves as the Director of Research & Program Development. Dr. Dov Chelst is the Director of Quantitative Analysis.

CENTER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROJECT CONTRIBUTORS

Thomas J. Wieczorek, Director Leonard A. Matarese, Director, Research & Project Development Dov Chelst, Ph.D. Director of Quantitative Analysis Mark Piland, Senior Manager Fire and EMS Leah Balter, Data Analyst Dennis Kouba, Senior Editor

CONTENTS

Tables ...... v Figures ...... vi Section 1. Executive Summary ...... 1 Recommendations ...... 3 Section 2. Scope of Project ...... 9 Section 3. Organization and Management ...... 10 The Community It Serves ...... 10 Economic Diversification and Renaissance ...... 12 Somali and Bantu Immigration ...... 12 2010 Census ...... 13 Lewiston Fire Department Overview ...... 14 Staffing and Deployment...... 19 Fire Station Facilities ...... 24 Overview of Stations ...... 25 The Modern Fire Service ...... 30 Today’s Fire Chief ...... 30 Today’s Fire Service ...... 31 Accreditation and its View of the Modern Fire Department ...... 32 Moving Lewiston to a High-Performance Organization ...... 34 Apparatus and Fleet Management...... 36 Capital Equipment ...... 39 COVID-19...... 40 Section 4. Analysis of Planning Approaches ...... 43 Fire Risk Analysis...... 43 Hazard Analysis and Community Risk Assessment ...... 44 Hazardous Materials Response ...... 48 Target Hazards and Fire Preplanning ...... 49 Section 5. Operational Response Approaches ...... 52 Lewiston Response Protocols ...... 53 Fire Response ...... 53 Integrated Risk Management ...... 58 EMS Response and Transport ...... 59 Unit Productivity (Unit Hour Utilization) ...... 65 Implementation of EMS Squads ...... 66 Medical Supplies ...... 67

iii

Mutual Aid/Automatic Response ...... 69 Workload Analysis ...... 70 Section 6. Response Time Analysis ...... 74 Measuring Response Times ...... 75 Lewiston Response Times ...... 76 Section 7. Performance Measurement ...... 92 Key Performance Indicators for EMS ...... 95 Section 8. Essential Resources ...... 97 Fire Prevention and Code Enforcement ...... 97 ISO Rating ...... 99 Education and Training Programs ...... 101 Emergency Communications Center (911) ...... 103 Section 9. Data Analysis ...... 104 Methodology ...... 104 Aggregate Call Totals and Runs ...... 105 Calls by Type...... 105 Calls by Type and Duration ...... 108 Average Calls per Day and per Hour ...... 109 Units Arriving to Calls ...... 111 Workload: Runs and Total Time Spent ...... 114 Runs and Deployed Time – All Units ...... 114 Workload by Unit ...... 118 Analysis of Busiest Hours ...... 121 Response Time ...... 123 Response Time by Type of Call ...... 123 Response Time by Hour ...... 127 Response Time Distribution ...... 129 Attachment I: Actions Taken Analysis ...... 132 Attachment II: Administrative and Fire Inspector Workload ...... 133 Attachment III: Fire Loss ...... 134

TABLES

TABLE 3-1. Impact of Kelly Days on Various Shift Configurations ...... 15 TABLE 3-2: Call Types During Period Studied ...... 17 TABLE 3-3: LFD Fire Stations, Response Units, and Assigned Personnel ...... 20 TABLE 3-4: Program Assignment Duties ...... 21 TABLE 3-5: Fire Pumper Life Expectancy by Type of Jurisdiction ...... 39 Table 5-1. Number of Units Assigned ...... 54 TABLE 5-2: Calls by Type and Time Deployed ...... 55 TABLE 5-3: Content and Property Loss – Structure and Outside Fires ...... 58 TABLE 5-4: Total Fire Loss Above and Below $20,000 ...... 58 TABLE 5-5: Fire Apparatus-Small Vehicle Maintenance/Response Cost Comparison ...... 66 TABLE 5-6: Call Workload by Unit ...... 71 TABLE 5-7: Annual Runs and Deployed Time by Call Type...... 71 TABLE 5-8: Station Availability to Respond to Calls ...... 72 TABLE 5-9: Top 10 Hours with the Most Calls Received ...... 73 TABLE 6-1: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type ...... 77 TABLE 6-2: Lewiston 90th Percentile Response Times ...... 77 TABLE 7-1: The Five GASB Performance Indicators ...... 93 TABLE 9-1: Call Types ...... 105 TABLE 9-2: Calls by Type and Duration ...... 108 TABLE 9-3: Calls by Call Type and Number of Units Arriving ...... 111 TABLE 9-4: Annual Runs and Deployed Time by Run Type ...... 114 TABLE 9-5: Average Deployed Minutes by Hour of Day ...... 116 TABLE 9-6: Call Workload by Unit ...... 118 TABLE 9-7: Total Annual Runs by Run Type and Unit ...... 119 TABLE 9-8: Daily Average Deployed Minutes by Run Type and Unit ...... 119 TABLE 9-9: Frequency Distribution of the Number of Calls ...... 121 TABLE 9-10: Frequency of Overlapping Calls ...... 121 TABLE 9-11: Station Availability to Respond to Calls ...... 121 TABLE 9-12: Top 10 Hours with the Most Calls Received ...... 122 TABLE 9-13: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type ...... 124 TABLE 9-14: 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type ...... 125 TABLE 9-15: Average and 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Hour of Day, in Minutes ...... 127 TABLE 9-16: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time – First Arriving Unit – EMS ...... 130 TABLE 9-17: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time – First Arriving Unit – Outside and Structure Fires ...... 131 TABLE 9-18: Actions Taken Analysis for Structure and Outside Fire Calls ...... 132 TABLE 9-19: Workload of Administrative Units ...... 133 TABLE 9-20: Content and Property Loss – Structure and Outside Fires ...... 134 TABLE 9-21: Total Fire Loss Above and Below $20,000 ...... 134

FIGURES

FIGURE 3-1: City of Lewiston Table of Organization ...... 14 FIGURE 3-2: Current Lewiston Fire Department Table of Organization ...... 18 FIGURE 3-3: Lewiston Fire Department Proposed Table of Organization ...... 22 FIGURE 3-4: City of Lewiston Fire Department Station Locations ...... 27 FIGURE 4-1: Community Risk Matrix ...... 45 FIGURE 5-1: Low-Risk Response–Exterior Fire Attack ...... 52 FIGURE 5-2: Moderate Risk Response–Interior Fire Attack ...... 53 FIGURE 5-3: Location of Calls for Service – Fires ...... 56 FIGURE 5-4: Response Priority Matrix ...... 61 FIGURE 5-5: IAED Chest Pain Protocol ...... 62 FIGURE 6-1: Fire Propagation Curve ...... 75 FIGURE 6-2: Lewiston Station Locations and 240-seconds Travel Projection ...... 79 FIGURE 6-3: Lewiston Station Locations and 480-seconds Travel Projection ...... 80 FIGURE 6-4: Lewiston Station Locations and Composite Travel Projection ...... 81 FIGURE 6-5: LFD Fire Runs ...... 83 FIGURE 6-6: Fire Call Density in Lewiston ...... 84 FIGURE 6-7: Fire Call Density by Grid ...... 85 FIGURE 6-8: LFD EMS Runs ...... 86 FIGURE 6-9: EMS Call Density in Lewiston...... 87 FIGURE 6-10: EMS Call Density by Grid ...... 88 FIGURE 6-11: LFD Other Runs ...... 89 FIGURE 6-12: Other Runs Density in Lewiston ...... 90 FIGURE 6-13: Other Runs Density by Grid ...... 91 FIGURE 7-1: ESO EMS Index Example ...... 96 FIGURE 8-1: National Public Protection Classification Totals ...... 99 FIGURE 8-2: Maine National Public Protection Classification Totals ...... 100 FIGURE 9-1: EMS Calls by Type ...... 106 FIGURE 9-2: Fire Calls by Type ...... 106 FIGURE 9-3: Average Calls per Day, by Month ...... 109 FIGURE 9-4: Calls by Hour of Day...... 110 FIGURE 9-5: Calls by Number of Arriving Units – EMS ...... 112 FIGURE 9-6: Calls by Number of Units Arriving – Fire ...... 112 FIGURE 9-7: Average Deployed Minutes by Hour of Day ...... 117 FIGURE 9-8: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type – EMS ...... 124 FIGURE 9-9: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type – Fire ...... 125 FIGURE 9-10: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Hour of Day ...... 128 FIGURE 9-11: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time – First Arriving Unit – EMS ...... 129 FIGURE 9-12: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time – First Arriving Unit – Outside and Structure Fires ...... 130

SECTION 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Center for Public Safety Management, LLC (CPSM) was retained by the City of Lewiston to conduct an Operational and Administrative Analysis for its fire department, including a detailed review of department operations, its interaction with United Ambulance, workload, staffing, fire stations, fire apparatus, and deployment practices. This analysis includes a thorough review of the organization structure, training, performance measures, prevention activities, and interactions with mutual aid and regional partners. Specifically, CPSM was tasked with providing recommendations and alternatives regarding fire department operations, staffing levels, and alternative modes of operation referencing both the current service demand and options that can position the department to best manage the community’s anticipated growth.

During the study, CPSM analyzed performance data provided by the Lewiston Fire Department (LFD) and examined firsthand the department’s operations. Fire departments tend to deploy resources utilizing traditional approaches, which are rarely reviewed. To begin the review, project staff asked for certain documents, data, and information. The project staff used this information/data to familiarize themselves with the department’s structure, assets, and operations. The provided information was supplemented with information collected during an on-site visit to observe the performance of the department and to compare that performance to national benchmarks. CPSM will typically utilize benchmarks that have been developed by organizations such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Center for Public Safety Excellence, Inc. (CPSE), the ICMA Center for Performance Measurement, as well as others.

Project staff conducted a site visit on January 31- February 5, 2020, for the purpose of observing fire department and agency-connected support operations, interviewing key department staff, and reviewing preliminary data and information. Telephone conference calls as well as email exchanges were conducted between CPSM project management staff, the City, and the fire department so that CPSM staff could affirm the project scope and elicit further discussion regarding this analysis.

During this project, public safety service delivery has been undergoing substantial changes. CPSM has revised and updated the report several times to accommodate the multiple changes that are taking place. The goal is to provide the most current and relevant evaluation and recommendations for change under these difficult conditions.

The Lewiston Fire Department is a highly skilled organization, but one that needs to make significant changes in the way it is organized as well as how it supervises its operations. The department is excellent at firefighting but has not adopted other core competencies that modern fire departments perform. These core competencies are identified best in the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE), Inc. “accreditation program.” That program was developed from research and development between the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) in 1985. It was tested, amended, and has now been updated multiple times. The Board of CPSE and the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) was expanded to include representation from the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) union.

There are cultural distinctions that may impact change in the Lewiston Fire Department. As an example, during interviews with staff, CPSM found about one-third of the department embraced EMS and wanted to enhance the department’s participation; one-third of the department was neutral on moving to EMS but leaned towards engaging; and one-third liked the system currently used. This same delineation seemed to be found on most issues in the department, whether it

1 was communications or other change. The younger and last hired members often had advanced medical licenses and may have worked for the hospital-based ambulance. They seemed to desire an expansion in services to the community.

During interviews with staff, there was some apprehension and resentment expressed towards members of the department that participate in a training firm that includes the fire chief. Having hands-on trainers familiar with the department is a goal of most departments. Lewiston does not make full use of the skilled staff on its roster.

Those interviewed identified conflicts between the union and management that could act as impediments to changes in operations. Training for department staff on making the change to a “high-performance organization” may serve the city and the department well, particularly as older members retire and are replaced by others.

At the same time, the personnel with whom CPSM interacted indicated an interest in serving the City to the best of their abilities and demonstrated a unified goal of achieving excellence in service delivery. As service demands increase and the fire department is required to provide expanded services, it is essential that the organization continue its strategic planning efforts, organizational team building, performance measurement, and goal setting. The challenges in Lewiston are not unique nor are they insurmountable. CPSM will provide a series of observations and recommendations that we believe will enable the LFD to become more efficient and smarter in the management of its emergency and nonemergency responsibilities.

§ § §

RECOMMENDATIONS

The LFD provides a limited service to its citizens, local businesses, non-profit organizations, the university, and visitors to the area. The focus on the department has been fire-only. Other core competencies outlined for modern departments by the NFPA, IAFC, and IAFF are not found in the Lewiston Fire Department.

Thirty-seven recommendations are listed below and in the applicable sections within this report. The recommendations are based on best practices derived from the NFPA, CPSM, ICMA, the U.S. Fire Administration, the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM), the International Association of Fire Fighters, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

These recommendations are listed in the order in which they appear in the report.

Please see page 7 for an explanation of EMS-related recommendations and a convenient summary of these recommendations.

1. CPSM recommends that an additional administrative assistant position be considered; it could provide relief to the part-time fire prevention as well as regular administrative assistant position. The new position would cover times of vacation, illness, and other leave. If the city makes other changes recommended by CPSM, this position will be critical to managing records and ensuring distribution to each of the stations and divisions. This position would be in addition to the existing staff and be classified as part-time unless hours exceed that level. (See p. 16.)

2. CPSM recommends LFD begin a process of inspection and citation for false alarm calls. Additional penalties may be needed to discourage the high volume of false alarm calls to which the department responds. CPS recommends the LFD and city review the ordinances on false alarms and work in conjunction with the police department to alleviate the number of calls for service that are false. (See p. 17.)

3. CPSM recommends that LFD continue to only be dispatched to the most serious EMS calls for service, with Priority Medical Dispatch being utilized to deliver the right response at the right time and with the right resources. (See p. 18.) [See EMS Summary]

4. CPSM recommends all job descriptions in the department be reviewed and updated. In cases where a position or system is not required, it should be eliminated. Updating the descriptions may likely require negotiation with the union. (See p. 20.)

5. LFD should realign all duties within the department. Consideration should be given as to whether to continue with the captain position or to assistant/assistant chief positions and phase out through attrition the captain rank in the department. (See p. 22.)

6. To be eligible for a promotion, firefighters would be required to demonstrate knowledge in the position they are seeking. Any promotional candidate should be capable of performing the duties listed for the position. (See p. 22.)

7. The LFD should institute an internet-based video conferencing system to facilitate regular meeting forums (daily/weekly/ monthly), to discuss departmental initiatives and new directives, and enable remote training delivery sessions by chief officers and support personnel. To start, a daily chief/assistant chief briefing should be used to update all members

on what is occurring in the department. Communicating (and recording) this information would eliminate any possibility that messages are confusing or incomplete. (See p. 23.)

8. The LFD should expand the training requirements, certifications, and college education prerequisites for all positions and incorporate these changes into the promotional processes. (See p. 24.)

9. Options for EMS coverage are provided in this report. Unless the city opts to form its own ambulance service, it should evaluate what level of medical certification is needed to provide service to its residents and only pay for ongoing maintenance of that certification. For example, if the city continues to only respond as first response, it should not pay to maintain EMT and paramedic licenses. If it opts to include some type of paramedicine as a service, those certifications would be justified. (At present the city is not licensed at any level for EMS service.) (See p. 24.) [See EMS Summary]

10. The city should undertake a comprehensive fire station capital improvements program that provides for the necessary repairs, renovations, and reconstruction of this critical capital resource. (See p. 29.)

11. CPSM recommends a thorough review of all policies, procedures, and testing processes in the organization. This should accompany a thorough review of job descriptions and processes for promotion. A good independent party from which policy can be provided is a firm such as Lexipol, which has been used by police agencies for many years. The firm now has a policy and procedure service for fire and EMS. (See p. 30.)

12. CPSM recommends LFD engage in transforming the organization from an Industrial Model of management to a High-Performance Organization. The open-door policy embraced by the Chief is envisioned under the High-Performance Leadership system. Communication at all levels and through all avenues must be maintained to ensure all viewpoints and concerns are regularly heard and acted upon. A formal chain of command is critical for fire ground operations, but is complemented with a more informal communication process. (See p. 35.)

13. The city should adopt a fire apparatus replacement schedule that includes an evaluation process that considers vehicle age, miles/hours of usage, maintenance records, and historical repair costs. (See p. 39.)

14. CPSM recommends that teams from each of the fire stations survey structures in their areas and input the resulting information into the Emergency Reporting Risk Assessment Module. Fatal fires in Charleston, S.C. and Worchester, Mass., demonstrate the danger to firefighters who are unfamiliar with buildings, structures, and occupancies in their primary response zones. (See p. 44.)

15. The Lewiston Fire Department should conduct a formal fire risk analysis that concentrates on the city’s downtown, strip commercial establishments, big-box occupancies, high-rise structures, industrial processing, and institutional properties. (See p. 45.)

16. The Lewiston Fire Department should implement a prefire planning process for all target hazards and high-risk commercial properties. (See p. 51.)

17. The Lewiston Fire Department should institute an effort to enter prefire/incident plans on apparatus MDTs in order to provide real-time quick retrieval of this information. (See p. 51.)

18. CPSM recommends the LFD and the city review current ordinances on false alarms and work in conjunction with the police department to alleviate the number of calls for service that are false. (See p. 54.)

19. LFD should develop an integrated risk management plan that focuses on structure fires in areas of the community that demonstrate the highest risk of occurrence. (See p. 59.)

20. CPSM recommends that Lewiston establish teams with its medical providers to establish a system to outcome-driven performance metrics and move away from a system of time-only metrics. (See p. 60.) [See EMS Summary]

21. CPSM recommends that, post-COVID, the EMS response times and calls for service be reviewed with the community and United to determine how service to residents may be improved. Consideration should be given to:

►The LFD continuing as Medical First Response only for serious calls for service. ►Developing a more robust service delivery model with United such as adding telemedicine to serve the residents of Lewiston. (See p. 61.) [See EMS Summary] 22. LFD and the dispatch authority should analyze the call-taking process to identify opportunities for shortening the time from call received to LFD unit dispatched. (See p. 63.)

23. CPSM recommends Lewiston evaluate what advanced licenses are necessary and pay only for those required to service its citizens. This decision would be made in conjunction with the determination of the provider for transport. (See p. 63.) [See EMS Summary]

24. Based on evidence from the numerous studies regarding patient clinical outcomes, as well as the significant cost of staffing paramedics in the LFD, the LFD should investigate if a BLS staffing model may be appropriate following the Covid-19 pandemic. (See p. 64.) [See EMS Summary]

25. LFD should take on additional responsibilities to make more effective use of its on-duty time and increase the availability of ambulances operating in the EMS system. By not transporting, LFD should receive the reimbursement from Medicaid/Medicare versus the EMS service. (See p. 65.) [See EMS Summary]

26. LFD should develop a relationship with the United Medical Director to evaluate EMD response determinants which often do not result in an ambulance transport so as to be able to dispatch only an LFD resource to calls for those response determinants. LFD’s EMS services should be documented and approved by the Medical Director. Any calls for service should be reviewed by the medical authority to ensure LFD is meeting all applicable expectations (at a first responder level). (See p. 66.) [See EMS Summary]

27. The implementation of EMS squads in the LFD would not result in significant cost savings in the current operation of the Lewiston EMS system. This option should be withheld until such time as the fire department’s utilization reaches a level where it is necessary to add first response resources to the EMS system. (See p. 67.) [See EMS Summary]

28. LFD should evaluate purchasing its EMS supplies in conjunction with, or through, the hospital system to gain economic efficiency and facilitate on-scene replacement of medical supplies used on an EMS call. (See p. 67.) [See EMS Summary]

29. The 90th percentile 4.6-minute dispatch time for fire calls in more than three times what is established as a national average by NFPA and APCO (Association of Public Safety

Communications Officers). Dispatch is provided through a joint dispatch with Auburn. Achieving near-national standard performance would increase the capability of fire suppression by deploying units in a safe, efficient, and effective manner. The dispatch center should monitor and correct this deficiency. (See p. 78.)

30. LFD should implement a series of performance measures that enable ongoing review of service outcomes. The process of developing these measures should utilize input from LFD members, the fire union, the community, the City Council, and City Administration. (See p. 94.)

31. LFD should consider participating in ESO Solutions for the purpose of reviewing its EMS performance and the comparisons made in this clinical and EMS operational database. If the decision is made, post-pandemic, to develop formal relationships for EMS services, these benchmarks and reporting should be reported metrics. (See p. 96.) [See EMS Summary]

32. LFD should work with the City of Lewiston Building Department (aka the Department of Planning and Code Enforcement), the Planning Department, the City’s Tax Appraiser, the Finance Department, and other local officials in creating a master file of inspectable properties within the City of Lewiston. (The city is to be commended for its effort to begin a multifamily registration program that will enable a greater level of prevention effort.) (See p. 97.)

33. The Lewiston Fire Department should institute an in-service fire company inspection program that promotes responder familiarization, code enforcement, and fire prevention efforts. The fire inspection program should be for occupancies not covered by the residential inspections that are underway. Both occupancies should be conducted but this recommendation pertains to “other than” residential. The effort should be data based and data driven, with follow-up when violations are discovered. (See p. 99.)

34. The Lewiston Fire Department should establish a training steering committee composed of Assistant Chiefs, Captains, Equipment Operators, Firefighters, union representatives, and EMS provider. This committee should conduct a training needs assessment, develop priorities, and provide direction regarding the training efforts of the department. (See p. 102.)

35. The Lewiston Fire Department should institute written and practical skills testing as part of the department’s comprehensive fire training program. Based on proficiency, the training schedule should be amended to correct deficiencies down to the station level. Lieutenants and captains should be responsible for ensuring stations meet minimum capability. (See p. 102.)

36. LFD should institute an annual physical fitness evaluation process for all emergency response personnel, including chief officers. Currently, an incentive is paid but there is no penalty for not participating in the programs. (See p. 103.)

37. Lewiston Public Safety Dispatch and the Dispatch Center should move as quickly as possible to reduce the time taken to dispatch units. (See p. 103.)

Summary of EMS Recommendations As a component of the overall study, the city requested that CPSM provide a more detailed analysis of the current and possible future emergency management services the department should and/or could undertake. The Lewiston Fire Department currently provides a limited engine company EMS response to serious medical emergencies such as suspected heart attacks, not breathing, etc. Beyond that, ambulance and paramedic services are provided by United Ambulance, a joint venture between Central Maine Medical Center and St. Mary’s Hospital. The city requested that this service be reviewed to determine if acceptable response and service standards are being met.

In addition, the city requested a feasibility analysis of options that could be implemented to ensure acceptable service is provided on a cost-effective basis.

Overall, CPSM has concluded that the current service provided meets an appropriate standard level of service and does so in a cost-effective manner. At the same time, CPSM finds that steps can be taken to enhance this service and options are available should the current system be forced to change due to circumstances beyond the city’s control.

The following recommendations are found in the master list that begins on page 3; the recommendation numbers in brackets show the numbering in the master list. These EMS-related recommendations are collected here, as it is important to understand them as an interconnected group of recommendations.

■ [Recommendation No. 3] CPSM recommends that LFD continue to only be dispatched to the most serious EMS calls for service, with Priority Medical Dispatch being utilized to deliver the right response at the right time and with the right resources. (See p. 18.) ■ [Recommendation No. 9] Options for EMS coverage are provided in this report. Unless the city opts to form its own ambulance service, it should evaluate what level of medical certification is needed to provide service to its residents and only pay for ongoing maintenance of that certification. For example, if the city continues to only respond as first response, it should not pay to maintain EMT and paramedic licenses. If it opts to include some type of paramedicine as a service, those certifications would be justified. (At present the city is not licensed at any level for EMS service.) (See p. 24.) ■ [Recommendation No. 20] CPSM recommends that Lewiston establish teams with its medical providers to establish a system to outcome-driven performance metrics and move away from a system of time-only metrics. (See p. 60.) ■ [Recommendation No. 21] CPSM recommends that, post-COVID, the EMS response times and calls for service be reviewed with the community and United to determine how service to residents may be improved. Consideration should be given to:

□ The LFD continuing as Medical First Response only for serious calls for service.

□ Developing a more robust service delivery model with United such as adding telemedicine to serve the residents of Lewiston. (See p. 61.) ■ [Recommendation No. 23] CPSM recommends Lewiston evaluate what advanced licenses are necessary and pay only for those required to service its citizens. This decision would be made in conjunction with the determination of the provider for transport. (See p. 63.) ■ [Recommendation No. 24] Based on evidence from the numerous studies regarding patient clinical outcomes, as well as the significant cost of staffing paramedics in the LFD, the LFD

should investigate if a BLS staffing model may be appropriate following the Covid-19 pandemic. (See p. 64.) ■ [Recommendation No. 25] LFD should take on additional responsibilities to make more effective use of its on-duty time and increase the availability of ambulances operating in the EMS system. By not transporting, LFD should receive the reimbursement from Medicaid/Medicare versus the EMS service. (See p. 65.) ■ [Recommendation No. 26] LFD should develop a relationship with the United Medical Director to evaluate EMD response determinants which often do not result in an ambulance transport so as to be able to dispatch only an LFD resource to calls for those response determinants. LFD’s EMS services should be documented and approved by the Medical Director. Any calls for service should be reviewed by the medical authority to ensure LFD is meeting all applicable expectations (at a first responder level). (See p. 66.) ■ [Recommendation No. 27] The implementation of EMS squads in the LFD would not result in significant cost savings in the current operation of the Lewiston EMS system. This option should be withheld until such time as the fire department’s utilization reaches a level where it is necessary to add first response resources to the EMS system. (See p. 67.) ■ [Recommendation No. 28] LFD should evaluate purchasing its EMS supplies in conjunction with, or through, the hospital system to gain economic efficiency and facilitate on-scene replacement of medical supplies used on an EMS call. (See p. 67.) ■ [Recommendation No. 31] LFD should consider participating in ESO Solutions for the purpose of reviewing its EMS performance and the comparisons made in this clinical and EMS operational database. If the decision is made, post-pandemic, to develop formal relationships for EMS services, these benchmarks and reporting should be reported metrics. (See p. 96.)

§ § §

SECTION 2. SCOPE OF PROJECT

The scope of this project was to provide an independent review of the services provided by the Lewiston Fire Department (LFD) so that the Mayor and City officials, including officials of LFD, could obtain an external perspective regarding the city’s fire and EMS delivery system. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the LFD, including its organizational structure, workload, staffing, overtime, deployment, training, fire prevention, emergency communications (911), planning, and public education efforts. In addition, CPSM will provide its insights to help the department determine the appropriateness of the level of response and alternative delivery systems that could be utilized in meeting both current and projected service demand. Local government officials often commission these types of studies to measure their department against industry best practices. In this analysis, CPSM provides recommendations where appropriate, and offers input on a strategic direction for the future.

Key areas evaluated during this study include:

■ Fire department response times (using data from the city’s computer-aided dispatch system and the LFD records management systems). ■ Deployment and staffing. ■ Agency interaction with United Ambulance and neighboring mutual aid and joint response partners. ■ Organizational structure and managerial oversight. ■ Fire and first responder workloads, including unit response activities. ■ LFD support functions (training, fire prevention/code enforcement, and 911 dispatch). ■ Essential facilities, equipment, and resources. ■ An evaluation of the capacity of the organization to best position itself in meeting anticipated demand.

SECTION 3. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

THE COMMUNITY IT SERVES

Lewiston is the second largest city in Maine and the most central city in Androscoggin County. Its history and population demographics reflect waves of immigrants that have resettled in the community. Each wave brought new opportunities and new challenges. Today, its downtown reflects the latest immigrant population—Somali and Bantu and individuals from several other African countries. While the initial influx was Somali, in recent years the city has seen a larger number from other countries such as Angola, the Congo, and others. When looking at service delivery, these changes impact recruitment, retention, and selection.

The city lies halfway between Augusta, the state's capital, and Portland, the state's most populous city. It is one-half of the Lewiston-Auburn Metropolitan Statistical Area, commonly referred to as "L/A." or "L-A." Lewiston exerts a significant impact upon the diversity, religious variety, commerce, education, and economic power of Maine. It is known for a relatively low cost of living, substantial access to medical care, and a relatively low violent- crime rate. In recent years, the City of Lewiston has also seen a spike in economic and social growth. While the dominant language spoken in the city is English, it is home to the largest French-speaking population in the United States (by population) while it is second to St. Martin Parish, Louisiana, in percentage of French speakers.

That diversity will need to be addressed in services, particularly if the city embarks on a more robust response to EMS. Communication and cultural barriers can impact the effectiveness of EMS service delivery.

In 1855, local preacher Oren Burbank Cheney founded the Maine State Seminary, the first coeducational university in New England and one of the first universities to admit black students before the Emancipation Proclamation. Lewistown quickly became associated with the liberal arts and was incorporated as "Lewiston" in 1864, a year before the college was chartered as Bates College.

In addition to 44 sites on the National Historic Register, the city is home to the only basilica in Maine, Basilica of Saints Peter and Paul; five colleges and universities; the Androscoggin Bank Colisée; the Stephens Observatory; the Olin Arts Center; the Bates College Museum of Art (BCMoA); and two significant general hospitals: Central Maine Medical Center and Saint Mary's Regional Medical Center.

Fire service delivery models are based upon managing risk and hazards. The CPSM observed numerous significant risks in the community, particularly the old mills along the river. Many are being renovated into housing and sprinkler systems are being upgraded. However, many of the

10 tenement houses that formerly housed employees who worked in the mills remain and are not sprinklered, do not have setbacks, and are high fire risks.

Lewiston was a slow but steadily growing farm town throughout its early history. By the early-to- mid-19th century, however, as water power was being harnessed, Lewiston's location on the Androscoggin River would make it a perfect location for emerging industry. In 1809, Michael Little built a large wooden sawmill next to the falls. Burned in 1814 by an arsonist, it was later rebuilt. In 1836, local entrepreneurs—predominantly the Little family and friends—formed the Androscoggin Falls Dam, Lock & Canal Company for the purpose of erecting and constructing dams, locks, canals, mills, works, machines, and buildings.

Much of this early construction remains in the city, particularly the canals.

This company began Lewiston's transformation from a small farming town into a textile manufacturing center on the model of Lowell, Massachusetts. The creation of the Bates manufacturing company saw rapid economic growth, positioning the city as the wealthiest city in Maine, and created budding affluent districts such as the Main Street–Frye Street Historic District. Although the majority of the population was working class, a distinctive upper class emerged at this time. The Bates Mill remained the largest employer in Lewiston from the 1850s to the mid-late 20th century.

Railroad construction was key to the development of both Lewiston and its neighbor, Auburn.

In 1861, a flood of French-Canadian immigration into Maine began, spawned by industrial work opportunities in Maine cities that had water power from waterfalls. This brought a significant influx of Québécois millworkers who worked alongside Irish immigrants and Yankee mill girls. Lewiston's population boomed between 1840 and 1890 from 1,801 to 21,701. Canadians settled in an area downtown that became known as Little Canada, and Lewiston's character has remained largely Franco-American ever since.

During this time, in 1863, Lewiston was incorporated as a city. In 1872, St. Peter's church was built in Lewiston. This was the first French-Canadian national church in Maine. In 1864, the Maine State Seminary was renamed Bates College in honor of Benjamin Bates. The college remains a major institution today.

City leaders decided to build a cathedral to which the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland could relocate. Construction of the Church of Saints Peter and Paul began in 1905 and ended in 1938, funded mostly through thousands of small donations from Lewiston residents. It is the largest Roman Catholic Church in Maine, and Lewiston's most prominent landmark. While the Diocese of Portland did not relocate to Lewiston, the church nevertheless became a basilica in 2004. It is one of the few American basilicas outside of a major metropolitan area.

Starting in the late 1950s, many of Lewiston's textile mills began closing. This gradually led to a run-down and abandoned downtown area. Chain stores located downtown—Woolworth's, W. T. Grant, S. S. Kresge, JC Penney, and Sears Roebuck—shut their doors or moved to malls on the outskirts of Lewiston or Auburn. The city's flagship department store, the four-story B. Peck & Co., closed in 1982 after more than a century in business. As businesses and jobs began to leave the

11 city, people followed. The population stopped increasing at its previous rate and began to slowly decline after 1970, then at a greater rate in the 1990s.

Economic Diversification and Renaissance After a difficult economic period in the 1980s that saw high unemployment and downtown stagnation, several key events have led to economic and cultural growth, including the transformation of the historic Bates Mill Complex. The city took over the complex in 1992 after back taxes went unpaid; then, years of taxpayer frustration over the city's need to maintain the 1.1-million-square-foot (100,000 m2) behemoth led to two referenda (one non-binding vote, the other binding). Voters soundly supported the need to pursue redevelopment by maintaining the property and selling it to private developers.

In 2001, the city sold three mill buildings to local developers. The Bates Mill Complex was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in December 2010.

As the city looks at EMS service options, it should recognize that the diversity and lower income levels of its residents can impact the potential funding of such operations. The community continues to have lower than average income with a significant immigrant population. These factors normally result in decreased collections for EMS services and a lower rate of insured.

Downtown is home to a new headquarters for Oxford Networks, along with a $20-million upgrade in local fiber-optics, a new auto parts store, a campus of the for-profit Purdue Global (formerly Kaplan University), the headquarters for Northeast Bank, a parking garage, and the newly renovated Maine Supply Co. building, listed on the National Register of Historic Places. That facility is now called the Business Service Center at Key Bank Plaza, and is home to the local Chamber of Commerce, the Lewiston-Auburn Economic Growth Council, and an arrangement with a number of business service providers.

Lewiston earned a 2007 All-America City Award designation by the National Civic League. The national competition "recognizes communities whose residents work together to identify and tackle community-wide challenges and achieve measurable, uncommon results." Ten cities are selected as All-America Cities each year.

In 2017 Forbes named Lewiston one of its top 25 places to retire, citing a relatively low cost of living, good access to medical care, and extremely low violent crime rate.

Somali and Bantu Immigration In 1999, the United States government began preparations to resettle an estimated 12,000 refugees from the Bantu minority ethnic group in Somalia to select cities throughout the United States. Most of the early arrivals in the United States settled in Clarkston, Georgia, a city adjacent to Atlanta. However, they were mostly assigned to low-rent, poverty-stricken inner-city areas, so many began to look to resettle elsewhere in the U.S.

Word soon spread that Lewiston had a low crime rate, good schools, and cheap housing. Somalis subsequently began a secondary migration from other states to the former mill town, and after 2005, many Bantus followed suit.

In August 2010, the Lewiston Sun Journal reported that Somali entrepreneurs had helped reinvigorate downtown Lewiston by opening shops in previously closed storefronts. Amicable relations were also reported by the local Franco-American merchants and the Somali storekeepers.

2010 Census As of the 2010 census, there were 36,592 people, 15,267 households, and 8,622 families residing in the city. The population density was 1,071.5 inhabitants per square mile (413.7/km2). There were 16,731 housing units, with an average density of 489.9 per square mile (189.2/km2). The racial makeup of the city was 86.6 percent White, 8.7 percent Black, 0.4 percent American Indian and Alaska Native, 1.0 percent Asian, 2.0 percent Hispanic or Latino (of any race), 0.6 percent from some other race, and 2.6 percent from two or more races.

In 2010, there were 15,267 households of which 27.5 percent had children under the age of 18 living with them, 37.5 percent were married couples living together, 13.7 percent had a female householder with no husband present, 5.2 percent had a male householder with no wife present, and 43.5 percent were non-families. Of all households, 34.4 percent were made up of individuals and 12.5 percent had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.26 and the average family size was 2.90.

In the most recent census update, the median age in the city was 37.4 years. 22.1 percent of residents were under the age of 18; 12.9 percent were between the ages of 18 and 24; 24.1 percent were from 25 to 44; 25.3 percent were from 45 to 64; and 15.5 percent were 65 years of age or older.

The median income for a household in the city is $39,890. Males had a median income of $38,881 versus $30,465 for females. The per capita income for the city is $27,378. About 16 percent of families and 21.4 percent of the population were below the poverty line, including 35.8 percent of those under age 18 and 17.7 percent of those age 65 or over.

§ § §

FIGURE 3-1: City of Lewiston Table of Organization

LEWISTON FIRE DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW

The Lewiston Fire Department (LFD) is a career fire department comprised of 78 personnel. It uses a three-platoon system and in its personnel scheduling employs “Kelly Days,” the use of which reduces each daily assigned platoon by 25 percent. If the department did not utilize Kelly Days, it would be able to staff every apparatus with four firefighters. However, use of Kelly Days means that one of those four personnel are off duty every shift. The following table shows the impact of Kelly Days on staffing using 8-, 10-, 12-, and 24-hour models.

There was some discussion of moving towards a four-platoon system, which would provide more consistency across the platoons, provide easier scheduling of training and education, and would be ideally suited if the department moves to more active participation in EMS, HazMat, or technical rescue as identified in modern fire department accreditation systems. The Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) allows firefighters to work 56 hours per week without incurring overtime. However, by applying Kelly Days, the workweek is subsequently shortened to 42 hours, with any additional time paid at overtime.

Also, the use of the Kelly Days increases the actual hourly wage (which is calculated using the salary established for each position and dividing by hours actually worked).

TABLE 3-1. Impact of Kelly Days on Various Shift Configurations

As shown in the table, Kelly hours per person total 728 per year and reduce the annual hours worked to 2,184 versus the 2,912 allowed by FLSA. Each shift requires 22.7 assigned personnel, but 5.7 (that is, 6) are always off on a Kelly Day.

Moreover, the four captain positions are in the union and follow the same shift plan, as do lieutenants. Minimum staffing requires four captains, 15 lieutenants (one vacancy), and 51 firefighters (which is what would be required without Kelly Days). Because of the Kelly Days, 68.2 firefighters are needed to avoid overtime. The one lieutenant vacancy requires overtime; vacations or leave by captains also require subsequent move-up from firefighters who are paid a higher wage. Their positions then require backfilling on overtime.

The vacancy creates constant monitoring issues for captains on duty who must fill the roster for the following days, considering those sick, off on leave, vacations, and the vacancies. There are automated systems such as Tele-Staff that would automate this process and free up some of the time spent by Captains performing this task. The department would require substantial modification due to its staffing model to enable the automation of the current process that utilizes spreadsheets, telephone calls, and repeated revision.

The current system makes it difficult to train as a department in the various fire disciplines because six individuals are always off from a platoon. In order to conduct multiday training, a schedule may be required across multiple weeks in order to deliver the training to all staff. For this project, CPSM allowed more than six days for its on-site visit (our standard is three) and could not contact all personnel because of this schedule. During one-on-one interviews, trainers within the department as well as firefighters noted the difficulty with providing ongoing education while ensuring continuity.

The department is led by a Fire Chief who was brought in from the outside and has struggled with administering the department because of prior labor agreements. During the last economic downturn, the battalion chief position was eliminated, and the duties assigned to captains,

15 positions that are included in the union. However, even though the duties were assigned to captains, the job descriptions were not updated. As a result, the position has been taken that the duties assigned and processes assigned are unchangeable unless negotiated.

Recently, an “acting” assistant chief was promoted, a position that has since become permanent. The other member of the administrative team carries the title of administrative assistant, with a workstation in the front office. This position is critical to the day-to-day functioning and scheduling of the department.

Recommendation: CPSM recommends that an additional administrative assistant position be considered; it would provide relief to the full-time fire prevention as well as regular administrative assistant position. The new position would cover times of vacation, illness, and other leave. If the city makes other changes recommended by CPSM, this position will be critical to managing records and ensuring distribution to each of the stations and divisions. This position would be in addition to the existing staff and be classified as part-time unless hours exceed that level. (Recommendation No. 1.)

On the operations/suppression side of the department, there are four captains, 15 lieutenants, and 51 firefighters. Minimum ops/suppression staff on duty each day is set at 17. Personnel staff four stations and six pieces of apparatus.

Fire prevention has two inspector-investigators and one principal clerk. The department had difficulty filling a third position and current pandemic financial constraints make it likely the third position will not be filled. Fire prevention is key to modern day fire deployment and operations. Research has shown that for every $1 spent in prevention, $7 is saved on response/loss. During this difficult time of pandemic and civil unrest, it is estimated that as many as 30 percent of smaller businesses will not survive and many major chains have already declared bankruptcy and are abandoning retail spaces. Vacant buildings are attractive nuisances in many communities and can add to the risk facing departments. It is likely that some owners of older multifamily properties will have a hard time, financially, and may abandon their properties, as many did in the Great Recession. In Lewiston, this led to 70 dangerous buildings being demolished.

The department also has one fire alarm/maintenance technician.

The LFD provides first-responder services only for EMS. The city receives its EMS services from United Ambulance, which is operated by the local healthcare organizations. This will be discussed in depth in a later section.

The police department oversees hazardous materials response and the department of public works oversees confined space incidents. In our more than 340 studies across the U.S. and Canada, this is the first time that CPSM has encountered this arrangement. The fire department apparently chose to not become involved with either service and the other two departments took charge and now manage the incidents. All LFD personnel are trained at least to operations level per NFPA 472 and OSHA standards. During one-on-one interviews, it was found there is interest by department members in taking a more active role in hazmat; however, the police department indicated it had no desire to relinquish oversight of the service.

LFD responds to approximately 1,811 calls for service or about 5 calls per day. Most of those calls are fire related (1,258 or 69.5 percent). The department responded to assist United Ambulance Service as first responders on 464 calls or 25.6 percent of its runs (1.3 per day).

Of it fire calls, 533 or 42 percent, were false alarm calls. This adds substantial workload and also creates substantial liability to responders and the public as units respond to reports of fire from significant distances across the city.

Recommendation: CPSM recommends LFD begin a process of inspection and citation for false alarm calls. Additional penalties may be needed to discourage the high volume of false alarm calls to which the department responds. CPS recommends the LFD and city review the ordinances on false alarms and work in conjunction with the police department to alleviate the number of calls for service that are false. (Recommendation No. 2.) TABLE 3-2: Call Types During Period Studied Calls per Call Call Type Number of Calls Day Percentage Cardiac and stroke 83 0.2 4.6 MVA 273 0.8 15.1 Other EMS 108 0.3 6.0 EMS Total 464 1.3 25.6 False alarm 533 1.5 29.4 Good intent 167 0.5 9.2 Hazard 220 0.6 12.1 Outside fire 65 0.2 3.6 Public service 192 0.5 10.6 Structure fire 81 0.2 4.5 Fire Total 1,258 3.5 69.5 Canceled 69 0.2 3.8 Mutual aid 20 0.1 1.1 Total 1,811 5.0 100.0 Note: Canceled mutual aid calls were put in the in the canceled category. Also, the “other EMS” category includes calls where LFD assisted United Ambulance.

LFD operates in what is often termed a minimal two-tiered EMS delivery system. In this arrangement the fire department provides EMS first response and a private ambulance provider (United Ambulance) provides advanced life support services (ALS) and ambulance transport.

However, the department only runs on the more serious calls for service, with dispatch appropriately dispatching only that which is necessary. The LFD does make a substantial number of runs to accidents, as noted in the table above.

Because of concern with COVID-19, ambulance services are and will continue to change drastically. Most departments have adopted a policy that first responders are to only be dispatched on the most serious calls (beating, breathing, and bleeding). For most ambulance services, 80 percent to 90 percent of calls for service DO NOT require immediate intervention. Preliminary data and reports from agencies that have begun strict protocols indicate NO CHANGE in outcomes when first responders are not dispatched to all calls and instead limited to only the most serious events.

In addition, EMS calls for service across the country are down substantially. CPSM has reviewed numerous agencies that are experiencing 30 percent to as much as 60 percent declines in calls for service to EMS. For example, in the Dallas-Ft. Worth, Texas, area, Medstar has seen a drastic reduction in calls for service. This utility model agency operated in the Metroplex without subsidy prior to COVID-19. Now, it is losing money at an annual rate of more than $6 million due to the reduction in calls.

Recommendation: CPSM recommends that LFD continue to only be dispatched to the most serious EMS calls for service, with Priority Medical Dispatch being utilized to deliver the right response at the right time and with the right resources. (Recommendation No. 3.)

Priority Medical Dispatch (PMD) is used across the country with outstanding results. Most calls for service in medical situations DO NOT require first response, only transport.

Transport units should be quarantined from the rest of the LFD staff (if implemented). In addition, the department should maintain strict decon procedures such as found to alleviate cancer or after hazmat incidents. FIGURE 3-2: Current Lewiston Fire Department Table of Organization

STAFFING AND DEPLOYMENT

Individual unit staffing and minimum daily staffing levels are perhaps the most contentious aspects of managing fire operations in the U.S. There are a number of factors that have fueled the staffing debate. Aside from FAA requirements for minimum staffing levels at commercial airports, there are no state or federal requirements for the staffing of structural fire apparatus. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued a standard that has been termed the “Two-in-Two-Out” provision. This standard affects most public fire departments across the U.S., including the LFD. Under this standard, firefighters are required to operate in teams (of no fewer than two personnel) when engaged in interior structural firefighting. The environment in which interior structural firefighting occurs is further described as areas that are immediately dangerous to life or health (an IDLH atmosphere) and subsequently require the use of self- contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). When operating in these conditions, firefighters are required to operate in pairs, and they must remain in visual or voice contact with each other and must have at least two other employees located outside the IDLH atmosphere. This assures that the "two in" can monitor each other and assist with equipment failure or entrapment or other hazards, and the "two out" can monitor those in the building, initiate a rescue, or call for back-up if a problem arises.1 This standard does not specify staffing on individual apparatus, but rather specifies a required number of personnel be assembled on-scene when individuals are in a hazardous environment. There is, however, a provision within the OSHA standard that allows two personnel to make entry into an IDLH atmosphere without the required two back-up personnel outside. This is allowed when they are attempting to rescue a person or persons in the structure before the entire team is assembled.2

A second factor that contributes to the staffing debate is the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) 1710 publication, Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments (2016 Edition Sec., 5.2.1.). This standard specifies that the staffing level on responding engine and ladder companies be established at a minimum of four on-duty personnel. Unlike the OSHA guideline, which is a mandatory provision, the NFPA 1710 guideline is advisory, meaning that communities (including Lewiston) are not required to adhere to this NFPA guideline. NFPA 1710 also provides guidance regarding staffing levels for units responding to EMS incidents; however, the provision is less specific and does not specify a minimum staffing level for EMS response units. Instead, the standard states; “EMS staffing requirements shall be based on the minimum levels needed to provide patient care and member safety.”3 The difficulty that many agencies have is the co-utilization of fire companies and EMS companies in responding to both fire and EMS calls. Working fires involving hazardous environments are labor intensive and more personnel are needed to effectively manage these incidents. EMS calls are typically managed with fewer personnel, and most EMS calls can be handled with a single rescue company of two fire personnel. In the call-screening process, those calls that require additional personnel are typically identified at the dispatch level and additional personnel can be assigned when needed.

LFD operates out of four stations with six pieces of apparatus that are staffed daily. The department uses a “K-Day rotational shift” system with four captains functioning in roles that were formerly battalion chiefs. The battalion chief positions were eliminated, and duties mostly

1. OSHA-Respiratory Protection Standard, 29CFR-1910.134(g)(4). 2. Ibid, Note 2 to paragraph (g). 3. (NFPA) 1710, Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments (2016 Edition Sec., 5.3.32.).

19 assigned to captains. Captains are given a vehicle in which to partially respond to incidents across the city and take charge of incident command.

During interviews, CPSM found that the existing deployment methodology was difficult to manage. When the battalion chief positions were eliminated and duties reassigned, job descriptions were not updated.

Recommendation: CPSM recommends all job descriptions in the department be reviewed and updated. In cases where a position or system is not required, it should be eliminated. Updating the descriptions may likely require negotiation with the union. (Recommendation No. 4.) TABLE 3-3: LFD Fire Stations, Response Units, and Assigned Personnel Station # Response Units Minimum Assignment 1 Engine (7) 3 – Lt/2 FF Central 1 Ladder Truck 4 – Lt/3 FF Station 1 Squad 1 (Captain) Lisbon St. 1 Engine (3) 3 – Lt/2 FF Station Sabattus St. 1 Engine (4) 3 – Lt/2 FF Station Main Street 1 Engine (5) 3 – Lt/2 FF Station Total in 4 17 Minimum 6 Response Units Stations Ops/Suppression/Day

Many agencies often assign the oversight of program management duties to those staff officers and chief officers who are assigned to 40-hour assignments. CPSM believes it is critical that many of the program management duties required in the operation of a modern fire and EMS organization be delegated to and under the direction of field personnel. LFD has made several assignments of support duties to line personnel and this is commendable. However, these assignments are selective and not all officers have been assigned program management duties. In addition, many of the duties are using outdated systems.

The Chief has attempted to introduce the Emergency Reporting Record System Software, with which CPSM is very familiar. However, captains have stated that this would represent a change in working conditions and have not implemented the system. There appears to be a general view that captains should not be required to do anything that was not done previously. This push-back is not overt, but does tend to undermine efforts to make changes/improvements. No issue has been formally brought forward by the union on this. As a result, the Chief is now implementing the software, with several modules implemented on July 1.

There are two solutions to this state of affairs that will be discussed in later sections:

■ Issue an order that as of a given date, the new technology will be implemented, and job descriptions will be changed accordingly. ■ Eliminate the captain position through attrition. Create three assistant chief positions, each with specific duties but all cross-trained in each other’s duties. Captains would fill the vacant lieutenant position that is currently filled with move up or overtime. As captains retire, the captain position would be eliminated in the department.

The ability to properly manage key organizational duties is beneficial from a career development perspective. In addition, the assumption of program management duties and the effectiveness with which an individual performs in these assignments can be a viable consideration in the promotional process. The following table lists a variety of program management duties that could be considered for assignment to new assistant chief positions as well as what duties would be retained by captains. TABLE 3-4: Program Assignment Duties Program Description Assignment Level Promotional Testing Assistant Chief Performance Appraisals Assistant Chief Haz Mat/Technical Rescue Assistant Chief Employee Recognition/Awards Assistant Chief Sick Leave/Absenteeism Review Captain (daily basis)/Review Assistant Budget Committee Assistant Chief Payroll / Executive Time Auditing Assistant Chief Police Department Liaison/Hazmat Assistant Chief EMS Protocols Captain Station Maintenance/Upkeep and Supplies Captain Fire Reporting QA Captain Hose Testing Captain/Fire Equipment Operator/FF Hydrant Testing Captain/Fire Equipment Operator/FF Mapping Captain/Fire Equipment Operator Fire Pre-incident Planning Captain Infectious Disease Control Captain/Paramedic licensed FF EMS Supplies/Decon/Bio Disposal Captain/Fire Equipment Operator/FF Station Response Area Designation Captain Response Protocols Captain up to Chief Fire Investigations Captain/Fire Equipment Operator Safety/ReHab/Risk Management Captain SOP/Ops Committee Captain/Fire Equipment Operator/FF Fitness Committee Captain/Fire Equipment Operator/FF Shift Training Coordinator Captain Recruit Training/Proctoring Captain Public Information Officer Chief/Assistant Chief Driver Training/EVOC Captain/Fire Equipment Operator Fleet Maintenance/Repair Record Keeping Captain/Fire Equipment Operator Internal Communications/Newsletter Administrative Team Social Media/FD Web Page Assistant Chief FF/EMS Recruitment Committee Captain/Fire Equipment Operator/FF Car Seat Installation Captain/Fire Equipment Operator/FF Smoke Detector Replacement Captain/Fire Equipment Operator/FF

FIGURE 3-3: Lewiston Fire Department Proposed Table of Organization

Recommendation: LFD should realign all duties within the department. Consideration should be given as to whether to continue with the captain position or to assistant chief positions and phase out through attrition the captain rank in the department. (Recommendation No. 5.)

Recommendation: To be eligible for a promotion, firefighters would be required to demonstrate knowledge in the position they are seeking. Any promotional candidate should be capable of performing the duties listed for the position. (Recommendation No. 6.)

Communication, consistent communication, and honest communication were all brought up repeatedly as a concern in one-on-one interviews of department members. The most frequent issue mentioned was that the department should operate under a strict chain of command that would prevent the chief from interacting with subordinates (other than captains). Information and communication would go up and down the chain of command.

CPSM would note that this style of management is more akin to the early 1900s style of management that viewed employees as more distanced and requiring of supervision. The modern fire service today believes each member should have the capability to function if supervision is absent—hence the creation of a robust Incident Command process. For example, during the collapse of the twin towers on 9-11, the New York Fire Department lost much of its administration. Younger, and often non-ranked, employees became the commanders of many functions and continued well after the incident. Management practices in successful businesses recognize that even when supervision is absent, retires, is sick, or otherwise missing, the organization should function effectively. Agencies that cannot perform in that manner should be eliminated or re-imagined.

The ability to communicate work assignments, conduct training sessions, discuss new program initiatives, or merely to update employees on departmental programs or the strategic direction of the organization requires ongoing outreach, specifically from the Fire Chief, chief officers, and training instructors in the organization. There are a number of communication tools currently available that can be used to conduct video conference calls, training sessions, and information exchanges among multiple work settings (for example, see GoTo Meeting™, WebEX™, Skype for Business™, and AnyMeeting™, etc.). These tools are inexpensive and, in some cases, once the initial software is purchased, there are no recurring charges. CPSM believes that the LFD would benefit greatly from an expanded information exchange, which would also prove useful in coordinating daily training assignments, shift activities, personnel movements, etc.

Recommendation: The LFD should institute an internet-based video conferencing system to facilitate regular meeting forums (daily/weekly/ monthly), to discuss departmental initiatives and new directives, and enable remote training delivery sessions by chief officers and support personnel. To start, a daily chief/assistant chief briefing should be used to update all members on what is occurring in the department. Communicating (and recording) this information would eliminate any possibility that messages are confusing or incomplete. (Recommendation No. 7.)

The ability to discuss key department issues, along with delivery of training, is critical to organizational effectiveness and operational readiness. An on-line delivery forum would allow for real-time discussions, question and answer sessions, and when recorded, the ability to review these meetings and training sessions at alternate time periods.

Essential to the sustainability of any organization is the concept of career development and professional growth of the workforce. Fire service organizations are extremely regimented in the oversight of personnel issues. As is the case in Lewiston, these processes are guided by civil service rules, collective bargaining agreements, and public personnel guidelines. The fire service promotional process is very competitive, yet it provides an opportunity to develop individual skills and to institute organizational philosophies. The ability to direct the learning effort in developing the needed skill sets is a key function that can be orchestrated through the promotional testing process. This factor is essential in the development of the future workforce and in creating or perhaps changing the culture of an organization.

In the promotional and testing process, management can identify the source materials to be used for testing and can establish the prerequisite training criteria for promotional eligibility. The ability to establish prerequisites that include components such as college coursework, associate’s and bachelor’s degrees, specific training certifications, project management experience, and fitness and performance appraisal achievements is extremely important.

The LFD processes are outdated.

LFD requires a basic EMT license in order to be hired; that license must be maintained throughout employment. No stipend is paid for the license on a yearly basis, but the city pays for a continuing education program both online and in person that offers enough credits to help personnel re-license. Basic EMT licenses are required for those hired after a certain date. Several years ago, the city paid for Emergency Medical Responder training for those personnel who are not required to have an EMT license, but did not require that those personnel keep their license, up to date. Subsequently, nearly all of these personnel (13) have let their licenses lapse. This group comprises many of the senior members, including the captains.

Recommendation: LFD should expand the training requirements, certifications, and college education prerequisites for all positions and incorporate these changes into the promotional processes. (Recommendation No. 8.)

Recommendation: Options for EMS coverage are provided in this report. Unless the city opts to form its own ambulance service, it should evaluate what level of medical certification is needed to provide service to its residents and only pay for ongoing maintenance of that certification. For example, if the city continues to only respond as first response, it should not pay to maintain EMT and paramedic licenses. If it opts to include some type of paramedicine as a service, those certifications would be justified. (At present the city is not licensed at any level for EMS service.) (Recommendation No. 9.)

FIRE STATION FACILITIES

Fire department capital facilities are exposed to some of the most intense and demanding uses of any public local government facility, as they are occupied and in use 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.4 The Lewiston Fire Department operates out of four fire stations with six staffed emergency response apparatus. Department administrative offices are in the Lewiston Central Business District. CPSM did not duplicate a detailed study that the city has conducted on its fire stations. Those recommendations stand and CPSM concurs that stations are undersized for today’s modern fire service. Particularly with the COVID-19 pandemic that the country is experiencing, all stations should establish policy and procedure to respond to calls for service as if they are hazardous material calls with appropriate decon procedures following all runs.

All equipment should be decontaminated at shift changes (if possible). CPSM has found that many schools and colleges have the appropriate decon equipment for flu outbreaks and that equipment is largely stockpiled. The city should work with its education system to determine what equipment is available and use as necessary.

4. Compton and Granito, eds., Managing Fire and Rescue Services, 219.

Overview of Stations

Central Station is located in the downtown central business district. The facility has issues with mold (basement) and is also a storage location for unused/decommissioned equipment.

Sabattus Street Station with Engine 4. Station 4, as with all stations, should have signage in the front to indicate it is an emergency services facility. This would guide persons not familiar with the community or fire stations in time of emergencies (particularly medical intervention for mobile persons).

Lisbon St. Station, which houses Engine 3. The facility has limited space and parking.

Main Street Station, which houses Engine 5. It has limited parking, limited space for decon activities, and limited housing for female/male staff.

FIGURE 3-4: City of Lewiston Fire Department Station Locations

N Lewiston Fire Department A Stations and District&

Mam St. Substation (District 5) 83<1 Main Sl

Sabattus St. SubstatiOn (DistncH) 976 Sabattus Sl

Usbon St. Substation (District 3) 1046 Usbon St.

Legend

.4J. Lewiston_Fire_Stations

~ Lew Fire Disllicts

The LFD serves an estimated population of approximately 36,225 (2019 estimate) people and a total service area of 34.15 square miles (the city also has 1.39 square miles of water). The average service area for each of the four fire stations is approximately 8.53 square miles.

In a FY 2011 ICMA Data Report, ICMA tabulated survey information from 34 municipalities with populations greater than 100,000 people. In this grouping the average fire station service area was 13.1 square miles.5 The median service area for this grouping was 7.17 square miles per fire station.6

In addition, the NFPA and ISO have established different indices in determining fire station distribution. The ISO Fire Suppression Rating Schedule, Section 560, indicates that first-due engine companies should serve areas that are within a 1.5-mile travel distance.7 The placement of fire stations that achieves this type of separation creates service areas that are approximately 4.5 square miles in size, depending on the road network and other geographical barriers (rivers, lakes, railroads, limited access highways, etc.). The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) references the placement of fire stations in an indirect way. It recommends that fire stations be placed in a distribution that achieves the desired minimum response times. NFPA Standard 1710, Section 5.2.4.1.1, suggests an engine placement that achieves a 240-second (four-minute) travel time.8 Using an empirical model called the “piece-wise linear travel time function” the Rand Institute has estimated that the average emergency response speed for fire apparatus is 35 mph. At this speed the distance a fire engine can travel in four minutes is approximately 1.97 miles.9 A polygon based on a 1.97-mile travel distance results in a service area that on average is 7.3 square miles.10

From these comparisons, the average 8.53 square-mile service area per station in Lewiston is in line with the noted references. However, it should be noted that the southern “tip” of the city does have the longest time for response due to the elongated nature of the city limits.

Fire and EMS services are extremely labor intensive. Typically, the overwhelming share of the annual operating expenses are primarily attributable to personnel costs. In many systems it is not uncommon to see personnel costs account for as much as 85 to 90 percent of the annual budget expenditures. For this reason, fire departments will not deploy additional resources (new fire stations, new apparatus, and the assigned staffing) until service demand exists. Unlike public water utilities, sewer systems, and transportation networks, where it is cost effective to develop this infrastructure prior to development, fire and EMS service enhancements are best established after growth has occurred and the service demand exists. While there is no established number, CPSM has found most progressive and expanding departments do not build/staff stations in new areas until a call-for-service of at least three per day is reached.

Fire service demand is very predictable. In many systems, this demand is a by-product of population growth, the transportation network, and service demand generators related to commerce, institutions, and tourist attractions. Another important point when considering the

5. Comparative Performance Measurement, FY 2011 Data Report - Fire and EMS, ICMA Center for Performance Measurement, August 2012. 6. Ibid. 7. Insurance Services Office. (2003) Fire Protection Rating Schedule (edition 02-02). Jersey City, NJ: Insurance Services Office (ISO). 8. National Fire Protection Association. (2010). NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. Boston, MA: National Fire Protection Association. 9. University of Tennessee Municipal Technical Advisory Service, “Clinton Fire Location Station Study,” Knoxville, TN, November 2012. p. 8. 10. Ibid. p. 9.

28 expansion of the service network is that the increase in additional call volume is typically very gradual and can be tracked or monitored sufficiently to allow for a more orderly expansion of the service network. As subdivisions are built and commercial markets are developed, the activities involved in responding to calls gradually trail the growth of these alarm generators. The ongoing ability to monitor response activities provides ample lead time to develop funding, construct new facilities, and deploy the needed resources. The only real difficulty in meeting future service expansion is when there is a rapid and block-type service increase associated with the assumption of service responsibilities from an existing development that typically occurs when there is an annexation or an addition of a contract service arrangement with a developed community or service district. Even in these scenarios, there is ample lead time to arrange temporary quartering or deployment strategies until the permanent infrastructure and staffing can be established.

Stations are designed to adequately house apparatus and necessary equipment. Typically, new fire stations have an anticipated service life of 50 years. However, we note that in many jurisdictions older facilities are being replaced in a 30- to 35-year time frame. In most cases, facilities require replacement because of their size constraints, a need to relocate the facility to better serve changing population centers, the absence of needed safety features or service accommodations, and the general age and deterioration of the facility.

LFD stations are older, as identified in a recent facilities study. In addition, there are several stations that require significant repairs. In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is little footprint to establish a robust decon area following calls for service. As a result of the most recent economic downturn in which layoffs and rank eliminations took place, much of the preventive maintenance effort at several the fire stations was deferred.

Should the city decide to offer EMS as a city-funded and operated service, the existing stations would not allow for stationing EMS vehicles. One could be located at the Central Station, but with the pandemic, it should be isolated from other staff.

CPSM agrees with the facilities study, which found there is a need for a comprehensive capital facilities improvement program. Because of the age and construction of the fire stations, it is likely a replacement would be much more cost effective than trying to retrofit the buildings to new codes. Sprinklers, exhaust systems, decon areas, and space for female/male personnel is either limited or non-existent in the current stations. Lewiston may want to look at a standard facility for stations other than the main central station. By using the same plans and design, it may achieve some savings on costs. CPSM believes that the cost associated with a facilities replacement and improvement program in Lewiston will entail a multiyear effort that will require upwards of $20 million to complete (using an average of $5 million per station).

Recommendation: The city should undertake a comprehensive fire station capital improvements program that provides for the necessary repairs, renovations, and reconstruction of this critical capital resource. (Recommendation No. 10.)

This effort will require a multiyear planning, prioritization, and funding program to accomplish. However, providing safe and adequate facilities that support fire and potentially EMS response should be elevated as a critical funding project for the city.

THE MODERN FIRE SERVICE

The beginning of the professional fire department is often credited to Benjamin Franklin. Following a visit to Boston, Franklin noted that city was far better prepared to fight fires than his adopted city, Philadelphia.

Franklin sought to engage the public in solving the fire problem. Teams were formed throughout the city to answer the fire call and what could be called the first prevention effort initiated to inspect, license chimney sweeps, and begin other efforts.

Thanks to the leadership of Benjamin Franklin, the fear of fires declined in Philadelphia, which became one of safest cities in the world in terms of fire damage.

Fast forward to 2020 and many of the same concepts remain in many fire services.

Today’s Fire Chief A frequent criticism heard in Lewiston by CPSM in individual listening sessions was about the Fire Chief and city administration. There was a dispute over how time was accounted for and communications from the current chief that resulted in investigations. The department was clearly divided on the communication dispute. CPSM recommends use of automated tools such as GoToMeeting that can record what is being transmitted to each of the platoons and when. Platoons should have to sign that they have received AND UNDERSTAND what is being presented. This applies to not just information but to policy.

Recommendation: CPSM recommends a thorough review of all policies, procedures, and testing processes in the organization. This should accompany a thorough review of job descriptions and processes for promotion. A good independent party from which policy can be provided is a firm such as Lexipol, which has been used by police agencies for many years. The firm now has a policy and procedure service for fire and EMS. (Recommendation No. 11.)

Members of the department should regularly be tested on policies of the department and up-to- date records should reflecting this testing. The importance of sound policies is highlighted by the policy issues embroiling police departments today.

The role of today’s fire chief is complex and multifaceted. It is no longer simply about organizing and commanding a reactionary force to suppress fires. Today’s chief must fill these many roles:

■ Community Ambassador. Community ambassadors work with their community. They begin by getting to know the community and the community knowing them. They represent fire and emergency services to the community, serve as spokespersons, share information, and are the symbolic leader to represent the department in the community. ■ Futurist. Futurists have their eyes on the horizon. They anticipate policy and political issues and keep abreast of innovations in the fire service. They anticipate change and plan for it. ■ Political Strategist. Political strategists work with elected officials and community leaders. They move the department to a strategic deployment and operation rather than a reactionary service. ■ Negotiator. The modern chief negotiates and represents the department with other agencies, within the political entities, and with labor. Negotiators must be willing and able to be a part of

a negotiating team, articulate and argue a point of view, seek a middle ground, and sell agreement to others. ■ Lobbyist. Lobbyists are normally thought of working with the federal government. However, a modern chief must be as a lobbyist with their local government, state, and various other entities that affect the department. Examples may be the International Chiefs of Police, International Association of Fire Chiefs, NFPA, the National EMT Associations, accrediting bodies, and funding organizations. ■ Navigator. Navigators first help others focus on the end results and desired outcomes and then help them maneuver through obstacles in the community and the political arena. ■ Champion. Champions are boosters of the fire and emergency services. They look at ways to get others to believe in the department and of inspiring others to act in support of its mission.

Today’s Fire Service ICMA used to regularly prepare and distribute a series of “green books” that identified best practices in city management. Examples included police, budgeting, emergency management, and fire services. The last green book for “Managing Fire and Emergency Services” was written and released in 2012.

The book outlined what a modern fire and emergency service organization looked like in 2012:

■ Fire suppression. Most fire departments view fire suppression as their core mission. Interestingly, most fire departments only spend about 20 percent or less of their time on fire suppression. ■ Community Risk Reduction. Community risk reduction or CRR, is a recognition that the best way to minimize fire loss and reduce injuries and death is to prevent calls for service. The effort in the United States was an extension of a system developed in the United Kingdom. The U.K. is responsible for much of the process used by fire departments to deploy resources and equipment. Beginning in 1933, the Fire Brigades in the U.K. began working on ways to move resources should an air attack occur during WWII. Following the cessation of bombing, resources would be redeployed to fight fires that would likely occur. In 1955, this process was updated and given a new term: Standards of Response Coverage (SRC). Under the SRC, resources were deployed from fixed points with travel times that could reach all property in the station area prior to flashover occurring. The time for flashover was estimated at 8 to 12 minutes. The time from ignition to the time the alarm was raised was one major difficulty towards preventing flashover. However, the SRC or SORC was used throughout the U.K. and United States to deploy resources. In 1985, the U.K. began analyzing data to determine why increasing equipment, increasing stations, and increasing personnel had minimal effect on reducing fire loss as well as human injury and death. The 1985 “Standards” were the last issued using that term. Beginning in 2001, the U.K. created a “White Paper” that indicated efforts and resources should be concentrated on preventing fires from occurring to maximize savings and safety. The new term, Integrated Risk Management, used and expanded data collection to determine the root causes of fire, identify resources that could eliminate those causes, and implement change. Early examples were smoking cessation programs, fire resistant bedding, installing smoke alarms and inspecting those installations in future years, installing fire extinguishers in higher risk occupancies, installing sprinkler systems, working with troubled youth to prevent arson, etc. The result of the changes in the U.K. showed that for every $1 in prevention, nearly $7 in response and loss were eliminated. U..K Fire Brigades were required to produce multiyear

strategic plans to reduce and eliminate calls for service. Efforts and enforcement would be concentrated on prevention. The CRR was introduced to the United States through the International Fire Engineers (IFE) and eventually adopted by the International Association of Fire Chiefs. Most departments in the United States continue to use the Standards of Response Coverage for deployment. ■ Emergency Medical Services. More than 59 percent of U.S. fire departments provide some form of emergency medical services to their communities. Most departments spend 80 percent or more of their available time on answering calls for service that involve EMS. Various levels of service are provided from Medical First Response up to and including Community Paramedicine. ■ Technical Rescue. Technical rescue encourages a range of services, including response to structural collapse, trench collapse, high angle rescues, confined space rescues, and water- related calls for service. ■ Hazardous Materials. Fire departments have always responded to events of hazardous materials and normally are the lead when a call for service is received. ■ Emergency Management. The fire service has always been intimately involved with emergency management, particularly with Incident Command and Incident Management Systems. The value of having any individual in the fire department prepared to assume command was demonstrated during 9-11 when top command in the New York Fire Department was killed. Junior members were required to assume command and take charge of many portions of the incident during the hours and weeks following the event. ■ Terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Police normally assume the Incident Command lead role with terrorism, but fire is normally engaged to provide emergency medical, support, and other assistance.

ACCREDITATION AND ITS VIEW OF THE MODERN FIRE DEPARTMENT

Police have had an accreditation program for nearly 40 years, the Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). In 1985, with the release of the “Standard of Response Coverage” document, a group of fire service leaders met with the International City-County Management Association (ICMA). The effort led to a letter of understanding between ICMA and the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) that would create an accreditation model to recognize outstanding fire departments.

The fire service accreditation model engaged experts from industry, insurance, standard making bodies, city management, as well as the fire service. The Commission for Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) provided a seat for a union representative from the International Association of Fire Fighters. That seat remained vacant for several years but has now been filled as has a seat on the board of directors for the Center for Public Safety Excellence, Inc., which is the umbrella corporate entity of CFAI. The organizations moved from control by ICMA and IAFC to independent bodies and commissions. However, both ICMA and IAFC continue to have representatives on all the boards.

The accreditation model identified core competencies that every modern department should address. According to CPSE, “Modern-day, progressive fire agencies, whether career, volunteer, or combination, have expanded their services due to changes in society’s demands, beyond basic prevention and suppression of fire to other services such as:

■ Emergency Medical Services.

■ Hazardous material response teams. ■ Highly technical rescue services. ■ Repair and maintenance facilities. ■ Communications operations. ■ Site plan review services. ■ Building plan review processes. ■ Public education programs. ■ Weed abatement programs. ■ Fire and arson investigation. ■ Pre-emergency planning. ■ Basic and advanced training programs. ■ Labor relations programs. ■ Human Relations programs.

The 10th Edition of the Self-Assessment Model for accreditation was released in early 2020. A highly collaborative process was involved in updating the latest edition. The initiative began in November 2018 when CPSE partners and stakeholder organizations met to conduct an initial analysis of the 9th Edition and brainstorm enhancement opportunities. From there, a team of more than 60 volunteers comprised of subject matter experts examined the model and provided recommendations to make the 10th Edition better align with current and projected needs of fire departments worldwide. CPSE additionally hosted a 9th Edition feedback session during its annual Excellence Conference and conducted in-person meetings with 18 consortiums across the U.S. and Canada, engaging 469 attendees to discuss needs for the new model.

Proposed revisions were included in a draft of the 10th Edition, which was surveyed through a public comment period with the fire and emergency services community.

The following figures quantify the reach of the industry-wide effort:

■ 11 organizations represented during the initial stakeholder analysis meeting. ■ 60 fire and emergency services volunteers recruited. ■ 18 in-person consortium meetings held with 469 attendees. ■ 28 responses submitted for a total of 261 comments received in public comment period.

There are more than 80 core competencies that agencies must meet to be accredited.

CPSM notes that Lewiston lacks many of the core competencies outside of firefighting. The department should engage the accreditation process under the assistant chief in charge of quality improvement and seek to meet all core competencies of a modern fire department. The IAFF and IAFC have embraced the accreditation model. CPSM has ordered and will present the city with a copy of the core competencies and model.

MOVING LEWISTON TO A HIGH-PERFORMANCE ORGANIZATION

CPSM analyzed the Lewiston Fire Department in the context of the Self-assessment Manual and the Managing Fire and Emergency Services book.

The Lewiston Fire Department faces a substantial community fire risk, with many old tenement homes, old mills, and historic buildings that often lack modern fire suppression systems.

The Lewiston Fire Department deploys a robust and adequate fire suppression service. However, the department fails to meet most of the other modern requirements of a fire department. The department does not use the most current technology, discourages training to meet the modern fire service needs, and has largely assigned duties to others such as the police department and department of public works.

The graphic above shows how the “Strict Chain of Command” was organized at the start of the Industrialize Phase. This was set up as a vertical approach, with labor receiving orders from those above in order to complete tasks. Using such an approach during an emergency—particularly like the one on 9-11 when the chain of command was disrupted—would leave an agency incapable of responding. On 9-11, all of the levels above “Foreman” were eliminated with the collapse of the twin towers. Those on the bottom of the pyramid quickly assumed the roles above them because they were trained to do so.

The move from “Industrial Models” to “Networked Talent Model” puts the “customer” first in service. Rather than levels all serving the one above, the customer becomes the focus of the organization and all efforts of the department move to serving rather than servant.

A frequent criticism heard by CPSM during staff interviews was that the Fire Chief has an open-door policy and bypasses the “chain of command.” A strict chain of command is not even found in military settings today. Most colleges, businesses, and cities that have moved from the “strict chain of command” have done so to become high-performing organizations. The chain of command was usually found in businesses and organizations long ago. One of the findings after 9-11 was the importance that everyone in the span of a department should be familiar and able to step forward to fill

34 vacancies that may be created. A robust and high-performing organization will establish a training program on the day of swearing in so that members can achieve their goals within the organization. The benefit is that the organization utilizes employees to their full value rather than limitations.

The Commonwealth Center for High Performance Organizations at the University of Virginia trains business leaders, educators, and government employees on moving from the “chain of command” to a “High-Performance Organization.” The graphic that follows demonstrates how procedural, problem solving, and behaviors change using a High-Performance Model.

Rather than being driven by orders, policies and processes are established and employees are expected to work within those boundaries with the ultimate focus on serving the customer.

Recommendation: CPSM recommends LFD engage in transforming the organization from an Industrial Model of management to a High-Performance Organization. The open-door policy embraced by the Chief is envisioned under the High-Performance Leadership system. Communication at all levels and through all avenues must be maintained to ensure all viewpoints and concerns are regularly heard and acted upon. A formal chain of command is critical for fire ground operations, but is complemented with a more informal communication process. (Recommendation No. 12.)

§ § §

APPARATUS AND FLEET MANAGEMENT

Fire departments utilize a wide range of fire apparatus, along with tools and equipment, in carrying out their core mission. Apparatus generally includes emergency response vehicles such as engines, tenders/tankers (water supply vehicles), aerial apparatus (ladders), quints,11 rescue vehicles/squads, and ambulances. There are also specialized apparatus including wildland engines and off-road vehicles, along with watercraft that are typically part of the emergency fleet. Trailers are utilized to carry specialized equipment when needed. These include hazardous materials response/equipment, decontamination devices and diking materials, structural collapse equipment, portable air filling stations, scene lighting, foam units, and mass casualty incident supplies. In addition, a wide range of utility vehicles including command vehicles and emergency communications units, staff vehicles, and maintenance trucks can be part of the fleet.

The mission, duties, demographics, geography, and construction features within the community all play a major role in the makeup of the apparatus and equipment inventory that is utilized. These factors, as well as the funding available, must be taken into consideration when specifying

11. A “quint” serves the dual purpose of an engine and a ladder truck. The name “quint” refers to the five functions that these units provide: fire pump, water tank, fire hose, aerial device, and ground ladders.

36 and purchasing apparatus and equipment. Every effort should be made to make new apparatus as versatile, safe, and multifunctional/capable as is possible as well as practical.

Apparatus maintenance is also an integral part of any fire department, and budget-wise it is invariably a key component in keeping such large ticket items as apparatus running and extending their usefulness. It takes a big chunk of a city’s budget to purchase and subsequently maintain a fire department fleet. As fleets age, experience tells us that repairs and costs will increase exponentially. There are two proven ways to mitigate the long-term and short-term costs associated with repairs and replacements. The primary way is to have a sound, dedicated preventive maintenance (PM) program that is on a regular cycle for every vehicle in a department’s fleet. PM should be a sacrosanct practice and should be unwavering. This strategy not only saves money but saves lives as well by keeping the number of viable fleet apparatus ready to respond to emergencies and accident free. The other method is to have a realistic capital improvement plan (CIP) to acquire new apparatus when an existing vehicle has outlived its usefulness. NFPA 1911, which sets standards on Guidelines for First Line and Reserve Fire Apparatus, has changed and adapted over the years to reflect the changes in industry standards, but on one thing it has been wholly consistent:

“…it is imperative that all fire apparatus be checked and maintained regularly to ensure that they are reliable and safe to use. The manufacturer’s instructions should always be followed when maintaining the fire apparatus.”

The standard further states:

“In the fire service there are fire apparatus with 8 to 10 years of service that are simply worn out. There is also fire apparatus that were manufactured with quality components, that have had excellent maintenance, and that have responded to a minimum number of incidents that are still in serviceable condition after 20 years. …the quality and timelessness of maintenance are perhaps the most significant factors in determining how well a fire apparatus ages.

NFPA Standard 1915 addresses the minimum expectations for a comprehensive PM program. The benefits of implementing a PM program in compliance with NFPA 1915 are many. First, maintaining a vehicle is less expensive than repairing it. Second, vehicles that undergo PM on a dedicated schedule are more likely to have a longer lifespan. Third, PM reduces the time that a vehicle is unavailable for use in the community by reducing the chances that it will need repairs that take it out of service for a lengthy period. Finally, demonstrating adherence to an NFPA 1915-compliant PM program reduces the chance of a maintenance-related untoward event and possible resulting lawsuits.

The LFD deploys six primary first response units to accomplish its mission. These apparatus are strategically placed among the four fire stations. The department has also kept several reserve vehicles. A reserve pumper is necessary to backfill when a front-line apparatus is having maintenance; having two is more than which is specified in NFPA standards and consideration should be given to selling an extra unit while the unit still has a value.

The department’s frontline pumpers and ladder have been replaced following the Great Recession and are in good condition.

The Chief has attempted to move towards modules offered in the Emergency Reporting Software system that would track maintenance on all assets of the department. He has met resistance that this is a change in conditions and would require negotiation. Members that were interviewed stated they were not offered training to perform the work required; the administration states otherwise.

CPSM is intimately familiar with the Emergency Reporting Software. It is one of the best RMS systems available in the market at this time and would enable tracking all equipment in the department 365/24/7. The modules are regularly updated, and information gathered will enable a department to complete the necessary risk assessment that is required if the agency desires to be accredited or meet NFPA 1710 or 1720.

Most processes in the department rely on Excel spreadsheets, paper, and manual record keeping. Modern fire departments have long since abandoned these manual processes, which create specialized positions that become isolated and “sacred.” The advantage of automating processes and records within the LFD is having multiple people familiar with systems; anyone can leave the department and the work can still be completed without interruption. The entire incident command system is built on this premise of shared knowledge and capability.

The capability to track the annual cost of operations, including mechanical repair costs, is critical in determining whether a vehicle is costing excessive amounts to be maintained. This can include vehicle repairs, labor costs, and parts. This information is critical in determining when replacement is warranted or can be anticipated in upcoming budget cycles. At the time of this assessment, fleet management was utilizing an automated system to track work orders, labor rates, and parts.

LFD equipment has been replaced in accordance with NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, 2016 edition, which serves as a guide to the manufacturers that build fire apparatus and the fire departments that purchase them. It is a best practice. The NFPA document is updated every five years, using input from the public/stakeholders through a formal review process. The NFPA committee membership is made up of representatives from the fire service, manufacturers, consultants, and special interest groups. The NFPA committee monitors various issues and problems that occur with fire apparatus and attempts to develop standards that address those issues. Of primary interest to the committee over the past years has been improving firefighter safety and reducing fire apparatus accidents.

The Annex Material in NFPA 1901 contains recommendations and work sheets to assist in decision making in vehicle purchasing. With respect to recommended vehicle service life, the following excerpt is noteworthy:

"It is recommended that apparatus greater than 15 years old that have been properly maintained and that are still in serviceable condition be placed in reserve status and upgraded in accordance with NFPA 1912, Standard for Fire Apparatus Refurbishing, to incorporate as many features as possible of the current fire apparatus standard. This will ensure that, while the apparatus might not totally comply with the current edition of the automotive fire apparatus standards, many improvements and upgrades required by the recent versions of the standards are available to the firefighters who use the apparatus.”12

"Apparatus that were not manufactured to the applicable apparatus standards or that are over 25 years old should be replaced."13

In a 2004 survey of 360 fire departments in urban, suburban, and rural settings across the nation, Pierce Manufacturing reported on the average life expectancy for fire pumpers.14 The results are shown in the following table.

12. NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, 2016 Edition. Quincy, MA. 13. NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, 2016 Edition. Quincy, MA. 14. “Fire Apparatus Duty Cycle White Paper,” Fire Apparatus Manufacturer’s Association. August 2004.

TABLE 3-5: Fire Pumper Life Expectancy by Type of Jurisdiction First-Line Annual Miles Total Years of Demographic Service Driven Reserve Status Service Urban 15 Years 7,629 10 Years 25 Suburban 16 Years 4,992 11 Years 27 Rural 18 years 3,034 14 Years 32 Note: Survey information was developed by Added Value Inc. for Pierce Manufacturing in, “Fire Apparatus Duty Cycle White Paper,” Fire Apparatus Manufacturer’s Association (FAMA), August 2004.

LFD should adopt a formal policy on apparatus replacement and incorporate that policy into a strategic plan for future operations. All equipment should be accounted for and put on a schedule for replacement so as to avoid surprise expenditures. CPSM recommends this information be put into 5-, 10-, and 20-year sections of the strategic plan.

Recommendation: The city should adopt a fire apparatus replacement schedule that includes an evaluation process that considers vehicle age, miles/hours of usage, maintenance records, and historical repair costs. (Recommendation No. 13.)

Most agencies utilize a combination of funding methods for apparatus replacements. These include capital replacement funds, bond initiatives, or simply through annual budget allocations. The key, however, is to develop an ongoing funding mechanism to fund the replacement of apparatus when their useful lifespan has been met. Fortunately, the current condition of the fleet is good. However, the city must be realistic in its budgeting forecasts to begin accumulating the replacement funding for the fire fleet. The lack of an on-going funding method for equipment replacement can and likely will result in delayed equipment replacement when the funding is not available, especially due to a recession or other fiscal pressures. Fire equipment is among the most expensive units in a municipal fleet and its replacement should not be subject to the economic conditions in effect at the time replacement is due.

Capital Equipment Fire apparatus are equipped with various types of tools and equipment that are utilized in providing fire and EMS services. Many of the tools and much of the equipment carried on fire apparatus are specified in NFPA and ISO guidelines. Fire and EMS equipment includes such items as hose, couplings, nozzles, various types of ladders, foam, scene lighting, SCBA tanks, AEDs, defibrillators, stretchers, small hand tools, fire extinguishers, mobile and portable radios, salvage covers, and medical equipment and supplies. Many of the small tools and equipment are considered disposable items and are replaced with ongoing operating funds. However, some pieces of equipment are very expensive, and thus require planning for their useful life and replacement. The more expensive capital items include:

■ Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and fill stations. ■ Firefighting PPE (personal protective equipment). ■ Hydraulic/pneumatic extrication equipment. ■ ECG Monitors/Defibrillators/AEDs. ■ Ambulance stretchers.

■ Thermal imaging cameras. ■ Mobile/portable and base radios. ■ Mobile data computers. ■ Gas monitoring and detection devices. ■ Watercraft/boats/outboard motors.

Much of the more expensive capital equipment is generally on a ten-year replacement cycle. Each new apparatus is equipped with these types of capital equipment, which has an estimated initial cost of nearly $200,000.

COVID-19

CPSM continues to monitor the COVID-19 pandemic that is still affecting widespread areas of the country. At the time of this report, states were opening businesses and nearly half are reporting an increase in active COVID-19 cases. A point of clarification that often gets mixed in news media: the amount of testing has increased for persons that have active COVID-19 cases. In other words, these people have known symptoms and can actively spread the disease to others. The CDC recommendation is to isolate these persons for 14 days and trace any contact they have had with others, who should also quarantine. Testing for antibodies is not the same as testing to see who has an active case of the virus. Antibodies develop, normally, two to four weeks after someone has an active case of the virus. It is the body’s response to protect from reinfection (although data is still not clear on how long or how much the antibodies protect).

Antibody testing is not always accurate. If the person had the virus, they may not yet have produced antibodies and some data now indicates that antibody protection may fade over time so those who were infected early may have less protection now. Antibody testing means the person HAD the virus, but it is not active, and they cannot now spread the disease.

The Fire Department Safety Officers Association (FDSOA) recommends implementing the following actions in a department during the COVID-19 pandemic (and check with medical directors/hospital systems, etc., for local recommendations):

■ Screen personnel when they are coming on duty and then 12 hours later (24-hour shifts). ■ If they have a temperature of 100.4°F or higher or signs/symptoms of illness, send them home. ■ Ensure the infection control officer is notified if any personnel are identified. ■ Some agencies are just using fever/chills and signs/symptoms of a respiratory illness (dyspnea, cough). If a person exhibits two or more of the following, send them home: muscle aches and pain; nonproductive cough; sore throat; runny nose; nausea. ■ Limit the number of members having patient contact to essential personnel only. ■ Ensure personnel know when and how to don the appropriate PPE. Ensure supplies of PPE are available and create a reuse protocol for N95 masks based on CDC recommendations in order to manage limited supplies. ■ Have the communications center implement a flu/COVID-19 screening process on calls. This information can be sent to responders while en route to the call so they can don their PPE prior to making patient contact.

■ When personnel respond to emergencies, have them slow down and assess the scene before entering. Sometimes the unknowns can be patients with flu-like symptoms. This will allow them to stop and don PPE prior to entering the building. ■ A mask should be placed on patients that personnel are concerned about potentially having the illness. ■ Limit personnel entering the hospital at time of transfer of care and other needs to visit the hospital. ■ Allow units to temporarily go out of service to clean their unit and uniforms, and shower if they run a patient with flu/COVID-19 signs and symptoms. Ensure an exposure form has been completed for tracking purposes. ■ If personnel are off duty they should not be in the station/admin facilities. ■ Eliminate in-person, non-essential meetings. Use teleconferencing if possible. Promote telecommuting for non-essential personnel. ■ Utilize social distancing while on duty. Because of the limited space in most LFD buildings, this will be extremely difficult. ■ Eliminate social functions (bingo, pancake breakfast, company meetings, allowing the public into the station for station tours). ■ If there is not a plan for reductions in workforce, then work to create one; this should be part of a COOP. ■ Have a plan to quarantine personnel if directed (where will they go, what leave status will they be placed on, food, etc.). ■ Continue to promote hygiene practices and cleaning of workspaces. ■ Increase the frequency of wiping down door handles and all surfaces at the station and in the apparatus. The virus can live on some surfaces for up to three days. Make sure the EVT mechanics are aware of the need to clean all apparatus. ■ Ensure that there is a plan if personnel test positive for COVID-19, i.e., a plan for communication and potential coverage during the quarantine period. ■ Cease the use of humidifiers in stations/bunk rooms. ■ With all the disaster declarations, work with budget/procurement personnel to track all purchases such as PPE for possible reimbursement. Many of the rules for reimbursement continue to change but more than $10 million was appropriated for fire and EMS PPE. ■ Work to have “one voice” sending information to the department. All formal messages/direction on COVID-19 should come from one person. This way it avoids duplication and possibly contradictive information. Reference of information should be from a reputable and consistent source, i.e., CDC. ■ If your organization has not set up an IMT for this situation, recommend one be established. If one is set up, make sure it has an HSO/ISO representative on it.

As CPSM noted earlier, there is limited space for decon procedures and isolation at the Lewiston stations. Should the city begin EMS service, CPSM recommends that all EMS personnel be isolated from regular fire department staff. Fire department staff should only respond on the most serious calls for service: those that require heavy lifting or that involve bleeding, beating, and breathing. Illness and other calls should be screened at dispatch and fire department

41 personnel should not respond. Even in the serious calls, response should include procedures often used in hazmat situations.

Some of these steps may be appropriate as standard operating procedures, others need only be implemented during periods of emergency related to pandemic-type diseases.

SECTION 4. ANALYSIS OF PLANNING APPROACHES

FIRE RISK ANALYSIS

The cost of providing fire and EMS protection in many communities has increased steadily in recent years. This has been fueled in part by rising wages, additional special pay, and escalating overtime costs. In addition, funding requirements have been compounded by increasing health insurance premiums and spiraling pension contributions. At the same time, the workforce has become less productive, largely because of the increases in lost time, specifically vacation leave, greater usage of sick leave, compensatory time, and increases in other miscellaneous lost time categories (workers’ compensation, light duty, FMLA, holiday leave, training leave, etc.). As a result, many jurisdictions are asking the fundamental question of whether the level of risk in their jurisdiction is commensurate with the type of protective force that is being deployed. To this end, a fire risk and hazard analysis can be helpful in providing a more objective assessment of a community’s level of risk.

A fire risk analysis utilizes a “fire risk score,” which is a rating of an individual property based on several factors, including:

■ Needed fire flow if a fire were to occur. ■ Probability of an occurrence based on historical events. ■ The consequence of an incident in that occupancy (to both occupants and responders). ■ The cumulative effect of these occupancies and their concentration in the community.

A community risk and vulnerability assessment is used to evaluate community properties and assign an associated risk as either a high, medium, or low hazard. The NFPA Fire Protection Handbook defines these hazards as:

High-hazard occupancies: Schools, hospitals, nursing homes, explosive plants, refineries, high-rise buildings, and other high life-hazard or large fire-potential occupancies.

Medium-hazard occupancies: Apartments, offices, and mercantile and industrial occupancies not normally requiring extensive rescue by firefighting forces.

Low-hazard occupancies: One-, two-, or three-family dwellings and scattered small business and industrial occupancies.15

Plotting the rated properties on a map provides a better understanding of how the response matrix and staffing patterns can be used to ensure a higher concentration of resources for worst- case scenarios or, conversely, fewer resources for lower levels of risk.16

15. Cote, Grant, Hall & Solomon, eds., Fire Protection Handbook (Quincy, MA: NFPA 2008), 12. 16. Fire and Emergency Service Self-Assessment Manual, Eighth Edition (Center for Public Safety Excellence, 2009), 49.

Hazard Analysis and Community Risk Assessment Hazard analysis and community risk assessment are essential elements in a fire department’s planning process. The Fire Chief has purchased software from Emergency Reporting, which offers the most robust risk assessment process solution on the market. The ER Risk Assessment Module was originally developed by the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) and the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IACP) using algorithms from the Wildland Fire Division of the U.S. Forest Service. The program, called RHAVE, had limitations when used in urban settings and required manually overriding the scoring process to recognize historical structures, special populations, and major employers.

CFAI sold the data and intellectual rights to Emergency Reporting, which has upgraded the capabilities and coordinated reporting using GIS (Geographic Information System) software. The more data a community can integrate into the module, the better risk assessment that can be conducted. The risks have also been expanded to include natural disasters and other calls faced by modern fire departments.

The City of Lewiston and the LFD have recognized the need for a comprehensive community risk and vulnerability assessment. However, at this time only the Chief and one assistant can input information into the system.

Recommendation: CPSM recommends that teams from each of the fire stations survey structures in their areas and input the resulting information into the Emergency Reporting Risk Assessment Module. Fatal fires in Charleston, S.C. and Worchester, Mass., demonstrate the danger to firefighters who are unfamiliar with buildings, structures, and occupancies in their primary response zones. (Recommendation No. 14.)

Each local jurisdiction must decide what degree of risk is acceptable to the citizens it serves. This determination is based on criteria that have been developed to define the levels of risk (e.g., of fire) within all sections of the community.17 To this end, a comprehensive planning approach that includes a fire risk assessment and hazard analysis is essential in determining local needs.

The term integrated risk management refers to a planning methodology that recognizes that citizen safety, the protection of property, and the protection of the environment from fire and related causes must include provisions for the reasonable safety of emergency responders. This means assessing the risk faced, taking preventive action, and deploying the proper resources in the right place at the right time.18 There are two main considerations of a risk assessment: the probability of an event occurring and the consequence of that event occurring. The matrix in the following figure divides the risk assessment into four quadrants. Each quadrant of the chart creates different requirements in the community for commitment of resources.

17. Compton and Granito, Managing Fire and Rescue Services, 39. 18. Cote, Grant, Hall & Solomon, eds., Fire Protection Handbook (Quincy, MA: NFPA 2008), 12-3.

FIGURE 4-1: Community Risk Matrix

Plotting the rated properties on a map will provide a better understanding of how the response matrix and staffing patterns can be used to ensure a higher concentration of resources for worst- case scenarios or, conversely, fewer resources for lower levels of risk.19

Community risk and vulnerability assessments are essential elements in a fire department’s planning process. Although the City of Lewiston and the LFD have identified several potential hazards in the community, a comprehensive community risk and vulnerability assessment has not been done.

Recommendation: The Lewiston Fire Department should conduct a formal fire risk analysis that concentrates on the city’s downtown, strip commercial establishments, big-box occupancies, high-rise structures, industrial processing, and institutional properties. (Recommendation No. 15.)

19. Fire and Emergency Service Self-Assessment Manual, Eighth Edition, (Center for Public Safety Excellence, 2009), 49.

As a guide in conducting a vulnerability assessment, CPSM has developed the following template that may be utilized in completing this process.

Community Risk Assessment Template TASK 1: Establish a Risk Assessment Team ■ Five to six members with assorted skills. ■ Team leader. ■ Data analyst. ■ Tactical/command expertise. ■ City planning/growth management. ■ Financial/economic. ■ GIS/mapping. TASK 2: Review and Plot Historical Workload (5 years) ■ Breakout daily call distribution by type.

□ Location/occupancy type.

□ High-volume/frequent use. ○ Hospital. ○ University. ○ Adult living center. ■ Identify high-dollar loss fire events (>$25K).

□ Location/occupancy type.

□ Cause & origin/demographic. ■ Identify high-manpower events (>20 people). ■ Identify high-time duration events (>2 hours). ■ Identify events with significant economic impact (>$1 million). ■ Identify events with multiple injuries or fatalities. ■ Identify events with significant environmental impacts (which require remediation).

TASK 3: Identify the Community Risks for High-profile Events ■ Transportation accidents (rail, air, roadway, port). ■ Occupancies with high OVAP scores. ■ Wildfire events. ■ Large, complex fire (dormitory, assisted living, jail, hospital, etc.). ■ Processing or manufacturing accident (chemical, radiologic, petroleum, electrical, etc.). ■ Mass casualty incident. ■ Weather, flooding, or seismic event. ■ Terrorist event. ■ Driven by a community profile or demographic.

TASK 4: Identify Capacity Issues or Incidents in which Insufficient Resources Resulted in a Negative Outcome ■ Related to daily activities. ■ Related to larger/significant events. ■ Related to incidents requiring the utilization of mutual aid or external resources. ■ Other incident types.

TASK 5: Identify Additional Service Demands Related to Anticipated Growth of the Service Area ■ Affecting daily activities ■ Related to larger/significant events ■ Incidents that required specialized services or a currently unavailable expertise

TASK 6: Identify Risk Reduction or Prevention Efforts that can Reduce or Eliminate Future Workload ■ Related to daily activities. ■ Related to larger/significant events. ■ Related to new demand resulting from growth. ■ Develop cost/outcome analysis.

TASK 7: Identify Additional Training Needs to Better Manage Current or Anticipated Service Demand ■ Develop cost/outcome analysis.

TASK 8: Identify Organizational or Tactical Capabilities Needed to Meet Current Shortfalls ■ Develop cost/outcome analysis.

In addition to examining risks faced by the community at large, the department needs to examine internal risks. The National Fire Protection Association’s Standard for a Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program (NFPA 1500) requires a risk management plan for fire departments to be developed separately from those that are incorporated in the local government plan.20 The Lewiston Fire Department does not have a written internal risk management program in place.

A fire department risk management plan is developed and implemented to comply with the requirements of NFPA 1500. The following components must be included in the risk management plan:

Risk Identification: Actual or potential hazards. Risk Evaluation: The potential of occurrence of a given hazard and the severity of its consequences. Prioritizing Risk: The degree of a hazard based upon the frequency and severity of occurrence. Risk Control: Solutions for elimination or reduction of real or potential hazards by implementing an effective control measure. Risk Monitoring: Evaluation of effectiveness of risk control measures. 21

20. Robert C. Barr & John M. Eversole, eds., The Fire Chief’s Handbook, 6th ed. (PennWell Books, 2003), 270. 21. NFPA 1500, Standard for a Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program (2007 ed.), Annex D.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESPONSE

Hazardous materials incidents occur with some frequency in Lewiston. There is a unique history on hazmat response in Lewiston. LFD's Chief and union president initially approached the Council about establishing a hazmat team in the early 2000s. The Council did not support the action because the team would be required to respond countywide. A few years later, the state offered funding and interest was further explored. The county fire chiefs would not agree on participation; the city and LFD union could not agree on compensation for response. Subsequently, the police department agreed to develop the specialized unit.

However, the fire department opted to not participate in management of hazardous material response calls for service. Instead, those calls are managed by the police department. This is the first time in more than 340 studies across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom that CPSM has found the police department in charge of hazardous material response.

The types of hazardous materials at both fixed facilities and passing through on major transportation thoroughfares in Lewiston present the potential for a more significant event and the possibility for an event is always present. The presence of the interstate highway and multilane highways with an unknown quantity of hazardous materials traveling through the city on a daily basis poses a challenge in the development of adequate mitigation measures.

Indeed, the traditional primary risks are those generated by hazmat transportation and fixed facilities. However, over the years, the type and nature of incidents to which regional hazmat teams may respond has significantly changed and have become more technically challenging. Examples include the following:

■ Clandestine labs, criminal and terrorist use of hazmat as weapons, chemical suicides, etc. ■ Interdisciplinary response scenarios in which the regional hazmat teams interface with their response partners in the law enforcement, emergency medical, and fire communities. Scenarios include special events and the use of Joint Hazard Assessment Teams (JHAT), improvised explosive devices, coordinated/complex attack scenarios, active shooter/assailant scenarios, and the emergence of virus threats such as Ebola and Zika. ■ Tourism and economic development initiatives have drawn national level and sporting events and festivals to the state. While this is a positive economic development, high-profile and high- density crowd events raise the threat level that requires a more sophisticated hazmat preparedness and response package. ■ Changes in the U.S. domestic energy infrastructure have impacted the response community, such as for incidents involving high-hazard, flammable trains with crude oil and ethanol, increased use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and related facilities, etc. ■ The increasing use of social media is viewed as both a situational awareness asset and a potential operations security (OPSEC) vulnerability. The regional hazmat teams can assume a leadership role in determining future pathways and options on how social media can be safely and effectively integrated into response operations.22

22. Flippin, P., et al; Virginia Department of Emergency Management Hazmat Program Strategic Review (VDEM, Richmond, VA, 2016)

Lewiston is compliant with OSHA, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, 29 CFR Part 1910.120 and NFPA 472, Professional Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials Incidents.

The LFD could contribute members; however, the Fire Association has apparently directed its members not to apply. Thus, while LFD firefighters could be members, they have not applied to be members. Members are paid a $15/week stipend for having the certification.

The Regional Hazardous Materials Response Team (RHMRT) is specialized in providing critical skills and equipment needed during any emergency where hazardous materials, chemical, radiologic, and biological dangers are present. The team provides hazard identification, response, and mitigation to not only Lewiston but the surrounding areas.

TARGET HAZARDS AND FIRE PREPLANNING

The process of identifying target hazards and pre-incident planning are basic preparedness efforts that have been key functions in the fire service for many years. In this process, critical structures are identified based on the risk they pose. Then, tactical considerations are established for fires or other emergencies in these structures. Consideration is given to the activities that take place (manufacturing, processing, etc.), the number and types of occupants (elderly, youth, handicapped, imprisoned, etc.), and other specific aspects relating to the construction of the facility or any hazardous or flammable materials that are regularly found in the building. Target hazards are those occupancies or structures that are unusually dangerous when considering the potential for loss of life or the potential for property damage. Typically, these occupancies include hospitals, nursing homes, and high-rise and other large structures. Also included are arenas and stadiums, industrial and manufacturing plants, and other buildings or large complexes.

NFPA’s 1620, Standard for Pre-Incident Planning, through its Sample Pre-Incident Plan Field Collection Card and Facility Data Record in Annex A is quite specific in identifying the need to utilize a written narrative, diagrams, and predesignated, detailed forms to depict the physical features of a building, its contents, and any built-in fire protection systems. Information collected for pre-fire/incident plans includes, but is certainly not limited to, data such as:

■ The occupancy types. ■ Floor plans/layouts. ■ Building construction type and features. ■ Building fire protection systems. ■ Utility locations. ■ Hydrant locations. ■ Hazards to firefighters and/or firefighting operations. ■ Hazmat considerations and locations. ■ Special conditions in the building. ■ Apparatus placement plan. ■ Fire flow requirements and/or water supply plan. ■ Forcible entry and ventilation plan. ■ Emergency contact information.

NFPA 1620 goes on to state that “A pre-incident plan is one of the most valuable tools available for aiding responding personnel in effectively controlling an emergency.”23 The information contained in pre-incident fire plans enables firefighters and officers to have a familiarity with the building/facility, its features, characteristics, operations, and hazards. Thus, they can more effectively, efficiently, and safely conduct firefighting and other emergency operations. Pre- incident fire plans should be reviewed regularly and tested by periodic table-top exercises and on-site drills, especially in the most critical and frequented occupancies.

Strategically and from an operational standpoint, according to NFPA 1620, pre-incident planning is a total concept based upon the following:

■ Situation awareness. ■ Management commitment. ■ Education. ■ Protection. ■ Prevention. ■ Emergency organization.24

CPSM believes that these conceptual considerations are particularly relevant in the case of LFD and the LFD Fire Prevention Division. LFD does not involve line personnel in in-service company inspections. CPSM believes this is a detriment to the necessary tactical efforts that are gained through preplanning reconnaissance; in addition, the ability to inspect and correct code violation and life-safety concerns for structures other than multi-unit residential structures is considerably reduced. All of the organizational tenets above are directly related to the ability of fire department personnel being able to walk through the structures that present a hazard or potential heretofore unseen, or new hazards, or special conditions and actually identify them firsthand.

Lewiston is home to two hospitals, higher education centers, schools, a significant number of historic properties, large mills that have been or are in the process of conversion to other uses, a river with significant flows during peak periods, significant lower income population and immigrant populations, and assisted living areas.

The downtown area also has many businesses and restaurants with suppression systems for which familiarization and preplanning walk-throughs could be accomplished during some form of company inspection program.

Many fire departments establish a uniform and systematic program for the prefire planning for critical buildings and occupancies by fire company personnel. The purpose of the program is for fire crews to become familiar with a building’s or business’s physical layout (preplan), understand its storage and processing activities, and to review any fire suppression or notification systems and their operability. For instance, familiarization with alarm and notification systems in nursing homes, hospitals, and schools can greatly mitigate confusion during the most routine calls and create a more efficient response model for the more serious calls. This information provides a great benefit during a response to an actual emergency. The Lewiston Fire Department does not conduct company inspections.

23. http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/codes-and- standards/detail?code=1620 24. Ibid.

Recommendation: The Lewiston Fire Department should implement a prefire planning process for all target hazards and high-risk commercial properties. (Recommendation No. 16.)

The results of the preplanning process should be systematically documented and subsequently stored in on-board mobile data terminals (MDTs) for ease of accessibility by company and chief officers during emergency responses. CPSM believes that prefire incident plans should be rapidly available on apparatus MDTs for responding personnel.

Recommendation: The Lewiston Fire Department should institute an effort to enter prefire/incident plans on apparatus MDTs in order to provide real-time quick retrieval of this information. (Recommendation No. 17.)

The prefire planning process is critical from both an incident planning perspective and for responder familiarization. The critical aspect in preplanning is to ensure that these plans are kept up-to-date and that all critical facilities are visited, and contact is made on an annual or bi- annual basis. These visits should involve the building manager and/or owner/occupant to generate, update, and maintain this information exchange.

§ § §

SECTION 5. OPERATIONAL RESPONSE APPROACHES

As mentioned previously, many agencies incorporate the use of pre-fire plans to provide a response and tactical strategy for those more critical or complex occupancies in the community. Figures 5-1 and 5-2 illustrate the critical tasks and resources required on low-risk incidents and moderate-risk structure fires, respectively. Understanding the community’s risk greatly assists fire department planning, and with ongoing training, these activities improve overall effectiveness and responder safety. FIGURE 5-1: Low-Risk Response–Exterior Fire Attack

Figure 5-2 represents the critical task elements for a moderate-risk structure fire. Some jurisdictions add additional response resources to meet and, in some cases, exceed the national benchmarking provided by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Departments, 2014 Edition. NFPA 1710 calls for the initial assignment of 14 personnel on a single-family residential structure fire when an aerial ladder is not utilized. Lewiston can assemble a full complement of resources for a single-family residential structure fire from its on-duty resources. In fact, on the initial assignment to a residential structure fire, LFD will typically assemble upwards of 20 personnel. As well, LFD often incorporates the resources from neighboring jurisdictions through mutual aid and automatic response agreements. CPSM recognizes these joint and automatic response activities as a Best Practice.

FIGURE 5-2: Moderate Risk Response–Interior Fire Attack

LEWISTON RESPONSE PROTOCOLS

Fire Response The ability to assemble the necessary resources to effectively manage even a smaller residential or commercial structure fire is significant. As mentioned above, the NFPA standard (NFPA 1710) recommends a minimum of 14 personnel as the initial response to a fire at a single-family residential structure. An actual fire of any significance will require 14 to 17 personnel or more for extended periods of time. As the incident grows in size and complexity, it is not unusual to see staffing needs that can exceed 30 to 40 personnel. This would be the case in a fire at a big-box retail center like a Home Depot or Walmart, a wildfire, or a fire at an apartment complex. Though these larger incidents do not occur frequently, when they do occur, the ability to assemble sufficient resources rapidly can significantly impact the outcome.

The decision as to what is the proper staffing level for a specific community’s protection is perhaps the most difficult assessment faced by policy makers and fire department leadership across the nation. As communities adjust this level of response, the costs associated with maintaining this level of readiness will have significant financial implications. CPSM believes that Lewiston is very well-staffed to manage its current workload because it is primarily focused on fire-only response. LFD is currently assigning 17 personnel to all structure fires. CPSM believes that this level of initial response is unnecessary and serves to increase the response activities of the existing resources.

The key to organizational efficiency and the safety of responding personnel is directly related to response activities and departmental deployment practices. Lewiston should evaluate its response practices and make every effort to dispatch the fewest number of units needed and

53 whenever possible minimize the frequency in which units respond with lights and sirens. In our review of LFD response activities to structure fire incidents, the data indicates that there was a total of 81 structure fire calls in which the assigned complement of personnel were initially dispatched. This is out of the total of 1,258 calls for service that were categorized as “fire.” Of the calls categorized as “structure fires,” 46 were cleared in less than 30 minutes. Twenty-one calls lasted 30 minutes to one hour; nine calls lasted one to two hours; and only five lasted more than two hours. Table 5-1. Number of Units Assigned

Number of Units Total Call Type One Two Three Four Five Six or More Calls Cardiac and stroke 83 0 0 0 0 0 83 MVA 247 20 5 0 0 0 272 Other EMS 97 3 6 1 1 0 108 EMS Total 427 23 11 1 1 0 463 False alarm 127 22 65 146 167 5 533 Good intent 121 4 14 9 11 7 166 Hazard 182 9 6 7 6 10 220 Outside fire 41 1 6 7 3 7 65 Public service 167 9 5 3 4 0 188 Structure fire 10 4 14 14 14 25 81 Fire total 648 49 110 186 205 54 1,252 Canceled 28 0 4 1 1 0 34 Mutual aid 15 0 3 0 0 0 18 Total 1,118 72 128 188 207 54 1,767 Percentage 63.3 4.1 7.2 10.6 11.7 3.1 100.0

Of note, 533 false alarm calls were received, which is significant. The department and city should work to eliminate false alarm calls, which would further free up capacity in the system.

The time that was spent on false alarm calls was more than twice what was spent answering calls to structure fires.

Recommendation: CPSM recommends the LFD and the city review current ordinances on false alarms and work in conjunction with the police department to alleviate the number of calls for service that are false. (Recommendation No. 18.)

TABLE 5-2: Calls by Type and Time Deployed Avg. Avg. Avg. Total Percent Total Deployed Deployed Runs Call Type Annual of Total Annual Min. per Min. per per Hours Hours Runs Run Day Day Cardiac and stroke 22.4 32.8 2.6 5.4 88 0.2 MVA 24.2 148.0 11.7 24.4 367 1.0 Other EMS 17.9 39.9 3.1 6.6 134 0.4 EMS Total 22.5 220.6 17.4 36.4 589 1.6 False alarm 10.3 396.2 31.3 65.3 2,313 6.4 Good intent 14.2 89.5 7.1 14.8 378 1.0 Hazard 25.1 158.6 12.5 26.1 379 1.0 Outside fire 22.9 70.0 5.5 11.5 183 0.5 Public service 22.7 98.7 7.8 16.3 261 0.7 Structure fire 25.7 184.1 14.5 30.3 430 1.2 Fire Total 15.2 997.1 78.7 164.4 3,944 10.8 Canceled 7.2 12.9 1.0 2.1 108 0.3 Mutual aid 80.5 36.2 2.9 6.0 27 0.1 Other Total 21.8 49.1 3.9 8.1 135 0.4 Total 16.3 1,266.9 100.0 208.8 4,668 12.8

§ § §

FIGURE 5-3: Location of Calls for Service – Fires

@ LFD Statio ns e Fire Ca lls

.>.ubum

During the period of October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019, there were 21 structure fire calls that were listed as “extinguished by fire service personnel.” There were 39 outside fires that were “extinguished by fire service personnel.”

The total property loss for all outside fires and structure fires (21 outside fires and 15 structures reporting loss) totaled $385,450. Content losses for outside fire (four) and structure fires (18) totaled $70,955. CPSM obtained these figures from reports filed with the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). One of the difficulties in comparing these data between departments begins with discrepancies in determining value. A structure in Lewiston may cost far less than one in New York City or the West Coast yet all departments enter value without taking the local building costs into consideration. The values entered often do not consider property records and tax valuations. Insurance losses would be more accurate but are not available to public entities or for analytical loss processes.

For the calls in which damage was reported (structure and contents), we estimate that the average damage for each fire was approximately $7,869.22. We can compare this experience to average fire loss nationwide for structure fires. NFPA estimates that in 2017 the average fire loss for a structure fire in the U.S. was $21,463.25 From this perspective the average fire loss in Lewiston is significantly lower than the amount of loss found in many communities across the nation.

Another indication that we use in our analysis of structure fire occurrence is the frequency in which an individual event results in a combined loss that exceeds $20,000. The $20,000 demarcation is relevant from two perspectives. First, this is a dollar amount that is comparable to the national average for fire loss in a structure fires, and second, it indicates a fire loss that from CPSM’s perspective is representative of a more significant fire event that requires fire department extinguishment. In the period evaluated, there were only five structure fires in which the combined fire loss exceeded $20,000 and one outside fire in which the total combined fire loss exceeded $20,000. The largest combined fire loss (structure and contents) for a single event was $108,000.

The average fire loss and the frequency of higher loss fires appears lower in Lewiston than what would be expected. It is hard to fully determine the reason(s) for the lower number of fires that resulted in significant fire loss. Much of this must be attributed to the quality of the fire suppression efforts exhibited by LFD and another factor must be the fire prevention efforts of the residents of the city and their ability to limit those factors that contribute to larger fire loss. The city has removed 70 dangerous structures over the last ten years and has stepped up its code enforcement efforts. The impetus for this was a series of arson fires in the downtown area nearly a decade ago.

It is our assessment, however, that the fire problem is limited in Lewiston and this a very positive aspect in considering the overall risk in the community. The following two tables provide an analysis of fire loss in Lewiston during the year-long evaluation period.

25. Ben Evarts, “Fire Loss in the United States during 2017,” NFPA September 2018.

TABLE 5-3: Content and Property Loss – Structure and Outside Fires Property Loss Content Loss Call Type Loss Value Number of Calls Loss Value Number of Calls Outside fire $95,550 21 $3,500 4 Structure fire $289,900 15 $67,455 18 Total $385,450 36 $70,955 22 Note: This includes only calls with a recorded loss greater than 0. TABLE 5-4: Total Fire Loss Above and Below $20,000

Call Type No Loss Under $20,000 $20,000 plus Outside fire 44 20 1 Structure fire 60 16 5 Total 104 36 6

Observations: ■ Out of 65 outside fires, 21 had recorded property loss, with a combined $95,550 in losses. ■ Four outside fires had content loss with a combined $3,500 in losses. ■ The highest total loss for an outside fire was $21,000. ■ Out of 81 structure fires, 15 had recorded property loss, with a combined $289,900 in losses. ■ Eighteen structure fires had content loss with a combined $67,455 in losses. ■ The average total loss for structure fires with loss was $17,017. ■ The highest total loss for a structure fire was $108,000.

Integrated Risk Management Fire suppression and response, although necessary to minimize property damage, have little impact on preventing fires. Rather, public fire education, fire prevention, and built-in fire protection and notification systems are essential elements in protecting citizens from death and injury due to fire. The term integrated risk management, first developed in the United Kingdom, refers to a planning methodology that focuses on citizen safety and the protection of property and the environment through a community-wide fire reduction effort. This is accomplished by assessing the risk faced, taking preventive action, and deploying the proper resources in the right place at the right time.26

An integrated risk management model uses incident data (location, construction types, population density, demographics, etc.) to assess all types of fire, health, and safety risk in the community. The model is then used to manage risk through targeted, community-based risk reduction strategies and flexible approaches to incident response (See Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service and Nanaimo Fire Rescue). It helps deploy the fire department’s response and prevention resources to best meet the frequency and location of incidents. It also aids in all- hazard risk assessment and increases the value of risk reduction efforts (such as fire prevention education for the elderly and children, the populations that are the most vulnerable to fire). Finally, the model measures the fire department services’ workload, and assesses the efficiency

26. National Fire Protection Association, Fire Protection Handbook (2008 Edition), 12-3.

58 and outcome of the delivery of each service, adjusting as needed. Integrated risk management pulls together all the different planning aspects of community hazard and vulnerability analysis, fire department risk management, resource allocation, and performance measurement into one unified, cohesive whole. The end product of this effort is the reduction of fire incidents.

In looking more closely at the location of structure fires in the City, it appears that there is a marked concentration of structure fires in the downtown area surrounding Central Station. We identified an area of approximately 11.2 square miles in this area that generated nearly two- thirds of all the structure fires and nearly three-quarters of the fire loss that occurred in the city during the year studied. The general area would be the first due area of the Central Station (business district and surrounding areas).

It appears that this area is ideal for a concentrated effort that focuses on reducing the occurrence of fire. CPSM believes that enhanced code enforcement efforts, concentrated public outreach, directed prefire planning, smoke detector distribution, and in-service company inspections would have a significant impact on reducing fire incidents in this area.

Recommendation: LFD should develop an integrated risk management plan that focuses on structure fires in areas of the community that demonstrate the highest risk of occurrence. (Recommendation No. 19.)

The downtown area clearly shows a concentration of structure fires. This area has significant fire risks with multifloor wood tenement buildings, old mills that have been converted to mixed use, and very small setbacks between properties. The key to future prevention is to drill down on these incidents to determine if any patterns or similarities exist regarding the cause of these incidents. Questions that could be investigated include: Are there seasonal trends?; Do fires frequently involve cooking or heating appliances?; Are there certain demographic groups involved, such as the elderly or certain ethnic groups?; Are fires concentrated in rental properties? Identifying trends or patterns can point the way to opportunities to concentrate code enforcement, inspections, or public outreach efforts that could impact these outcomes.

LFD does not have a significant workload, primarily because it is a fire-only response agency. In CPSM’s evaluations of departments across the United States and Canada, we have found that most spend up to 80 percent of their workload (time) on EMS calls for service. Since the LFD responds to a minimal number of serious medical calls, it has in one of the lower workloads that CPSM has quantified.

EMS Response and Transport

Overall The City of Lewiston enjoys a reliable and effective EMS system. The combination of the Lewiston Fire Department (MFD) and United, the for-profit ambulance service, provides excellent service to Lewiston’s residents and visitors. CPSM has reviewed EMS response data and interviewed numerous stakeholders and has a series of EMS response recommendations the city may wish to consider.

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, CPSM is discouraging agencies from making significant changes to their EMS systems at this time. The reasons for this include:

■ CPSM is finding that nonprofit ambulance companies are approaching new service contracts cautiously. In one case in the southern United States, no bidders replied for the service despite

multiple requests for specifications in the early stages of privatizing and before the COVID-19 outbreak. ■ CPSM and the IAFC have found that most ambulance services provided through fire-based approaches can generate sufficient revenues to cover the costs of the ambulance and fixed equipment. None have been found that are capable at generating sufficient revenues to cover personnel without some type of subsidy. ■ During this COVID-19 pandemic, a survey of agencies across the country has shown that calls for service have decreased 20 percent to as much as 60 percent. Callers are either bypassing EMS and getting transport to hospitals or have forgone treatment. ■ However, this treatment delay has increased calls for heart attacks and strokes; in one city on the East Coast, a department is responding to 30 percent more cases of stroke and heart attack than before COVID-19. ■ None of the Lewiston stations are spacious enough nor designed to provide for separation of duties and quarantine of staff. ■ CPSM has found even larger systems are being significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. One large EMS system that CPSM works with in Texas has gone from not requiring a subsidy to now losing money and requiring nearly $6 million in subsidies from its governmental agencies. ■ Patient treatment is likely to be significantly different in the post-COVID world. Telemedicine, paramedicine, and nontransports to facilities are being embraced and will be a likely outcome of the current emergency. ■ Most insurers and the federal government now provide payment for nontransport events if the patient receives care via telemedicine. This will generate increased revenues for providers, eliminate the necessity for further transport, and eliminate patients in the emergency room. However, it will likely increase time demands on staff as well as additional record keeping requirements. Lewiston is not now positioned to handle this likely, significant increase in workload.

CPSM has worked with several communities that use a two-tier approach similar to Lewiston’s and the major aspect of service found to be lacking is a concentration on response time criteria and lack of outcome or performance metrics. There are several models available that can be consulted on establishing these metrics; one that was recently issued in Paradise, Ariz., is included with this report as an annex. As well, during a recent study and presentation by the American College of Cardiology and the Center for Systems Improvements, it was found that few cities had fully instituted metric requirements beyond the standards contained in NFPA 1710 ,which pertain only to time. The full context of the webinar and study recommendations can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OABdTH9wLg4&feature=youtu.be

Recommendation: CPSM recommends that Lewiston establish teams with its medical providers to establish a system to outcome-driven performance metrics and move away from a system of time-only metrics. (Recommendation No. 20.)

Response Times Since the local ambulance service is provided at no cost to the city, Lewiston has no agreement with United on service provision. It is wholly independent from any formal monitoring or oversight by the city.

EMS first response times are consistent with national benchmarks. However, CPSM did find that dispatch time is nearly twice the national recommendations. NFPA 1710, 1720, and 1221 recommend dispatch of responders take place in 1:20 or less. In Lewiston, the 90th percentile dispatch time is 3.2 minutes. This translates into a 90th percentile response time for EMS (LFD and United) at 10.7 minutes. Turnout and travel times are all excellent and below the 90th percentile.

Thus, with changes to dispatch protocols, Lewiston could embrace any model of EMS service: fire-based, first responder, contracted service, etc.

Recommendation: CPSM recommends that, post-COVID, the EMS response times and calls for service be reviewed with the community and United to determine how service to residents may be improved. Consideration should be given to:

➢ The LFD continuing as Medical First Response only for serious calls for service.

➢ Developing a more robust service delivery model with United such as adding telemedicine to serve the residents of Lewiston. (Recommendation No. 21.)

The current EMS response model assigns the LFD a first response only for certain emergency medical dispatch (EMD) response determinants. These EMD determinants are assigned after a series of questions are asked by the call taker and answered by the caller.

An example of the response priority matrix from the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch (IAED) is shown in the following figure. FIGURE 5-4: Response Priority Matrix

Note that an “ALPHA” response determinant typically would result in a non-lights and siren (COLD) response by a Basic Life Support (BLS) ambulance only (‘single unit’), whereas a red light and siren (HOT) response by an ALS unit is recommended for a “DELTA” level determinant. This

61 matrix is often used by EMS systems to determine whether a first response and/or a HOT response is clinically necessary. Many systems use this matrix to guide whether a first-response unit is clinically appropriate for the response, with “ALPHA” level calls typically not requiring first response units.

EMD also uses medical complaint call type call classifications. The IAED example of the “Chest Pain,” Protocol 10, is shown in the following figure. FIGURE 5-5: IAED Chest Pain Protocol

Note that in the “Chest Pain” protocol, a patient under the age of 35 who is breathing normally, is a low-acuity, or “ALPHA” level response determinant, whereas calls for virtually all other chest pain calls are a CHARLIE or DELTA level response.

The prolonged call processing time may be the result of a process in the dispatch center that delays dispatch of a fire unit until a complete response determinant is determined for the EMS response, as opposed to simply a caller “chief complaint” (i.e.: chest pain). This process could take over a minute of call-taking time. LFD, working cooperatively with the regional dispatch authority, should evaluate the current call-taking process to identify potential options for decreasing call processing times.

One possible strategy to consider could include a pre-alert process that automatically notifies the closest fire unit based on a verified incoming call location and general call type classification that would typically result in a fire first response, prior to determination of the full response determinant. Using the chest pain protocol as an example, the majority of response determinants would likely result in a fire first response, therefore the dispatch center could have a process that pre-alerts LFD for any call in which the caller is reporting chest pain. If the final

62 determinant is an “ALPHA” level response, the fire unit response could be canceled en route, prior to arriving on-scene.

Recommendation: LFD and the dispatch authority should analyze the call- taking process to identify opportunities for shortening the time from call received to LFD unit dispatched. (Recommendation No. 22.)

ALS First Response LFD has a very limited response to EMS.

To be a high performing EMS system, command and supervision will have to be constantly engaged to adapt to changing conditions. CPSM does not believe at this time that the department is positioned to take such fluid action.

Nationwide, EMS models are likely to be reviewed post-pandemic and to face significant changes. Most agencies have not responded to routine sickness, illness, and other calls for service and no outcome change has been recorded. This is likely to continue. Agencies, particularly those that are fire-based, are likely to dispatch a medical team and not duplicate with paramedics on engines or ladders. Only the most serious cases will require a fire response coupled with EMS assigned personnel.

Lewiston also does not have control over the performance or outcomes regarding the transport provider.

This is not unusual as many EMS systems have developed staffing and deployment models that result in a paramedic being assigned to every EMS call, in many cases, more than one paramedic, with a paramedic staffing the ALS ambulance AND the first response unit. These models evolved from the belief that more paramedics in a system result in improved patient outcomes since paramedics are able to provide additional assessments and skills than an emergency medical technician (EMT).

Recommendation: CPSM recommends Lewiston evaluate what advanced licenses are necessary and pay only for those required to service its citizens. This decision would be made in conjunction with the determination of the provider for transport. (Recommendation No. 23.)

Numerous recent studies in peer-reviewed journals have demonstrated exactly the opposite, finding in every study referenced below that the more paramedics there are functioning in an EMS system, the worse the patient outcomes. These studies indicate that using a smaller group of well-experienced, well-utilized paramedics results in better outcomes:

More Advanced Emergency Care May Be Worse for Cardiac Arrest Victims Good CPR, getting to hospital fast resulted in better outcomes than using sophisticated methods Journal of the American Medical Association: https://media.jamanetwork.com/news- item/basic-vs-advanced-life-support-outcomes-after-out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest/

Paramedic Exposure to Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation Is Associated with Patient Survival American Heart Association: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002317

Does the Number of System Paramedics Affect Clinical Benchmark Thresholds? Pre-Hospital Emergency Care (PEC): https://doi.org/10.1080/10903120802101355

Fewer paramedics means more lives saved Study: Constant use sharpens critical skills https://www.firefighterclosecalls.com/fewer-paramedics-means-more-lives-saved

Cardiac arrest survival as a function of ambulance deployment strategy in a large urban emergency medical services system European Resuscitation Council: https://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300- 9572(03)00178-3/fulltext

Further, paramedics are expensive to maintain. They generally receive higher compensation, require additional initial and continuing education, and the equipment costs can be significant (a cardiac monitor alone can now cost more than $20,000).

As a result of the clinical studies calling into question the patient outcomes based on ALS or BLS care, as well as the cost of maintaining paramedics, the all-ALS EMS system is being changed in many innovative EMS systems in favor of BLS first response and a tiered ambulance deployment strategy, with a combination of ALS and BLS ambulances operating in the system. Many very- highly-regarded EMS systems, such as Seattle/King County, use only a BLS first response model and a tiered ALS/BLS ambulance response model.

Using the EMD response determinant criteria example cited above, the dispatch center can assign ALS or BLS ambulances based on the presumed clinical needs of the patient. For example, a CHARLIE, DELTA, or ECHO level response determinant would result in an ALS unit being dispatched. An ALPHA, BRAVO, or OMEGA response determinant would result in a BLS response.

Additionally, considering the average time difference between the LFD unit and United arriving on scene, it is likely that there would be very little opportunity for an LFD paramedic to have time to effectively initiate ALS care prior to the ambulance arriving on scene. However, because “to patient side” times are not recorded or captured, CPSM was not able to determine how often this occurred. Most dispatch systems end with “arrival” times but do not consider the time that it takes to reach patient side. Being in possession of this time element from both LFD and the EMS units would enable a better evaluation of the effectiveness and changes necessary to the system. Ultimately, it would result in better care management at the right time for the patient.

CPSM also recommends total transparency of response metrics. Dispatch, fire, and EMS should regularly be sharing, reviewing, and determining how response affected outcomes. However, response times, call criteria, and all other information must be shared.

Recommendation: Based on evidence from the numerous studies regarding patient clinical outcomes, as well as the significant cost of staffing paramedics in the LFD, the LFD should investigate if a BLS staffing model may be appropriate following the Covid-19 pandemic. (Recommendation No. 24.)

UNIT PRODUCTIVITY (UNIT HOUR UTILIZATION)

Due to the low call volumes in EMS, unit hour utilization was not tracked for the Lewiston Fire Department. Most fire departments analyzed by CPSM report 80 percent of their time spent on calls for EMS. It is far less in Lewiston.

Lewiston has a very low UHU, which means LFD can handle the current call volume without the need to add additional resources until the call volume results in a UHU at least four times the current utilization.

With its low utilization rate, LFD could also take on additional tasks related to EMS calls to reduce the need for United to add additional ambulances to the system. This would generate revenue for the city and utilize the skills of the fire team.

In the most recent legislation affecting Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements, a fee that can be collected on nontransports was instituted. CPSM proposes LFD look at this opportunity to capture this additional funding for the LFD, since the EMS would not be required to be dispatched and the emergency room would not require a patient service.

To preserve ambulance resources, this same process should be used for other call types in which an ambulance response may not be necessary. LFD and United should do an analysis of all EMD response determinants to determine which determinants have a high incidence of no ambulance transport and change the response recommendations to a first response-only initial deployment. If the LFD unit determines ambulance transport is necessary, the unit could request an ambulance to the scene. Call types that typically have a low ambulance transport ratio include:

■ Medical alarm activations. ■ Car crashes without confirmed injuries, or with confirmed low-acuity medical issues. ■ Ground level falls in the absence of reported significant injury. ■ Low acuity “sick person” calls (EMD Protocol #26). ■ Obvious death calls.

This would help make more effective use of the excess capacity in the LFD and keep valuable ambulance resources available for other calls. It also provides an opportunity for LFD to capture dollars that have been approved for nontransport of patients. Generally, the fee that can be collected is equivalent to what would have been charged for a transport. Savings arise for patient care in the emergency room that is often unnecessary or duplicative.

Because of the pandemic response and proposed changes to EMS service delivery payment models, telemedicine and community paramedicine are moving to accepted best practices. In addition, ambulance services are now eligible for payment TO NOT TRANSPORT patients. The LFD should be part of this solution as well as be compensated for providing first response.

Recommendation: LFD should take on additional responsibilities to make more effective use of its on-duty time and increase the availability of ambulances operating in the EMS system. By not transporting, LFD should receive the reimbursement from Medicaid/Medicare versus the EMS service. (Recommendation No. 25.)

Recommendation: LFD should develop a relationship with the United Medical Director to evaluate EMD response determinants which often do not result in an ambulance transport so as to be able to dispatch only an LFD resource to calls for those response determinants. LFD’s EMS services should be documented and approved by the Medical Director. Any calls for service should be reviewed by the medical authority to ensure LFD is meeting all applicable expectations (at a first responder level). (Recommendation No. 26.)

IMPLEMENTATION OF EMS SQUADS

During on-site interviews, one stakeholder suggested the option of using “Squads” for EMS responses. Squads are generally light-duty vehicles such as a pick-up truck or SUV staffed with two personnel.

This model typically is recommended when a first response agency needs additional resources to meet a high call volume demand, most of which are medical in nature. In those situations, adding single-role units staffed with fewer personnel could result in lower costs for EMS first response versus adding an additional three-person engine company to manage a high EMS call volume. However, this is not the case in LFD. There is already a very low utilization rate of existing on duty resources; therefore, the squad concept would not achieve significant cost savings. The current three-person engine companies can easily handle the current response volume without the need for additional resources.

However, CPSM would encourage further research to determine where the squads may be effective and efficient. One likely area that could be targeted for study would be the downtown area that formerly had a full-time station. The downtown area is generally used during daylight hours but has been upgraded with sprinkler systems. For that reason the probability of EMS is high; fire lower. Using targeted squads during peak hours may preclude having to dispatch three person engines from outlying stations to the downtown area and enable responders to arrive at patient side in a faster time (when appropriate).

The biggest benefit to squads is reducing wear and tear on heavier equipment (engines and ladders). The downtown may be best suited for a trial of this system. The following table provides a comparison of ongoing maintenance and use costs for heavier equipment compared to smaller, alternative response vehicles. TABLE 5-5: Fire Apparatus-Small Vehicle Maintenance/Response Cost Comparison Service Fire Apparatus (Engine) Alternative Response Vehicle Oil and filter change $175 $25.95 Set of tires $1,800 $625 Complete brake job $3,600 $270 Battery replacement $429 $53.95 Alternator replacement $1,195 $125 Windshield replacement $2,400 $600 Fuel efficiency 3-5 MPG 15-20 MPG

Recommendation: The implementation of EMS squads in the LFD would not result in significant cost savings in the current operation of the Lewiston EMS system. This option should be withheld until such time as the fire department’s utilization reaches a level where it is necessary to add first response resources to the EMS system. (Recommendation No. 27.)

MEDICAL SUPPLIES

LFD currently purchases its medical supplies separately from United, and there is limited on-scene replenishment of supplies used by LFD on the scene of a medical call. LFD should evaluate the economic impact of purchasing its medical supplies in conjunction with, or through the hospital system. Often, group purchasing of supplies results in greater negotiating strength and reduced costs for the supplies. It also has the additional benefit of facilitating a one-for-one exchange of supplies used on a medical call since the supplies are similar on the first response unit and the ambulance.

Recommendation: LFD should evaluate purchasing its EMS supplies in conjunction with, or through, the hospital system to gain economic efficiency and facilitate on-scene replacement of medical supplies used on an EMS call. (Recommendation No. 28.)

CPSM believes that the percentage of EMS call activities will continue to grow and become a larger portion of the overall emergency response workload in Lewiston.

The concepts in prehospital emergency medical care are rapidly evolving as more evidence- based research becomes available on the efficacy and effectiveness of traditional EMS models. Two of the more widely-held EMS system response beliefs have been challenged by this research are:

■ Faster response times improve patient outcomes. ■ The more paramedics in an EMS system the higher the level of care.

Four recent studies evaluated the impact of response times on patient outcomes; findings consistently point to the fact that there is very little, if any association, between EMS response times and patient outcomes.27 Further, a 2008 statement developed by the Consortium of U.S. Metropolitan Municipalities EMS Medical Directors published in Pre-hospital Emergency Care Journal contains the following:

“Over-emphasis upon response-time interval metrics may lead to unintended, but harmful, consequences (e.g., emergency vehicle crashes).”28

As EMS systems were initially developed, the concept of a paramedic on every call seemed logical. This concept led to the development of ALS first response. It is thought that the evidence for an ALS first response model was derived, for the most part, from early research that showed improved cardiac arrest outcomes with an ALS response time of eight minutes or less.29 At the

27. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15995089 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19731155 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12217471 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11927452 28. Prehospital Emergency Care 2008;12:141–151 29. JAMA. 1979 May 4;241(18):1905-7

67 time of this study (1979), only paramedics could perform defibrillation. Today, automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are commonplace and are used effectively by bystanders. In fact, most current research indicates that the initiation of CPR and AED use by bystanders are the most significant survival predictors for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) victims.30

Conversely, there have been several published studies that indicate that when there is an excess of paramedics on an EMS call, and there are more paramedics operating in an EMS system, there is a negative impact on patient outcomes.31 While initially this may seem counter- intuitive, the reality is that the performance of critical ALS skills requires regular practice on real patients.

When paramedics are assigned to every response vehicle and they are assigned to every service district in the jurisdiction, there is very little likelihood that an individual paramedic assigned to the slower service response areas will encounter a high number of critical patients that require these advanced services. However, when paramedics are utilized selectively and assigned to only the most critical patients, the frequency with which they use advanced medical procedures and critical treatment protocols is expanded dramatically. Think of it this way: If you need to select a cardiac surgeon, are you likely to choose the surgeon that conducts one procedure a month or the one who conducts 20 procedures a month? The ability to develop and maintain critical life-saving skills is enhanced and more readily monitored when these services are provided by a limited number of individuals.

The position statement of the Consortium of U.S. Metropolitan Municipalities’ EMS Medical Directors contains the following provision:

“As more paramedics are added to a particular system, however, the frequency with which each individual paramedic has the opportunity to assess and manage critically ill or injured patients in the primary or “lead” paramedic role may decrease. Pragmatically, considering that ALS cases constitute a small minority of all EMS 9-1-1 responses, adding more paramedics into the system may actually reduce an individual paramedic’s exposure to critical decision-making and clinical skill competencies.”32

Interestingly, EMS systems that are widely recognized for their exceptional outcomes on critical patients, such as Seattle (King County) and Milwaukee, limit the number of paramedics operating in these EMS systems. The theory is it is better to have a few, very well-experienced paramedics than many paramedics who rarely practice their critical skills.

Evolved EMS systems have revised response configurations based on quality emergency medical dispatch processes, deemphasizing speed as a proxy for quality service. These systems liberally use non-lights and siren responses and reserve precious ALS first response resources for the few calls in which the rapid arrival of an EMS unit may make a life or death difference. The key component in making this distinction is the utilization of an effective and coordinated call screening and emergency medical dispatching process.

In a recent report compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), entitled: “Lights and Sirens Use by Emergency Medical Services (EMS): Above All Do No Harm,”33 revealed that HOT responses are inherently dangerous, do not result in changes of patient

30. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28427882 31. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19499471 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18584496 32. Prehospital Emergency Care 2008;12:141–151. 33. https://www.ems.gov/pdf/Lights_and_Sirens_Use_by_EMS_May_2017.pdf

68 outcomes, and should be limited to only time-life critical events. The study goes on to recommend that HOT responses should be less than 50 percent of all EMS responses.

Our observations and national statistics indicate that when medical priority dispatching systems are fully functional, the number of Priority 1 calls that necessitate a “HOT” response are dramatically reduced. We have also observed in a number of urban EMS delivery systems that responding fire officers and paramedics are given the latitude to alter their mode of response on the basis of the dispatch call-screening process and dispatcher notes and their familiarity with the caller.34 As a result of this discretion, the ensuing response patterns have been altered so that “HOT” responses are being reduced significantly to about 20 percent of the total call activity.35

In addition to modifying the response mode, there is also the option to eliminate the fire department’s response completely for those very minor EMS call types or public assist calls in which a single ambulance response is sufficient. This point is critical, as government entities are frequently faced with requests for additional EMS response capabilities because of the volume of EMS call activity. As discussed earlier, the mode of response and resources deployed should be based on the call-screening and call-prioritization process.

MUTUAL AID/AUTOMATIC RESPONSE

Local governments use many types of intergovernmental agreements to enhance fire protection and EMS services. These arrangements take various shapes and forms and range from a simple automatic response agreement that will respond a single unit to a minor vehicle accident or EMS call, to a more complex regional hazardous materials team or a helicopter trauma service that involves multiple agencies and requires a high level of coordination. It is important that fire departments can quickly access extra and/or specialized resources to manage significant events. In addition, because these types of incidents do not respect jurisdictional boundaries, they often require a coordinated response. Sharing resources also helps departments reduce costs without impacting service delivery. All these situations point to the need for good working relationships with other fire and EMS organizations. The geographic boundary of the City of Lewiston is elongated and borders multiple areas of Auburn and other governmental units. Auburn has reduced staffing dedicated to firefighting and moved towards more EMS delivery. Lewiston has maintained a competent firefighting force but with little EMS. If a private provider cannot be identified for EMS services, a likely partner may be the City of Auburn. It would likely have to add staff, which may be contentious. There seemed to be some feelings by Lewiston that it provided the necessary back-up for firefighting to Auburn. Given the risks and hazards in both communities, should a significant fire event occur, both departments will be needed to extinguish the event. Having two firefighting teams separated by a river and two complete EMS systems is duplicative. If a change in the current EMS provider becomes necessary, a likely partner to first consider would be Auburn. Additionally, separate EMS would require two billing entities, human resource divisions, PPE monitors, etc.

34. See Sugar Land Fire-Rescue, a suburb of Houston TX. 35. Ibid.

WORKLOAD ANALYSIS

The current workload being handled by the Lewiston Fire Department is light, with low call volumes due to the lack of EMS as a function of the department. CPSM considers individual units responding to more than 3,000 calls each year as having a high workload. The entire Lewiston department responds to only 1,811 calls per year, which includes mutual aid (20), canceled calls (69), and false alarms (533).

Given the relatively short call durations for both fire and EMS calls, the cumulative in-service time associated with this call activity is not exceedingly high. The following two tables show the annual runs, call types, and deployed time for the primary LFD response units. Of note is the column labeled “Avg. Deployed Min. per Day.”

TABLE 5-6: Call Workload by Unit Deployed Deployed Runs Unit Annual Annual Station Unit Type Minutes Minutes per ID Hours Runs per Run per Day Day 415 Command 12.5 151.1 24.9 725 2.0 416 Command (reserve) 4.3 0.1 0.0 1 0.0 LE6 Reserve engine 56.0 2.8 0.5 3 0.0 Central LE7 Engine 17.7 314.1 51.8 1,067 2.9 Station LL1 Ladder 17.3 225.8 37.2 782 2.1 LS1 Squad 124.6 4.2 0.7 2 0.0 Subtotal 16.2 698.1 115.1 2,580 7.1 Lisbon Road LE3 Quint 20.0 204.0 33.6 612 1.7 Main Street LE5 Engine 14.7 142.3 23.4 580 1.6 Sabattus Street LE4 Engine 14.9 222.6 36.7 896 2.5 Total 16.3 1,266.9 208.8 4,668 12.8

TABLE 5-7: Annual Runs and Deployed Time by Call Type Unit False Good Outside Public Structure Mutual Station Unit Type EMS Hazard Canceled Total ID Alarm Intent Fire Service Fire Aid 415 Command 51 443 50 38 27 21 75 16 4 725 416 Command (reserve) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 LE6 Reserve engine 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 Central Station LE7 Engine 213 462 93 94 46 52 76 28 3 1,067 LL1 Ladder 32 452 56 37 23 84 76 17 5 782 LS1 Squad 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 Total 296 1,359 199 169 96 157 231 61 12 2,580 Lisbon Road LE3 Quint 99 228 59 79 33 35 61 16 2 612 Main Street LE5 Engine 69 281 47 45 25 27 66 14 6 580 Sabattus Street LE4 Engine 125 445 73 86 29 42 72 17 7 896 Total 589 2,313 378 379 183 261 430 108 27 4,668

71 Observations: ■ On a station level, Central Station made the most runs (2,580, or an average of 7.1 runs per day) and had the highest total annual deployed time (698.1 hours, or an average of 115.1 minutes per day).

□ EMS calls accounted for 11 percent of runs and 13 percent of total deployed time.

□ Structure and outside fire calls accounted for 13 percent of runs and 21 percent of total deployed time. ■ On a station level, Sabattus Street Station made the second most runs (896, or an average of 2.5 runs per day) and had the second-highest total annual deployed time (222.6 hours, or an average of 36.7 minutes per day).

□ EMS calls accounted for 14 percent of runs and 20 percent of total deployed time.

□ Structure and outside fire calls accounted for 11 percent of runs and 18 percent of total deployed time. ■ On a unit level, LE7 made the most runs (1,067, or an average of 2.9 runs per day) and had the highest total annual deployed time (314.1 hours, or an average of 51.8 minutes per day).

□ EMS calls accounted for 20 percent of runs and 22 percent of total deployed time.

□ Structure and outside fire calls accounted for 11 percent of runs and 17 percent of total deployed time. ■ On a unit level, LE4 made the second-most runs (896, or an average of 2.5 runs per day), and had the third-highest total annual deployed time (222.6 hours, or an average of 36.7 per day).

□ EMS calls accounted for 14 percent of runs and 20 percent of total deployed time.

□ Structure and outside fire calls accounted for 11 percent of runs and 18 percent of total deployed time. The following table shows the availability rates for the responding units in the LFD. As can be seen from this graphic, LFD units are available to respond to calls occurring in their primary districts on average about 90.3 percent of the time.

TABLE 5-8: Station Availability to Respond to Calls Calls in First Due First Due First Due Percent Percent Percent Station Area Responded Arrived First Responded Arrived First Central Station 1,002 972 971 925 97.0 96.9 92.3 Lisbon Road 296 279 277 258 94.3 93.6 87.2 Main Street 205 199 195 172 97.1 95.1 83.9 Sabattus Street 245 235 234 223 95.9 95.5 91.0 Total 1,748 1,685 1,677 1,578 96.4 95.9 90.3 Note: For each station, we count the number of calls occurring within its first due area. Then, we count the number of calls to where at least one LFD unit arrived. Next, we focus on units from the first due station to see if any units responded, arrived, or arrived first.

Another indicator of workload is the frequency with which peak service demand is occurring. Peak demand can occur when there are multiple calls occurring simultaneously or when there are larger events that draw on the system’s resources and additional calls continue to occur

72 while resources are assigned to the larger incident. All systems experience peak service demands that strain the available resources in the system. This is why it is necessary for mutual aid and joint response agreements, and that is to help mitigate these occurrences.

The key to any deployment strategy is to have sufficient resources to handle the day-to-day call activities and have the system designed to adjust and respond effectively during those high demand periods. In the Lewiston system, given the area being covered and the overall call volume, we would anticipate that throughout the year there could typically be five to six calls occurring within the same hour on a regular basis. This call activity can easily triple to 15 to 20 calls in an hour during periods of inclement weather, high traffic periods, and other times when call volume is higher than normal.

The following table is a compilation of ten busiest hours in the 12-month evaluation period and the numbers of calls occurring during each of those hours.

TABLE 5-9: Top 10 Hours with the Most Calls Received Number Number Total Hour of Calls of Runs Deployed Hours 5/15/2019, 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. 4 12 3.4 5/3/2019, 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 4 9 2.3 1/24/2019, 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 4 5 2.1 12/7/2018, 1:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. 3 15 3.6 9/11/2019, 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. 3 15 1.7 6/22/2019, 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. 3 13 1.6 6/18/2019, 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. 3 12 3.2 8/19/2019, 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 3 11 1.5 8/22/2019, 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 3 9 2.4 4/4/2019, 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 3 9 1.3 Note: Total deployed hours is a measure of the total time spent responding to calls received in the hour, and which may extend into the next hour or hours. The number of runs and deployed hours only includes LFD units. Observations: ■ For 29 hours (0.3 percent of all hours), three or more calls occurred; in other words, the department responded to three or more calls in an hour roughly once every 13 days.

□ The highest number of calls to occur in an hour was 4, which happened 3 times. ■ The hour with the most calls and most related runs was 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. on May 15, 2019.

□ The hour’s 4 calls involved 12 individual dispatches resulting in 3.4 hours of deployed time. These 4 calls included two false alarm calls, one other EMS, and one structure fire call. ■ The hour with the most calls and second-most related runs was 4:00 p.m.to 5:00 p.m. on May 3, 2019.

□ The hour’s 4 calls involved 9 individual dispatches resulting in 2.3 hours of deployed time. These 4 calls included 3 motor vehicle accident calls and one false alarm call.

SECTION 6. RESPONSE TIME ANALYSIS

Response times are typically the primary measurement used in evaluating fire and EMS services. Most deployment models attempt to achieve a four-minute initial travel time for EMS calls and a full-force travel time of eight minutes for fire calls. A full-force travel time indicates the time it takes for the initial response of all resources assigned for the call to arrive on the scene.

While these times have validity, the actual impact of a speedy response time is limited to very few incidents. For example, in a full cardiac arrest, analysis shows that successful outcomes are rarely achieved if basic life support (CPR) is not initiated within four minutes of the onset of the arrest. However, cardiac arrests occur very infrequently; on average these are 1 percent to 1.5 percent of all EMS incidents.36 There are also other EMS incidents that are truly life-threatening, and the time of response can clearly impact the outcome. These involve drownings, electrocutions, and severe trauma (often caused by gunshot wounds, stabbings, and severe motor vehicle accidents, etc.). Again, the frequency of these types of calls are limited.

Regarding response times for fire incidents, the frequency of actual fires in Lewiston (structure and outside fires) is high due to the fact that the department is primarily fire-focused; it responds to a minimum number of EMS calls for service. The department responds to an average of 3.5 calls per day to fire-related incidents, which is 69.5 percent of its workload. By contrast, it responds to 1.3 EMS-related calls per day, or 25.6 percent of its workload. In most departments across the country, these numbers are reversed. At first glance, this would indicate a severe fire problem in Lewiston. Instead, it is because the department focuses primarily on fire response and not most other calls for service as outlined in this report.

Actual structure fires were 4.5 percent of all calls, or 81 in the 12-month period evaluated. The criterion for fire response is based on the concept of “flashover.” This is the state at which super- heated gasses from a fire in an enclosed area results in a near-simultaneous ignition of the combustible material in the area. In this situation, usually after an extended period (eight to twelve minutes), the fire expands rapidly and is much more difficult to contain. When the fire reaches this hazardous state, a larger and more destructive fire occurs. The following figure illustrates the flashover phenomenon and its potential for increased damage.

Another important factor in the whole response time question is what we term “detection time.” This is the time it takes to detect a fire or a medical situation and notify 911 to initiate the response. In many instances, particularly at night or when automatic detection systems (fire sprinklers and smoke detectors) are unavailable or inoperable, the detection process can be extended. Fires that go undetected and thus able to expand in size become more destructive and are more difficult to extinguish.

§ § §

36. Myers, Slovis, Eckstein, Goodloe et al. (2007). ”Evidence-based Performance Measures for Emergency Medical Services System: A Model for Expanded EMS Benchmarking.” Pre-hospital Emergency Care.

FIGURE 6-1: Fire Propagation Curve

MEASURING RESPONSE TIMES

There have been no documented studies that have made a direct correlation between response times and outcomes in fire and EMS events. No one has been able to show that a four- minute response time is measurably more effective than a six-minute response time. The logic has been “faster is better,” but this has not been substantiated by any detailed analysis. Furthermore, the ability to measure the difference in outcomes (patient saves, reduced fire damage, or some other quantifiable measure) between a six-minute, eight-minute, or ten- minute response is not a performance measure often utilized in the fire service. So, in looking at response times it is prudent to design a deployment strategy around the actual circumstances that exist in the community and the fire problem that is perceived to exist. This requires a “fire risk assessment” and a political determination as to the desired level of protection for the community. It would be imprudent, and very costly, to build a deployment strategy that is based solely upon response times.

For this analysis, response time is a product of three components: dispatch time, turnout time, and travel time.

■ Dispatch time is the time interval that begins when the alarm is received at the communication center and ends when the response information is transmitted via voice or electronic means to the emergency response facility or emergency response units in the field. Dispatch time is the responsibility of the 911 center and outside the control of LFD officials. ■ Turnout time is the time interval that begins when the notification process to emergency response units is made and when emergency response units begin movement. At the point movement takes place, travel time begins. The fire department has the greatest control over this segment of the total response time measurement.

■ Travel time is the time interval that initiates when the unit is en route to the call and ends when the unit arrives at the scene. ■ Response time, also known as total response time, is the time interval that begins when the call is received by the primary dispatch center and ends when the dispatched unit arrives on the scene to initiate action.

LEWISTON RESPONSE TIMES

For this study, and unless otherwise indicated, our response time calculation measures the first arriving unit only. Typically, we track only those responses in which the unit is responding with lights and sirens (hot). Based on these calculations we determined:

■ The average dispatch time for all calls within city corporate limits was 3.2 minutes (80 seconds or 1.33 minutes is the national standard). ■ The average turnout time was 1.7 minutes (National Standard is 1.33 minutes). ■ The average travel time was 2.7 minutes. ■ The average total response time for EMS calls in the city was 7.8 minutes. ■ The average total response time for fire category calls was 7.5 minutes. ■ The average response time for structure fire calls was 6.7 minutes. ■ The average response time for outside fire calls was 7.5 minutes.

According to NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Departments, 2014 Edition, the alarm processing time or dispatch time should be less than or equal to 80 seconds 90 percent of the time. This standard also states that the turnout time should be less than or equal to 80 seconds (1.33 minutes) for fire and special operations 90 percent of the time, and travel time shall be less than or equal to 240 seconds for the first arriving engine company 90 percent of the time. The following table shows the average response time in minutes for the first arriving unit, by call type.

§ § §

TABLE 6-1: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type

Time in Minutes Number of Call Type Dispatch Turnout Travel Total Calls Cardiac and stroke 2.8 1.6 2.1 6.5 77 MVA 3.7 1.6 3.0 8.3 247 Other EMS 3.6 1.5 2.5 7.6 95 EMS Total 3.5 1.6 2.7 7.8 419 False alarm 2.7 1.8 2.3 6.8 497 Good intent 3.3 1.8 3.0 8.0 160 Hazard 3.5 1.8 3.2 8.4 207 Outside fire 2.9 1.6 3.1 7.5 58 Public service 3.5 1.8 3.2 8.6 161 Structure fire 2.7 1.7 2.2 6.7 75 Fire Total 3.0 1.8 2.7 7.5 1,158 Total 3.2 1.7 2.7 7.6 1,577

TABLE 6-2: Lewiston 90th Percentile Response Times

Time in Minutes Number of Call Type Dispatch Turnout Travel Total Calls Cardiac and stroke 4.0 2.4 4.2 9.3 77 MVA 5.3 2.3 5.4 12.1 247 Other ems 6.2 2.3 4.4 11.2 95 EMS Total 5.3 2.3 5.0 11.2 419 False alarm 4.0 2.4 3.8 9.1 497 Good intent 5.0 2.6 5.6 11.1 160 Hazard 5.2 2.6 5.7 11.7 207 Outside fire 4.2 2.2 5.8 10.2 58 Public service 5.0 2.6 5.4 11.2 161 Structure fire 3.9 2.4 3.8 9.1 75 Fire Total 4.6 2.5 4.9 10.5 1,158 Total 4.9 2.5 4.9 10.7 1,577

■ The 90th percentile dispatch time was 4.9 minutes. ■ The 90th percentile turnout time was 2.5 minutes. ■ The 90th percentile travel time was 4.9 minutes. ■ The 90th percentile total response time was 10.7 minutes. ■ The 90th percentile response time was 11.2 minutes for EMS calls and 10.5 minutes for fire calls. ■ The 90th percentile response time was 10.2 minutes for outside fires and 9.1 minutes for structure fires. Recommendation: The 90th percentile 4.6-minute dispatch time for fire calls in more than three times what is established as a national average by NFPA and APCO (Association of Public Safety Communications Officers). Dispatch is provided through a joint dispatch with Auburn. Achieving near-national standard performance would increase the capability of fire suppression by deploying units in a safe, efficient, and effective manner. The dispatch center should monitor and correct this deficiency. (Recommendation No. 29.)

The NFPA 1710 standard further states the initial first alarm assignment (a total of 14 personnel for a single-family residential structure) should be assembled on scene in 480 seconds (8 minutes), 90 percent of the time (not including dispatch and turnout time). NFPA 1710 response time criteria are utilized by CPSM as a benchmark for service delivery and in the overall staffing and deployment of fire departments and is not a CPSM recommendation. However, LFD is performing well against the NFPA benchmarks except for dispatch.

The following three figures illustrate these station locations and their respective travel distance projections: 240 seconds (indicated by the green overlay) and 480 seconds (indicated by the brown/yellow overlay). These projections are based on actual road travel distances and the posted speed limits on these roadways.

§ § §

FIGURE 6-2: Lewiston Station Locations and 240-seconds Travel Projection

@ LFD Stations Response Reach - 0 - 240 seconds

nu.: Bil:sin

Au bum

FIGURE 6-3: Lewiston Station Locations and 480-seconds Travel Projection

@ LFD Stations Response Reach o - 480 seconds

.>.ubum

FIGURE 6-4: Lewiston Station Locations and Composite Travel Projection

@ LFD Stations Response Reach - 0 - 240 seconds - 240 - 480 seconds

.>.ubum

The next set of figures show the actual locations of fire, EMS, and other emergency responses carried out by the Lewiston Fire Department, and representations of the density of fire, EMS, and other emergency responses. It is apparent from these graphics that most responses in Lewiston should result in travel times that are within four to six minutes. It also appears that the fire station distribution in relation to the overall distribution of calls should provide suitable coverage to ensure an appropriate response outcome.

§ § §

FIGURE 6-5: LFD Fire Runs

@ LFD Statio ns e Fire Ca lls

.>.ubum

FIGURE 6-6: Fire Call Density in Lewiston

@ LF D Sta tions Fire Calls Least Dense

Most Dense

.>.ubum

FIGURE 6-7: Fire Call Density by Grid

@ LF D Sta tions Fire Calls Least Dense

Most Dense Density shown using a one quarter {0.25) square mile the H;,sm grid /"

.... .ubum ) .,.,!f ~~ ¢' fl.'uNdr -< 0 4 .€ ""'~""'£. "r,. c.. t rhome~ ~ 12 H I/ 2 ~ 0 ~

5 6 5

2 2 3

3 3

FIGURE 6-8: LFD EMS Runs

@ LFD Stations e EMS Calls

.>.ubum

FIGURE 6-9: EMS Call Density in Lewiston

@ LFD Stations EMS Calls Least Dense

Most Dense

Auburn

FIGURE 6-10: EMS Call Density by Grid

@ LF D Sta tions EMS Calls Least Dense

Most Dense Density shown using a one quarter {0.25) square mile grid 2 y -< / ,.0 ~ .... ;I .ubum 2 ~~ ¢' -< 0 2 .€ j ' 2 ~":!me~ ~ ~ ~

3 7 5

2 2 ·o •f. 2 2 .. "~

FIGURE 6-11: LFD Other Runs

LFD Stations Other Calls

The Basin

Au bum

FIGURE 6-12: Other Runs Density in Lewiston

@ LFD Stations Other Calls Least Dense

Most Dense

.>.ubum

FIGURE 6-13: Other Runs Density by Grid

@ LFD Stations O ther Calls Least Dense

Most Dense Density shown using a one quarter {0.25) square mile grid

.>.ubum

SECTION 7. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

Fire suppression, prevention programs, and EMS service delivery need to be planned and managed so that these efforts achieve specific, agreed-upon results. This requires establishing a set of goals for the activities of any given program. Determining how well an organization or program is doing requires that these goals be measurable and that they are measured against desired results. This is the goal of performance measurement.

Simply defined, performance measurement is the ongoing monitoring and reporting of progress toward pre-established goals. It captures data about programs, activities, and processes, and displays data in standardized ways that help communicate to service providers, customers, and other stakeholders how well the agency is performing in key areas. Performance measurement provides an organization with tools to assess performance and identify areas in need of improvement. In short, what gets measured gets improved.

The need to continually assess performance requires adding new words and definitions to the fire service lexicon. Fire administrators need to be familiar with the different tools available and the consequences of their use. In Managing the Public Sector, business professor Grover Starling applies the principles of performance measurement to the public sector. He writes that the consequences to be considered for any given program include:

Administrative feasibility: How difficult will it be to set up and operate the program?

Effectiveness: Does the program produce the intended effect in the specified time? Does it reach the intended target group?

Efficiency: How do the benefits compare with the costs?

Equity: Are the benefits distributed equitably with respect to region, income, gender, ethnicity, age, and so forth?

Political feasibility: Will the program attract and maintain key actors with a stake in the program area?37

Performance measurement systems vary significantly among different types of public agencies and programs. Some systems focus primarily on efficiency and productivity within work units, whereas others are designed to monitor outcomes produced by major public programs. Still others track the quality of services provided by an agency and the extent to which citizens are satisfied with these services.

Within the fire service, performance measures tend to focus on inputs (the amount of money and resources spent on a given program or activity) and short-term outputs (the number of fires, number of EMS calls, response times, etc.). One of the goals of any performance measurement system should be also to include efficiency and cost-effectiveness indicators, as well as explanatory information on how these measures should be interpreted. An explanation of these types of performance measures are shown in the following table.

37. Grover Starling, Managing the Public Sector, (Cengage Learning), 396.

TABLE 7-1: The Five GASB Performance Indicators38 Category Definition Input indicators These are designed to report the amount of resources, either financial or other (especially personnel), that have been used for a specific service or program. Output indicators These report the number of units produced or the services provided by a service or program. Outcome indicators These are designed to report the results (including quality) of the service. Efficiency (and cost- These are defined as indicators that measure the cost effectiveness) indicators (whether in dollars or employee hours) per unit of output or outcome. Explanatory information This includes a variety of information about the environment and other factors that might affect an organization’s performance.

One of the most important elements of performance measurement within the fire service is to describe service delivery performance in a way that both citizens and those providing the service have the same understanding. The customer will ask, “Did I get what I expected?” the service provider will ask, “Did I provide what was expected?”

Ensuring that the answer to both questions is “yes” requires alignment of these expectations and the use of understandable terms. The author of the “Leadership” chapter of the 2012 edition of ICMA’s Managing Fire and Emergency Services “Green Book” explains how jargon can get in the way:

Too often, fire service performance measures are created by internal customers and laden with jargon that external customers do not understand. For example, the traditional fire service has a difficult time getting the public to understand the implications of the “time temperature curve” or the value of levels of staffing in the suppression of fires. Fire and emergency service providers need to be able to describe performance clearly to customers, both internal and external. In the end, simpler descriptions are usually better.39

The LFD does utilize performance measures in limited applications but does not regularly publish or distribute these findings. One reason that was identified earlier is the lack of administrative oversight and use of automation. It is critical that LFD develop a series of internal reporting processes that provide a direct link to department goals or specific target measures. It is also critical that these measures be both quantitative and qualitative in nature and reflect on multiple areas of service delivery within the organization. This type of ongoing analysis and the monitoring of trends are most useful to justify program budgets and to measure service delivery levels.

Staff throughout the organization should participate in the development of any measures. In addition to helping facilitate department wide buy-in, this could provide an opportunity for

38. From Harry P. Hatry et al., eds. Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting: Its Time Has Come (Norwalk, CT: GASB, 1990). 39. I. David Daniels, “Leading and Managing,” in Managing Fire and Emergency Services (ICMA: Washington, DC: 2012), 202.

93 upper management to better understand what the line staff believes to be critical goals—and vice versa. For the same reason, the process of developing performance measures should include citizen input, specifically about service level preferences. Translating this advice from the citizens into performance measures will link the citizens and business community to the department and will identify clearly if the public’s expectations are being met.

Recommendation: LFD should implement a set of performance measures that enable ongoing review of service outcomes. The process of developing these measures should utilize input from LFD members, the fire union, the community, the City Council, and City Administration. (Recommendation No. 30.)

Following are some of the performance measures that may be considered:

Operations: ■ Response times (fire and percentile/average/frequency of excessive times).

□ Alarm/dispatch handling times.

□ Turnout times.

□ Travel times.

□ On-scene time.

□ Call duration.

□ Canceled in route. ■ Workload measures.

□ Emergency vs. nonemergency responses.

□ EMS transports—ALS/BLS.

□ Response to automatic fire alarms/frequency and outcomes.

□ Company inspections/area occupancy familiarization.

□ Fire preplanning.

□ Public education: contact hours/numbers by age group. ■ Outcome measures

□ EMS/save rates/action taken.

□ Successful IVs and Intubations.

□ EMS protocol compliance.

□ Fire loss/limit of fire spread—point of origin, room of origin, etc.

□ On-duty injuries/workers’ comp claims.

□ Lost time—sick/injury.

□ Vehicle accidents.

□ Equipment lost or broken.

Training: ■ Fire and EMS hours. ■ Officer development. ■ Skills assessment compliance. ■ Specialty training. ■ Professional development/formal education/certifications. ■ Fitness performance.

Prevention: ■ Plans review (numbers/valuation amount/completion time). ■ Inspections (new and existing).

□ Numbers.

□ Completion time.

□ Violations (found/corrected).

□ Quantification by type of violation and occupancy type. ■ Fire investigations

□ Numbers and determinations.

□ Occupancy types, time of occurrence, ignition source.

□ Fire loss/structure and contents.

□ Arson arrests/convictions.

□ Fire deaths (demographics/occupancy type/cause and origin).

Miscellaneous: ■ Customer service surveys (by engine/by shift).

□ Following emergency response.

□ Public assist.

□ Inspections (prevention and company).

□ Public education.

□ In-service training (employee assessments). ■ Financial/budgetary.

□ Overtime expenditures and cause.

□ Apparatus repair costs and out-of-service time.

Key Performance Indicators for EMS ESO is an industry leader in patient care reporting software. As a clinical data analytics provider, ESO utilizes electronic patient care reports (ePCRs) as its platform. In 2018, ESO released its ESO EMS Index, which is an analysis of key performance indicators (KPIs) for EMS quality metrics. The dataset is real-world data, compiled and aggregated from more than 1,000 agencies across the

United States that use ESO’s products and services. The Index is based on 5.02 million patient encounters between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017. The Index tracks performance of EMS agencies nationwide across five metrics:

■ Stroke assessment and documentation. ■ Overdose events.

■ End-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) monitoring. ■ 12-lead electrocardiogram (EKG) use. ■ Aspirin administration for chest pain.

This report is beginning to serve as a benchmark comparator for EMS providers across the country for several important measures of clinical quality. CPSM believes that the ESO EMS Index can provide a valid and comprehensive basis upon which EMS service delivery in Lewiston can be compared. These comparisons should be reported on a regular basis (no less than quarterly), distributed publicly, and used as a basis for continuous quality improvement.

Recommendation: LFD should consider participating in ESO Solutions for the purpose of reviewing its EMS performance and the comparisons made in this clinical and EMS operational database. If the decision is made, post- pandemic, to develop formal relationships for EMS services, these benchmarks and reporting should be reported metrics. (Recommendation No. 31.)

FIGURE 7-1: ESO EMS Index Example

SECTION 8. ESSENTIAL RESOURCES

FIRE PREVENTION AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

Ensuring that services are delivered effectively is paramount in any fire service organizational mission. The functions of the fire marshal and fire prevention are most critical in that organizational milieu. The foundation of a good risk management program is to prevent fires before they occur and reduce the losses from those that do occur. The critical role of each person assigned to enforcement activities is likely to avert more losses than is any single firefighter and in some cases the fire department.

The fire departments that are most effective in reducing losses are those that have successfully integrated prevention as a core value throughout the organization and continuously review the impact of prevention on the overall services provided by the department. There are basic approaches that can be used to ensure that prevention is treated as a paramount department- wide priority. One way to accomplish this is to have that core value of an organization referenced directly in the mission statement.

The Lewiston Fire Prevention Division provides fire prevention, code enforcement, plans review, public safety education, and cause and origin investigation services to City of Lewiston.

The Fire Prevention Division has a wide range of duties. These include plans review and code compliance regarding both new buildings while under construction, as well as ongoing maintenance inspections after the building or business is occupied. A significant percentage of these inspections are mandated as part of the inspection guidelines regarding the inspection of specific occupancies. The remainder are performed in accordance with nationally recognized standards and best practices, with a large number being required as part of the business licensing process. The administrative assistant in the Fire Prevention/Code Enforcement area assists with tracking the various inspections needed. This position is invaluable and should be cross-trained with the other administrative assistant in case one or the other is lost.

Recommendation: LFD should work with the City of Lewiston Building Department (aka the Department of Planning and Code Enforcement), the Planning Department, the City’s Tax Appraiser, the Finance Department, and other local officials in creating a master file of inspectable properties within the City of Lewiston. (The city is to be commended for its effort to begin a multifamily registration program that will enable a greater level of prevention effort.) (Recommendation No. 32.)

Automatic fire sprinklers have proven to be very effective in reducing fire loss and minimizing fire deaths in residential structures. Statistics reveal that there has never been any multiple loss of life in a fully sprinklered building.40 Property losses are 85 percent less in residences with fire sprinklers compared to those without sprinklers.41 Where sprinklers were present, flame damage was confined to the room of origin in 97 percent of those fires.42 The average firefighter injury rate of

40. Tufts University-2019, https://publicsafety.tufts.edu/firesafety/myths-and-facts-about-sprinkler-systems/ 41. Ibid. 42. NFPA-2017, https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/Fact- sheets/SprinklerHOmesFactSheet.pdf

13 per 1,000 in reported home fires was 79 percent lower where sprinklers were present than in fires with no automatic extinguishing systems.43

Only two states, California and Maryland, have adopted the sprinkler requirement. Lawmakers in Maine adopted most of the NFPA’s life safety code, but has left the decision on sprinklers up to individual communities. Portland and Westbrook have ordinances on the books and South Portland is considering the requirement.

In researching the history of home sprinklers, it was interesting to note that one of the larger installers of home systems, Sprinkler Systems Inc., is located in Lewiston.

Many of the mills and historic buildings that are seeing re-use have now had sprinklers installed. Given the history of major fires, the city is to be commended.

According to the NFPA, the average cost nationally for installing automatic fire sprinklers in new, single family residential structures is estimated to be $1.35 per square foot.44 For a 2,000 square- foot home, the estimated cost would be approximately $2,700. This can be less than the cost of granite counter tops or a carpeting upgrade. In addition, many homeowner insurance policies provide a discount (between 8 percent and 13 percent) for homes equipped with residential fire sprinklers. Given the anticipated residential home expansion in the Lewiston area, CPSM believes that the city should amend its current fire code and require automatic fire sprinklers in all new single family and duplex residential structures regardless of the size of the structure or its distance from an existing fire station.

As was previously discussed, limited fire company inspections are currently being done. This occurs on one or two days a week for the summer months and there is not an adequate record keeping system.

CPSM believes that an in-service fire company inspection program, if managed properly, can yield significant benefits to the system. Many fire agencies across the country require in-service fire companies to conduct various levels of inspections. Typically, these inspections are in smaller retail establishments, both store-front commercial businesses and restaurants and usually involve limited inspectable actions. These inspections usually involve the placement and operational capacity of fire extinguishers, the testing of exit and emergency lighting, evaluating any blockage or storage in emergency egress passageways, the operation of emergency exits, checking the kitchen hood systems, evaluating occupancy loading, etc.

The number of inspectable properties is significant in most communities and when not done by in-service engine companies, these inspections must be done by fire prevention personnel. In many cases, when fire companies identify suspected code violations, these violations are brought to the owner’s attention and a follow-up inspection is scheduled to determine if corrective action was taken. For those more critical issues, a report is provided to the fire prevention staff for follow-up. The key to in-service inspection efforts is identifying problems before an emergency response is needed. In addition, when conducting these inspections, operations personnel gain a tactical advantage by familiarizing themselves with the building and any fire suppression systems, and this knowledge may prove beneficial during an emergency. In addition, the building owners are made aware of issues so they can be resolved and potentially prevent future problems. The program can also facilitate improved interaction between the fire department and businesses.

43. Ibid. 44. https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Data-research-and-tools/Suppression/Home-Fire-Sprinkler- Cost-Assessment-Final-Report.

Recommendation: The Lewiston Fire Department should institute an in-service fire company inspection program that promotes responder familiarization, code enforcement, and fire prevention efforts. The fire inspection program should be for occupancies not covered by the residential inspections that are underway. Both occupancies should be conducted but this recommendation pertains to “other than” residential. The effort should be data based and data driven, with follow-up when violations are discovered. (Recommendation No. 33.)

Fire agencies often indicate that in-service units are too busy with training and emergency response activities to have sufficient time to conduct fire inspections. Though there is a likelihood that in-service personnel will be interrupted when doing inspections because of alarm activity, this should not be a deterrent to providing this service. In our analysis of unit workloads, CPSM found that ample time was available because of the focus on fire-only response.

ISO RATING

The ISO collects data for more than 48,000 communities and fire districts throughout the country. These data are then analyzed using a proprietary Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS). This analysis then results in a PPC (Public Protection Classification) score between 1 and 10 for a community, with Class 1 representing "superior property fire protection" and Class 10 indicating that an area doesn't meet the minimum criteria set by the ISO. In 2013, the revised FSRS was released; it adds an emphasis on a community's effort to limit loss before an incident occurs (fire prevention). FIGURE 8-1: National Public Protection Classification Totals

FIGURE 8-2: Maine National Public Protection Classification Totals

Since the 1800s, insurance companies have been involved in one way or another in “rating” fire departments. As cities grew and buildings became larger and communities more industrialized, insurance companies sometimes incurred large losses from fires. Much of the time, these losses were due to inadequate water supplies and ineffective fire suppression capabilities. To help reduce losses, insurance companies developed criteria to evaluate community fire suppression capabilities and to quantify the level of fire services provided. Once quantified, insurance companies used the information (rating) to determine and assign fire insurance rates. The emphasis then, as now, was primarily to reduce dollar loss from fires. Though improving water supplies and fire suppression can and does improve life safety, the purpose of rating fire departments is to adjust insurance rates to lessen insurance company losses.

ISO uses data and information provided by each community to derive a Public Protection Classification (PPC). Community evaluations are performed periodically or when there is reason to believe there may be a change in the PPC. As it is intended, the PPC is only used to assess a community’s fire protection—it does not consider other emergencies or important services provided by the fire department such as EMS, technical rescue, or hazmat incident mitigation. The ISO acknowledges the use of the PPC is limited to assessing fire suppression capabilities and that fire departments do many more things to improve public safety.45

45. Flippin, P., Gaull E., Laun, J., Flicko, R., District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services Fleet Management Audit and Assessment (District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Washington, DC 2013).

100

In developing a PPC, the following major categories are evaluated:

■ Emergency Communications: Fire alarm and communication systems, including telephone systems, telephone lines, staffing, and dispatching systems. ■ Fire Department: The fire department, including equipment, staffing, training, and geographic distribution of fire companies. ■ Water Supply: The water supply system, including the condition and maintenance of hydrants and the amount of available water compared to the amount needed to suppress fires. ■ Fire Prevention: Programs that contain plan review; certificate of occupancy inspections; compliance follow-up; inspection of fire protection equipment; and fire prevention regulations related to fire lanes on area roads, hazardous material routes, fireworks, barbecue grills, and wildland-urban interface areas. ■ Public Fire Safety Education Programs: Fire safety education training and programs for schools, private homes, and buildings with large loss potential or hazardous conditions, and a juvenile fire-setter intervention program.

Lewiston’s existing PPC is Class 3. The value of focusing only on ISO can be problematic for many communities. The ISO rating system does not account for EMS, as it also fire-focused. ISO awards bonus points for communities that engage in strategic planning, comprehensive risk assessment, and accreditation. These would all be of value to the community.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS

Training is one of the most important functions that a fire department should be performing on a regular basis. One could even make the argument that training is, in some ways, more important than emergency responses, because a department that is not well-trained, prepared, and operationally ready will be unable to effectively and safely fulfill its obligations for emergency response. A comprehensive, relevant, and ongoing training program is critical to the fire department’s level of success.

An effective fire department training program must cover all the essential elements of that department’s core missions and responsibilities. The program must include an appropriate combination of technical/classroom training, manipulative or hands-on/practical evolutions, and training assessment to gauge the effectiveness of these efforts. Most of the training, but particularly the practical, hands-on training evolutions, should be developed based upon the department’s own operating procedures while remaining cognizant of widely accepted practices and standards.

Certain Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations dictate that minimum training must be completed on an annual basis, covering various topics that include:

■ A review of the respiratory protection standard, self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) refresher and user competency training, SCBA fit testing (29 CFR 1910.134). ■ Blood Borne Pathogens Training (29 CFR 1910.1030). ■ Hazardous Materials Training (29 CFR 1910.120). ■ Confined Space Training (29 CFR 1910.146). ■ Structural Firefighting Training (29 CFR 1910.156).

101

Education and training programs help to create the character of a fire service organization. Agencies that place a real emphasis on their training tend to be more proficient in carrying out day-to-day duties. The prioritization of training also fosters an image of professionalism and instills pride in the organization.

Fire service agencies have traditionally trained new firefighters in-house utilizing the NFPA guidelines. It is very common for smaller agencies, particularly those with a limited number of position openings, to utilize an on-the-job training process and task-book progression to train and qualify new employees or members for various assignments. Many municipal and county organizations (including Lewiston) have traditionally utilized an internal firefighter recruit training academy in which employees are hired as “recruit firefighters” or “firefighter trainees” while undergoing this basic training. As the training requirements for firefighter have expanded and additional subjects have been included in the basic training (EMT, CPR, Hazardous Materials Response, Wildland Firefighting, Emergency Vehicle Operations, etc.), a number of technical schools and community colleges have begun to offer this training to independent students on a fee basis.

There does not appear to be a coordinated, department-wide focus in determining training needs and priorities that guide overall training. A training matrix should be developed, and career path plans established for each employee. CPSM believes that it is beneficial for an organization to utilize a key group of its leadership to identify and direct the training efforts of the organization.

Recommendation: The Lewiston Fire Department should establish a training steering committee composed of Assistant Chiefs, Captains, Equipment Operators, Firefighters, union representatives, and EMS provider. This committee should conduct a training needs assessment, develop priorities, and provide direction regarding the training efforts of the department. (Recommendation No. 34.)

The training steering process must be a dynamic effort that is used continuously to review training priorities and align the focus of training to organizational needs. The delivery of multiple training programs alone does not ensure that skills are developed, and the needed proficiencies are achieved.

Recommendation: The Lewiston Fire Department should institute written and practical skills testing as part of the department’s comprehensive fire training program. Based on proficiency, the training schedule should be amended to correct deficiencies down to the station level. Lieutenants and captains should be responsible for ensuring stations meet minimum capability. (Recommendation No. 35.)

The ability to monitor and record training test scores is beneficial from an overall proficiency standpoint. In addition, training scores should be incorporated into the annual performance appraisal process for both the employee, the supervisor, and the training staff. In addition, the concept of adding a testing process to each training evolution adds to the importance, consistency, and seriousness in which these activities are carried out.

Employee physical fitness is a key component in the ability of fire and EMS personnel to do their jobs effectively and avoid injuries. Rigid fitness standards are typically required in many fire departments throughout the nation; NFPA 1583, Standard on Health-Related Fitness Programs for Fire Department Members, is a recognized industry standard for monitoring and maintaining

102 firefighter fitness. LFD does not have a fitness standard for its emergency response personnel. Though employees are encouraged to maintain appropriate levels of fitness, and current firefighting job descriptions include language requiring good physical conditioning, a formal organizational fitness assessment does not exist.

Recommendation: LFD should institute an annual physical fitness evaluation process for all emergency response personnel, including chief officers. Currently, an incentive is paid but there is no penalty for not participating in the programs. (Recommendation No. 36.)

LFD requires new firefighters to pass a physical fitness evaluation that is based on the Candidate Physical Ability Test (CPAT). This testing utilizes a number of firefighter skill components (stair climb, hose drag, equipment carries, ladder raise, forcible entry, rescue drag, search, and ceiling pull) that are completed in a sequential order and as a timed event. LFD should consider the use of a modified CPAT exam as the annual fitness qualification for all emergency response personnel.

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER (911)

Lewiston and Auburn operate a joint public safety dispatch which provides the city’s 911 emergency communications and is responsible for the dispatching and radio communications for LFD operations.

All voice and radio transmissions are recorded. The center uses a Phase II triangulation system to identify the location of cell phone calls that are received. All critical dispatch equipment is on an uninterrupted power supply (UPS). The center is fully backed up with an auxiliary generator that is tested monthly; also, it has an alternative site in case of major outages.

As was noted earlier, national standards establish an 80 second benchmark for dispatch, 90 percent of the time. In Lewiston, the time at 90 percent approaches 4.6 minutes. This must be corrected.

Recommendation: Lewiston Public Safety Dispatch and the Dispatch Center should move as quickly as possible to reduce the time taken to dispatch units. (Recommendation No. 37.)

103

SECTION 9. DATA ANALYSIS

This data analysis examines all calls for service between October 1, 2018, and September 30, 2019, as recorded in Lewiston/Auburn 9-1-1’s computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system and the LFD’s National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS).

This analysis is made up of four parts. The first part focuses on call types and dispatches. The second part explores the time spent and workload of individual units. The third part presents an analysis of the busiest hours in the year studied. The fourth part provides a response time analysis of LFD units.

During the year covered by this study, LFD operated out of four fire stations. The department utilizes three frontline engines, two reserve engines, one frontline quint, one ladder truck, and a squad. The LFD staff includes 78 dedicated professional personnel, including 51 firefighters, 15 lieutenants, four captains, two Inspectors/Investigators, one fire alarm/maintenance technician, two administrative assistants, one Assistant Fire Chief, and one Fire Chief.

During the study period, the Lewiston Fire Department responded to 1,811 calls, of which 69 percent were fire calls. The total combined workload (deployed time) for all LFD units was 1,266.9 hours. The average dispatch time for the first arriving unit was 3.2 minutes and the average response time of the first arriving LFD unit was 7.6 minutes. The 90th percentile dispatch time was 4.9 minutes and the 90th percentile response time was 10.7 minutes.

METHODOLOGY

In this report, CPSM analyzes calls and runs. A call is an emergency service request or incident. A run is a dispatch of a unit (i.e., a unit responding to a call). Thus, a call may include multiple runs.

We received CAD data and NFIRS data for the Lewiston Fire Department. We first matched the NFIRS and CAD data based on incident numbers provided. Then, we classified the calls in a series of steps. We first used the NFIRS incident type to identify canceled calls and to assign EMS, motor vehicle accident (MVA), and fire category call types. CAD call descriptions were used to distinguish cardiac and stroke calls, and motor vehicle accidents, from other EMS calls. Mutual aid calls were identified based on the information recorded in the NFIRS data’s mutual aid field.

Finally, units with no corresponding call, and units with no en route or arrival time, were removed. As a result, 60 calls with no en route or arriving LFD units were removed. In addition, a total of two incidents to which the command or administrative units were the sole responders are not included in the analysis sections of the report. However, the workload of administrative units is documented in Attachment II.

In this report, canceled and mutual aid calls are included in all analyses other than the response time analyses.

104

AGGREGATE CALL TOTALS AND RUNS

During the year studied, LFD responded to 1,811 calls. Of these, 81 were structure fire calls and 65 were outside fire calls within LFD’s jurisdiction.

Calls by Type The following table and two figures show the number of calls by call type, average calls per day, and the percentage of calls that fall into each call type category for the 12-month period studied. TABLE 9-1: Call Types Calls per Call Call Type Number of Calls Day Percentage Cardiac and stroke 83 0.2 4.6 MVA 273 0.8 15.1 Other EMS 108 0.3 6.0 EMS Total 464 1.3 25.6 False alarm 533 1.5 29.4 Good intent 167 0.5 9.2 Hazard 220 0.6 12.1 Outside fire 65 0.2 3.6 Public service 192 0.5 10.6 Structure fire 81 0.2 4.5 Fire Total 1,258 3.5 69.5 Canceled 69 0.2 3.8 Mutual aid 20 0.1 1.1 Total 1,811 5.0 100.0 Note: Canceled mutual aid calls were put in the in the canceled category. Also, the “other EMS” category includes calls where LFD assisted United Ambulance.

105

FIGURE 9-1: EMS Calls by Type

FIGURE 9-2: Fire Calls by Type

106

Observations:

Overall ■ The department received an average of 5.0 calls per day, including 0.2 canceled and 0.1 mutual aid call per day. ■ EMS calls for the year totaled 464 (26 percent of all calls), an average of 1.3 per day. ■ Fire calls for the year totaled 1,258 (69 percent of all calls), an average of 3.5 per day.

EMS ■ Motor vehicle accidents were the largest category of EMS calls at 59 percent of EMS calls, an average of 0.8 calls per day. ■ Cardiac and stroke calls made up 18 percent of EMS calls, an average of 0.2 calls per day.

Fire ■ False alarm calls were the largest category of fire calls at 42 percent of fire calls, an average of 1.5 calls per day. ■ Structure and outside fire calls combined made up 12 percent of fire calls, an average of 0.4 calls per day, or one call every 2 days.

107

Calls by Type and Duration The following table shows the duration of calls by type using four duration categories: less than 30 minutes, 30 minutes to one hour, one to two hours, and more than an hour.

TABLE 9-2: Calls by Type and Duration Less than 30 Minutes One to More Than Call Type Total 30 Minutes to One Hour Two Hours Two Hours Cardiac and stroke 58 25 0 0 83 MVA 164 96 9 4 273 Other EMS 90 15 3 0 108 EMS Total 312 136 12 4 464 False alarm 490 39 4 0 533 Good intent 145 19 2 1 167 Hazard 127 58 32 3 220 Outside fire 30 25 9 1 65 Public service 141 38 11 2 192 Structure fire 46 21 9 5 81 Fire Total 979 200 67 12 1,258 Canceled 69 0 0 0 69 Mutual aid 11 2 2 5 20 Total 1,371 338 81 21 1,811

Observations:

Fire ■ A total of 1,179 fire calls (94 percent) lasted less than one hour, 67 fire calls (5 percent) lasted one to two hours, and 12 fire calls (1 percent) lasted two or more hours. ■ On average, there were 0.2 fire calls per day that lasted more than one hour. ■ A total of 67 structure fire calls (83 percent) lasted less than one hour, 9 structure fire calls (11 percent) lasted one to two hours, and 5 structure fire calls (6 percent) lasted two or more hours. ■ A total of 55 outside fire calls (85 percent) lasted less than one hour, 9 outside fire calls (14 percent) lasted one to two hours, and 1 outside fire call (2 percent) lasted two or more hours. ■ A total of 529 false alarm calls (99 percent) lasted less than one hour, and 4 false alarm calls (1 percent) lasted one to two hours.

108

Average Calls per Day and per Hour Figure 9-3 shows the monthly variation in the average daily number of calls handled by the LFD during the year studied. Similarly, Figure 9-4 illustrates the average number of calls received each hour of the day over the course of the year. FIGURE 9-3: Average Calls per Day, by Month

109

FIGURE 9-4: Calls by Hour of Day

Observations:

Average Calls per Month ■ Average EMS calls per day ranged from 0.8 in November 2018 to 1.9 in June 2019. ■ Average fire calls per day ranged from 2.8 in April 2019 to 4.0 in January 2019 and in August 2019. ■ Average other calls per day ranged from 0.1 in February 2019 to 0.4 in September 2019. ■ Average calls per day overall ranged from 4.0 in April 2019 to 5.7 in August 2019.

Average Calls per Hour ■ Average EMS calls per hour ranged from 0.01 between 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. to 0.11 between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. ■ Average fire calls per hour ranged from 0.04 between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. to 0.24 between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. ■ Average calls per hour overall ranged from 0.06 between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. to 0.36 between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.

110

Units Arriving to Calls The following table and two figures detail the number of LFD units arriving to calls, broken down by call type. Often more units were dispatched than arrived. While we focused on the number of arriving units, some observations discuss the number of units that were dispatched. TABLE 9-3: Calls by Call Type and Number of Units Arriving

Number of Units Total Call Type One Two Three Four Five Six or More Calls Cardiac and stroke 83 0 0 0 0 0 83 MVA 247 20 5 0 0 0 272 Other EMS 97 3 6 1 1 0 108 EMS Total 427 23 11 1 1 0 463 False alarm 127 22 65 146 167 5 532 Good intent 121 4 14 9 11 7 166 Hazard 182 9 6 7 6 10 220 Outside fire 41 1 6 7 3 7 65 Public service 167 9 5 3 4 0 188 Structure fire 10 4 14 14 14 25 81 Fire total 648 49 110 186 205 54 1,252 Canceled 28 0 4 1 1 0 34 Mutual aid 15 0 3 0 0 0 18 Total 1,118 72 128 188 207 54 1,767 Percentage 63.3 4.1 7.2 10.6 11.7 3.1 100.0

111

FIGURE 9-5: Calls by Number of Arriving Units – EMS

FIGURE 9-6: Calls by Number of Units Arriving – Fire

112

Observations:

Overall ■ On average, 2.1 units arrived per call; for 63 percent of calls only one unit arrived. ■ Overall, three or more units arrived to 33 percent of calls.

EMS ■ For EMS calls, one unit was dispatched 86 percent of the time, two units were dispatched 5 percent of the time, and three or more units were dispatched 10 percent of the time.

□ On average, 1.3 units were dispatched per EMS call. ■ For EMS calls, one unit arrived 92 percent of the time, two units arrived 5 percent of the time, and three or more units arrived 3 percent of the time.

□ On average, 1.1 units arrived per EMS call.

Fire ■ For fire calls, one unit was dispatched 46 percent of the time, two units were dispatched 3 percent of the time, three units were dispatched 2 percent of the time, four units were dispatched 2 percent of the time, five units were dispatched 38 percent of the time, and six or more units were dispatched 9 percent of the time.

□ On average, 3.1 units were dispatched per fire call. ■ For fire calls, one unit arrived 52 percent of the time, two units arrived 4 percent of the time, three units arrived 9 percent of the time, four units arrived 15 percent of the time, five units arrived 16 percent of the time, and six or more units arrived 4 percent of the time.

□ On average, 2.5 units arrived per fire call. ■ For outside fire calls, three or more units arrived 35 percent of the time. ■ For structure fire calls, three or more units arrived 83 percent of the time.

113

WORKLOAD: RUNS AND TOTAL TIME SPENT

The workload of each unit is measured in two ways: runs and deployed time. The deployed time of a run is measured from the time a unit is dispatched through the time the unit is cleared. Because multiple units respond to some calls, there are more runs than calls and the average deployed time per run varies from the total duration of calls.

Runs and Deployed Time – All Units Deployed time, also referred to as total annual hours, is the total time of all units deployed on all runs. The following table shows the total annual hours, both overall and broken down by type of run, for LFD units during the year studied. TABLE 9-4: Annual Runs and Deployed Time by Run Type Avg. Avg. Avg. Total Percent Total Deployed Deployed Runs Call Type Annual of Total Annual Min. per Min. per per Hours Hours Runs Run Day Day Cardiac and stroke 22.4 32.8 2.6 5.4 88 0.2 MVA 24.2 148.0 11.7 24.4 367 1.0 Other EMS 17.9 39.9 3.1 6.6 134 0.4 EMS Total 22.5 220.6 17.4 36.4 589 1.6 False alarm 10.3 396.2 31.3 65.3 2,313 6.4 Good intent 14.2 89.5 7.1 14.8 378 1.0 Hazard 25.1 158.6 12.5 26.1 379 1.0 Outside fire 22.9 70.0 5.5 11.5 183 0.5 Public service 22.7 98.7 7.8 16.3 261 0.7 Structure fire 25.7 184.1 14.5 30.3 430 1.2 Fire Total 15.2 997.1 78.7 164.4 3,944 10.8 Canceled 7.2 12.9 1.0 2.1 108 0.3 Mutual aid 80.5 36.2 2.9 6.0 27 0.1 Other Total 21.8 49.1 3.9 8.1 135 0.4 Total 16.3 1,266.9 100.0 208.8 4,668 12.8

114

Observations:

Overall ■ The total deployed time for the year was 1,266.9 hours. The daily average was 3.5 hours for all units combined. ■ There were 4,668 runs, including 108 runs dispatched for canceled calls and 27 runs dispatched for mutual aid calls. The daily average was 12.8 runs.

EMS ■ EMS runs accounted for 17 percent of the total workload. ■ The average deployed time for EMS runs was 22.5 minutes. The deployed time for all EMS runs averaged 0.6 hours per day.

Fire ■ Fire runs accounted for 79 percent of the total workload. ■ The average deployed time for fire runs was 15.2 minutes. The deployed time for all fire runs averaged 2.7 hours per day. ■ There were 613 runs for structure and outside fire calls combined, with a total workload of 254.1 hours. This accounted for 20 percent of the total workload. ■ The average deployed time for outside fire runs was 22.9 minutes per run, and the average deployed time for structure fire runs was 25.7 minutes per run.

115

TABLE 9-5: Average Deployed Minutes by Hour of Day

Hour EMS Fire Other Total 0 0.8 3.8 0.4 5.0 1 1.0 4.5 0.3 5.8 2 0.6 4.2 0.0 4.8 3 0.4 2.4 0.0 2.8 4 0.3 2.6 0.2 3.1 5 0.5 3.2 0.0 3.7 6 0.8 3.2 0.0 4.0 7 1.6 5.3 0.3 7.2 8 1.5 8.3 0.5 10.3 9 1.6 7.3 0.2 9.1 10 2.4 8.8 0.2 11.4 11 2.5 8.8 0.1 11.5 12 2.1 9.2 0.4 11.7 13 2.0 8.1 0.3 10.4 14 1.8 8.8 0.5 11.1 15 1.8 8.6 0.5 10.9 16 2.3 9.8 0.7 12.8 17 2.5 11.5 0.4 14.4 18 2.4 8.4 0.2 11.0 19 1.6 9.2 0.2 11.0 20 2.2 7.6 0.7 10.4 21 1.5 6.9 0.7 9.1 22 1.0 8.0 0.7 9.7 23 1.1 5.4 0.6 7.1 Total 36.2 164.0 8.1 208.3

116

FIGURE 9-7: Average Deployed Minutes by Hour of Day

Observations: ■ Hourly deployed time was highest during the day from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., averaging between 10 minutes and 14 minutes. ■ Average deployed time peaked between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., averaging 14 minutes. ■ Average deployed time was lowest between 3:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., averaging 3 minutes.

117

Workload by Unit Table 9-6 provides a summary of each unit’s workload overall. Tables 9-7 and 9-8 provide a more detailed view of workload, showing each unit’s runs broken out by run type (Table 9-7) and the resulting daily average deployed time by run type (Table 9-8). TABLE 9-6: Call Workload by Unit Deployed Deployed Runs Unit Annual Annual Station Unit Type Minutes Minutes per ID Hours Runs per Run per Day Day 415 Command 12.5 151.1 24.9 725 2.0 416 Command (reserve) 4.3 0.1 0.0 1 0.0 LE6 Reserve engine 56.0 2.8 0.5 3 0.0 Central LE7 Engine 17.7 314.1 51.8 1,067 2.9 Station LL1 Ladder 17.3 225.8 37.2 782 2.1 LS1 Squad 124.6 4.2 0.7 2 0.0 Subtotal 16.2 698.1 115.1 2,580 7.1 Lisbon Road LE3 Quint 20.0 204.0 33.6 612 1.7 Main Street LE5 Engine 14.7 142.3 23.4 580 1.6 Sabattus Street LE4 Engine 14.9 222.6 36.7 896 2.5 Total 16.3 1,266.9 208.8 4,668 12.8

118

TABLE 9-7: Total Annual Runs by Run Type and Unit Unit False Good Outside Public Structure Mutual Station Unit Type EMS Hazard Canceled Total ID Alarm Intent Fire Service Fire Aid 415 Command 51 443 50 38 27 21 75 16 4 725 416 Command (reserve) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 LE6 Reserve engine 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 Central Station LE7 Engine 213 462 93 94 46 52 76 28 3 1,067 LL1 Ladder 32 452 56 37 23 84 76 17 5 782 LS1 Squad 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 Total 296 1,359 199 169 96 157 231 61 12 2,580 Lisbon Road LE3 Quint 99 228 59 79 33 35 61 16 2 612 Main Street LE5 Engine 69 281 47 45 25 27 66 14 6 580 Sabattus Street LE4 Engine 125 445 73 86 29 42 72 17 7 896 Total 589 2,313 378 379 183 261 430 108 27 4,668

TABLE 9-8: Daily Average Deployed Minutes by Run Type and Unit Unit False Good Outside Public Structure Mutual Station Unit Type EMS Hazard Canceled Total ID Alarm Intent Fire Service Fire Aid 415 Command 2.0 10.8 1.7 1.9 1.6 0.8 5.1 0.3 0.7 24.9 416 Command (reserve) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LE6 Reserve engine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 Central LE7 Engine 11.5 16.0 3.8 7.6 3.3 3.2 5.7 0.6 0.1 51.8 Station LL1 Ladder 1.8 14.3 2.5 2.3 1.5 5.7 6.2 0.4 2.5 37.2 LS1 Squad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 Total 15.3 41.2 8.0 11.8 6.4 9.8 18.1 1.3 3.3 115.1 Lisbon Road LE3 Quint 9.1 6.6 2.1 6.6 2.3 2.4 4.1 0.3 0.1 33.6 Main Street LE5 Engine 4.9 7.3 1.7 2.1 0.9 2.0 3.5 0.3 0.7 23.4 Sabattus LE4 Engine 7.2 10.2 2.9 5.6 2.0 2.1 4.7 0.3 1.8 36.7 Street Total 36.4 65.3 14.8 26.1 11.5 16.3 30.3 2.1 6.0 208.8

119 Observations: ■ On a station level, Central Station made the most runs (2,580, or an average of 7.1 runs per day) and had the highest total annual deployed time (698.1 hours, or an average of 115.1 minutes per day).

□ EMS calls accounted for 11 percent of runs and 13 percent of total deployed time.

□ EMS calls accounted for 14 percent of runs and 20 percent of total deployed time.

□ EMS calls accounted for 20 percent of runs and 22 percent of total deployed time.

□ EMS calls accounted for 14 percent of runs and 20 percent of total deployed time.

□ Structure and outside fire calls accounted for 11 percent of runs and 18 percent of total deployed time.

120 Analysis of Busiest Hours There is significant variability in the number of calls from hour to hour. One special concern relates to the resources available for hours with the heaviest workload. We tabulated the data for each of the 8,760 hours in the year. Table 9-9 shows the number of hours in the year in which there were zero to three or more calls during the hour. Table 9-10 examines the number of times a call within a station’s first due area overlapped with another call within the same area. Table 9-11 examines the availability of a unit at a station to respond to calls within its first due area. Table 9-12 shows the 10 one-hour intervals which had the most calls during the year. TABLE 9-9: Frequency Distribution of the Number of Calls

Calls in an Hour Frequency Percentage 0 7,197 82.2 1 1,347 15.4 2 187 2.1 3+ 29 0.3 Total 8,760 100.0

TABLE 9-10: Frequency of Overlapping Calls Number Percent of Station Scenario Total Hours of Calls All Calls No overlapped call 964 94.8 331.9 Central Station Overlapped with one call 51 5.0 8.6 Overlapped with two calls 2 0.2 0.3 No overlapped call 290 96.7 154.0 Lisbon Road Overlapped with one call 8 2.7 2.2 Overlapped with two calls 2 0.7 0.8 No overlapped call 208 99.0 76.8 Main Street Overlapped with one call 2 1.0 0.3 No overlapped call 247 98.4 115.1 Sabattus Street Overlapped with one call 4 1.6 0.9

TABLE 9-11: Station Availability to Respond to Calls Calls in First Due First Due First Due Percent Percent Percent Station Area Responded Arrived First Responded Arrived First Central Station 1,002 972 971 925 97.0 96.9 92.3 Lisbon Road 296 279 277 258 94.3 93.6 87.2 Main Street 205 199 195 172 97.1 95.1 83.9 Sabattus Street 245 235 234 223 95.9 95.5 91.0 Total 1,748 1,685 1,677 1,578 96.4 95.9 90.3 Note: For each station, we count the number of calls occurring within its first due area. Then, we count the number of calls to where at least one LFD unit arrived. Next, we focus on units from the first due station to see if any units responded, arrived, or arrived first.

121

TABLE 9-12: Top 10 Hours with the Most Calls Received Number Number Total Hour of Calls of Runs Deployed Hours 5/15/2019, 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. 4 12 3.4 5/3/2019, 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 4 9 2.3 1/24/2019, 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 4 5 2.1 12/7/2018, 1:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. 3 15 3.6 9/11/2019, 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. 3 15 1.7 6/22/2019, 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. 3 13 1.6 6/18/2019, 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. 3 12 3.2 8/19/2019, 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 3 11 1.5 8/22/2019, 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 3 9 2.4 4/4/2019, 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 3 9 1.3 Note: Total deployed hours is a measure of the total time spent responding to calls received in the hour, and which may extend into the next hour or hours. The number of runs and deployed hours only includes LFD units. Observations: ■ During 29 hours (0.3 percent of all hours), three or more calls occurred; in other words, the department responded to three or more calls in an hour roughly once every 13 days.

□ The highest number of calls to occur in an hour was 4, which happened 3 times. ■ The hour with the most calls and most related runs was 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. on May 15, 2019.

□ The hour’s 4 calls involved 9 individual dispatches resulting in 2.3 hours of deployed time. These 4 calls included 3 motor vehicle accident calls and one false alarm call.

122

RESPONSE TIME

In this part of the analysis, we present response time statistics for different call types. We separate response time into its identifiable components. Dispatch time is the difference between the time a call is received and the time a unit is dispatched. Dispatch time includes call processing time, which is the time required to determine the nature of the emergency and types of resources to dispatch. Turnout time is the difference between dispatch time and the time a unit is en route to a call’s location. Travel time is the difference between the time en route and arrival on scene. Response time is the total time elapsed between receiving a call to arriving on scene.

In this analysis, we included all calls to which at least one non-administrative LFD unit responded, while excluding canceled and mutual aid calls. In addition, non-emergency calls and calls with a total response time of more than 30 minutes were excluded. Finally, we focused on units that had complete time stamps, that is, units with all components recorded, so that we could calculate each segment of response time.

Based on the methodology above, we excluded 89 canceled and mutual aid calls, 8 calls where no units recorded a valid on-scene time, 4 calls where the first arriving unit response was greater than 30 minutes, 38 nonemergency calls, and 95 calls where one or more segments of the first arriving unit’s response time could not be calculated due to missing data. As a result, a total of 1,577 calls are included in the analysis.

Response Time by Type of Call Table 9-13 provides average dispatch, turnout, travel, and total response time for the first arriving unit to each call in the city, broken out by call type. Figures 9-8 and 9-9 illustrate the same information. Table 9-14 gives the 90th percentile time broken out in the same manner. A 90th percentile time means that 90 percent of calls had response times at or below that number. For example, Table 9-14 shows a 90th percentile response time of 10.7 minutes which means that 90 percent of the time a call had a response time of no more than 10.7 minutes.

123

TABLE 9-13: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type

FIGURE 9-8: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type – EMS

124

FIGURE 9-9: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type – Fire

TABLE 9-14: 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type

125

Observations: ■ The average dispatch time was 3.2 minutes. ■ The average turnout time was 1.7 minutes. ■ The average travel time was 2.7 minutes. ■ The average total response time was 7.6 minutes. ■ The average response time was 7.8 minutes for EMS calls and 7.5 minutes for fire calls. ■ The average response time was 7.5 minutes for outside fires and 6.7 minutes for structure fires. ■ The 90th percentile dispatch time was 4.9 minutes. ■ The 90th percentile turnout time was 2.5 minutes. ■ The 90th percentile travel time was 4.9 minutes. ■ The 90th percentile total response time was 10.7 minutes. ■ The 90th percentile response time was 11.2 minutes for EMS calls and 10.5 minutes for fire calls. ■ The 90th percentile response time was 10.2 minutes for outside fires and 9.1 minutes for structure fires.

126

Response Time by Hour Average dispatch, turnout, travel, and total response time by hour for calls are shown in the following table and figure. The table also shows 90th percentile response times. TABLE 9-15: Average and 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Hour of Day, in Minutes Response 90th Percentile Number Hour Dispatch Turnout Travel Time Response Time of Calls 0 2.9 2.3 2.4 7.6 9.6 34 1 3.1 2.2 2.4 7.7 10.2 39 2 3.2 2.2 2.8 8.2 10.8 31 3 3.7 2.2 2.9 8.8 13.7 19 4 4.7 2.2 2.2 9.0 16.3 19 5 3.2 2.1 2.3 7.6 9.8 27 6 3.3 1.8 2.5 7.6 11.1 40 7 2.8 1.7 2.4 7.0 9.3 64 8 3.2 1.6 2.7 7.6 11.1 62 9 2.9 1.5 3.4 7.8 12.3 68 10 3.0 1.6 3.2 7.8 11.4 100 11 3.1 1.7 2.8 7.5 10.2 82 12 3.2 1.7 3.3 8.2 11.4 72 13 3.3 1.7 2.8 7.8 11.2 86 14 3.0 1.7 2.4 7.2 10.2 74 15 3.3 1.6 3.0 7.9 10.8 103 16 3.4 1.7 2.6 7.7 10.9 103 17 3.1 1.6 2.9 7.5 9.7 117 18 3.3 1.7 2.6 7.6 10.9 90 19 3.7 1.6 2.6 7.9 11.4 80 20 3.0 1.7 2.3 7.0 9.9 88 21 3.1 1.8 2.5 7.4 10.2 71 22 2.6 1.7 2.4 6.7 9.6 54 23 2.9 2.0 2.5 7.4 10.3 54 Total 3.2 1.7 2.7 7.6 10.7 1,577

127

FIGURE 9-10: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Hour of Day

Observations: ■ Average dispatch time was between 2.6 minutes (10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.) and 4.7 minutes (4:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.). ■ Average turnout time was between 1.5 minutes (9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.) and 2.3 minutes (midnight to 1:00 a.m.). ■ Average travel time was between 2.2 minutes (4:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.) and 3.4 minutes (9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.). ■ Average response time was between 6.7 minutes (10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.) and 9.0 minutes (4:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.). ■ The 90th percentile response time was between 9.3 minutes (7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.) and 16.3 minutes (4:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.).

128

Response Time Distribution Here, we present a more detailed look at how response times to calls are distributed. The cumulative distribution of total response time for the first arriving unit to EMS calls is shown in Figure 9-11 and Table 9-16. Figure 9-11 shows response times for the first arriving LFD unit to EMS calls as a cumulative distribution in whole-minute increments, and Figure 9-12 shows the same for the first arriving unit to outside and structure fire calls.

The cumulative percentages here are read in the same way as a percentile. In Figure 9-11, the 90th percentile of 11.2 minutes means that 90 percent of EMS calls had a response time of 11.2 minutes or less. In Table 9-16, the cumulative percentage of 63.0, for example, means that 63.0 percent of EMS calls had a response time under 8 minutes.

FIGURE 9-11: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time – First Arriving Unit – EMS

129

FIGURE 9-12: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time – First Arriving Unit – Outside and Structure Fires

TABLE 9-16: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time – First Arriving Unit – EMS Response Time Cumulative Frequency (minute) Percentage 1 0 0.0 2 2 0.5 3 1 0.7 4 10 3.1 5 35 11.5 6 67 27.4 7 88 48.4 8 61 63.0 9 47 74.2 10 41 84.0 11 22 89.3 12 12 92.1 13 10 94.5 14 4 95.5 15+ 19 100.0

130

TABLE 9-17: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time – First Arriving Unit – Outside and Structure Fires Response Time Cumulative Frequency (minute) Percentage 1 0 0.0 2 0 0.0 3 0 0.0 4 2 1.5 5 17 14.3 6 31 37.6 7 27 57.9 8 22 74.4 9 15 85.7 10 8 91.7 11 5 95.5 12 1 96.2 13+ 5 100.0

Observations: ■ For 63 percent of EMS calls, the response time of the first arriving unit was less than 8 minutes. ■ For 74 percent of outside and structure fire calls, the response time of the first arriving unit was less than 8 minutes.

131

ATTACHMENT I: ACTIONS TAKEN ANALYSIS

TABLE 9-18: Actions Taken Analysis for Structure and Outside Fire Calls

Number of Calls Action Taken Outside Fire Structure Fire Action taken, other 1 2 Contain fire (wildland) 1 0 Enforce codes 1 0 Establish safe area 3 0 Extinguishment by fire service personnel 39 21 Fire control or extinguishment, other 4 1 Forcible entry 0 3 Hazardous materials leak control & containment 1 0 Incident command 13 1 Information, investigation & enforcement, other 1 0 Investigate 38 63 Notify other agencies. 1 0 Provide first aid & check for injuries 0 1 Provide information to public or media 1 0 Refer to proper authority 4 0 Remove hazard 0 2 Remove water 0 1 Rescue, remove from harm 0 2 Restore fire alarm system 0 2 Salvage & overhaul 10 10 Shut down system 0 4 Ventilate 5 32 Note: Totals are higher than the total number of structure and outside fire calls because some calls had more than one action taken.

Observations: ■ Out of 65 outside fires, 39 were extinguished by fire service personnel, which accounted for 60 percent of outside fires. ■ Out of 81 structure fires, 21 were extinguished by fire service personnel, which accounted for 26 percent of structure fires.

132

ATTACHMENT II: ADMINISTRATIVE AND FIRE INSPECTOR WORKLOAD

In this attachment, we look at the workload of administrative and fire inspector units. TABLE 9-19: Workload of Administrative Units Annual Annual Unit ID Unit Type Hours Runs 420 Fire chief 6.3 6 421 Assistant fire chief 2.1 3 431 Fire inspector/inv 70.6 56 432 Fire inspector/inv 30.8 27

133

ATTACHMENT III: FIRE LOSS

TABLE 9-20: Content and Property Loss – Structure and Outside Fires Property Loss Content Loss Call Type Loss Value Number of Calls Loss Value Number of Calls Outside fire $95,550 21 $3,500 4 Structure fire $289,900 15 $67,455 18 Total $385,450 36 $70,955 22 Note: This includes only calls with a recorded loss greater than 0. TABLE 9-21: Total Fire Loss Above and Below $20,000

Call Type No Loss Under $20,000 $20,000 plus Outside fire 44 20 1 Structure fire 60 16 5 Total 104 36 6

- END -

134

LEWISTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 2020

AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET: AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT:

Public Hearing on the renewal application for a Special Amusement Permit for Live Entertainment for Cowbell Grill & Tap, 49 Lisbon Street.

INFORMATION:

We have received a renewal application for a Special Amusement Permit for Live Entertainment from Cowbell Grill & Tap, 49 Lisbon Street.

The Police Department has reviewed and approved the application.

There was no reference to this business or property address in the Council Constituent Concern log, as maintained by the Administrator's Office.

The business owner has been notified of the public hearing and requested to attend.

APPROVAL AND/OR COMMENTS OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR:

The City Administrator recommends approval of the requested action. ~.pJV\\Ctl'~

REQUESTED ACTION:

To grant a Special Amusement Permit for Live Entertainment to Cowbell Grill & Tap, 49 Lisbon Street. CITY OF LEWISTON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL AMUSEMENT PERMIT

Date of Application: H l 2.~ {1- ~ Expiration Date:

~ Class A- $125.00- restaurants with entertainment, which does not have dancing __ Class B- $125.00 -lounges/bars with entertainment, which does not have dancing __ Class C - $150.00 - either restaurants or lounges/bars with entertainment, including dancing __ ·.Class D - $150.00 - function halls with entertainment, including dancing __ Class E - $15 0. 00 - dance hall or nightclub that admits persons under the age of 21 __ Class F - $150.00 - "chem-free" dance hall or nightclub for patrons aged 18 yrs and older, with no liquor

Renewal Applicants: Has any o:r aU owne:rship changed in the 12 months? __ Yes / No

****PLEASE PRINT****

Business Phone: ------"l.e.1-- ~ J!S • ~' t ~ 1 Location Address: _~_'i__ L_«_S..:;..b_""V\ __ ~_.l. ___ Le_w_ ~-~-V'+--=~,_VVt._(___ ~_«{:__'1-_~_~ ______

(If new business, what was formerly in this location:------.)

Mailing Address: I{'\ '- ; ~ ~ ... ¥'\ ~H

Address of Owner: ll. o\.J S~ tJ

0 II Manager of Establishment:------Date of Birth: ______

Owner of Premises (landlord): ~~ ~(~s k, « \ ,;At...r k~ ~ i' Prb~""'+.;t.~ LL-~

e'l, -l I $- f f (l.(/j~J vY\ {;_ Address of Premises Owner: _ :.__-'-_{k..>'__::__.c_-=---...------..:;..u8 oce __ - ______

Does the issuan'Ce'ofthis license directly or indirectly benefit any City employee(s)? __Yes V No If yes, list the name(s) of employee(s) and department(s): ------

Have any of th~pplicants, including the corporation if applicable, ever held a business license with the City of Lewiston?_/_ yY

CORPORATION APPLICANTS: Please attach a list ofall principal officers, date of birth & town ofresidence

Corporation Name: (o~~L\ ("1 f'a l \ J.- 1qf L.t- e,.

Corporation Mailing Address: l'l. c l! sgA l+ (L l ~I ME

Contact Person: _ __;A_·\L_)(- __M_o,._l~-~--'-~------

Do you permit dancing on premises? __ Yes _LN.o (Ifyes, you must first obtain a dance hall permit from the State Fire Marshall's Office) If yes, do you permit dancing or entertairunent after 1:00AM?_ Yes_ No

What is the distance to the nearest residential dwelling unit both inside and outside the building from where the entertainment will take place?------

Please describe the type of proposed entertainment:

D dancing D stand up comedian D piano player · D music byDJ $karaoke D other, please list------~live band/singers D magician 0 other, please list------'------

If new applicant, what is your opening date?:·------'------

*******************

Applicant, by signature below, agrees to abide by all laws, orders, qrclinances, rules and regulations governing the above licensee and further agrees that any misstatement of material fact may result in refusal of license or revocation if one has been grante.d. Applicant agrees that all taxes and accounts pertaining to the premises will be paid prior to issuance of the license. · ·

It is understood that this and any application(s) shall become public record and the applicant(s)hereby waive(s) any ri~hts to priv3:cy with respect thereto.

I/W e hereby author· the relea$~ of any criminal history record information to the City Clerk's Office or licensing authorit . /We he 'by w ·ve · y rl.ghts to privacy with respectthereto. ""'' Date i\ ( 'l. 1.( 0 Signature: ---":..--If----'-----"'----- Title: _II.Jf""""______.~~ _ {1..

Printed Name:._A_~--~-"-'t.a_~-~-·\_· "---

*******************

HearingDate:Jd-/£....<'0 LEWISTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 2020

AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET: AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 SUBJECT:

Public Hearing and Final Passage to amend the Land Use Code and Map to amend the existing conditional zoning of Neighborhood Conservation "B" (NCB) at 299 River Road, by increasing the allowable office space from 5,000 sf. to 25,000 sf.

INFORMATION: The Planning Board voted 7-0 at their November 23, 2020 meeting to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council, pursuant to Article VII, Section 4, and Article XVII, Section 5 of the Zoning and Land Use Code for a Conditional Zoning Map Amendment to increase the allowable office space in the Neighborhood Conservation "B" (NCB) zone at 299 River Road. The owner of the property, Brian Langlais, operates Iron House Engineering, which has grown significantly since 2018. The owner is now requesting to increase the conditional zoning restriction for office use from 5,000 sf. to 25,000 sf., which will allow for the current and future growth of the business. Initially, the applicant wishes to increase the office area by 1,800 sf. and then have the opportunity to expand more in the future.

See attached staff report dated November 23, 2020, from City Planner Doug Greene to the Planning Board and a memorandum to the City Council for more information.

APPROVAL AND/OR COMMENTS OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR:

The City Administrator recommends approval of the requested action.

REQUESTED ACTION:

To approve Final Passage to amend the Land Use Code and Map at the property located at 299 River Road by amending the conditional zoning of Neighborhood Conservation "B" (NCB) to increase the allowable office space from 5,000 sf. to 25,000 sf. CITY OF LEWISTON

Department of Planning & Code Enforcement

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Douglas Greene, City Planner

DATE: November 24, 2020

RE: Planning Board recommendation:

The Planning Board took the following action at their Zoom meeting held on November 23, 2020.

MOTION: by Norman Anctil, pursuant to Article VII, Section 4 and Article XVII, Section 5 to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the application from Brian Langlais, on behalf of Iron House Engineering to amend the contract zoning conditions to increase the allowable office space from 5,000 sf. to 25,000 sf. for the property located at 299 River Road. Second by lucy Bisson

VOTED: 7-0 (Passed Unanimously)

During the public hearing for this item, no one spoke in opposition or support. CITY OF LEWISTON

Department of Planning & Code Enforcement

TO: Lewiston Planning Board

FROM: Douglas Greene, AICP, RLA, City Planner

DATE: November 23, 2020

RE: Amended Conditional Zoning Request at 299 River Road

Brian Langlais, President of Iron House Engineering, Inc., has submitted a request to amend the conditional zoning ofNeighborhood Conservation "B," at the property located at 299 River Road, to increase the allowable office space from 5,000 sf. to 25,000 sf. The property is a 12.89- acre parcel with 390 feet of public road frontage and a depth of 1,800 feet. The rear portion of the property, adjacent to the Androscoggin River, is zoned Resource Conservation (RC) and includes a 100-year flood zone. A residence and outbuildings, located in the front ofthe property, were used for a landscape and nursery operation.

Background Information- The front part of the property was conditionally zoned in 2017 from Rural Agriculture (RA) to Neighborhood Conservation "B" (NCB) to allow retail sales. In 2018, a new owner amended the contract zone to allow office use as a permitted use for up to 5,000 sf. in order to operate Iron House Engineering, a small electrical consulting engineering business. The surrounding area is zoned Rural Agricultural (RA), Industrial (I), and Resource Conservation (RC) along the Androscoggin River. A small enclave of residences near the subject property is located on the southern side of River Road, and large industrial users are located in the industrial district to the north.

299 River Rd. CZ Staff Report JJ-23-20.doc Iron House Engineering has grown significantly since 2018. The owner is now requesting to increase the conditional zoning restriction for office use from 5,000 sf. to 25,000 sf., which will allow for the current and future growth of the business. Initially, the applicant wishes to increase the office area by 1,800 sf. and then have the opportunity to expand more in the future.

Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan- One of the main criteria to be considered in a conditional zoning request is the application's conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The application includes a narrative that lists three references from the Comprehensive Plan:

I. The property is located immediately adjacent to the Industrial Zone, described in the Comprehensive Plan as an "Industrial Village Special District. " (page 124) 2. "Encourage creative investments strategies that help reinforce neighborhood identities and promote employment ... " (page 116) 3. "Promote a healthful and sustainable business environment by investing actively in efficient infrastructure, providing favorable incentives, and building a community that is attractive to employers and their workers. " (page 116)

Planning Board Action- Pursuant to Article VII, Section 4 and Article XVII, Section 5 of the Zoning and Land Use Code, the Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the City Council.

Staff Review- Staff notes the current office use is located in a rural setting with low-impact on the nearby residential and industrial uses. Further, the request to increase the allowable office use up to 25,000 sf. will not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area. The application does not include a site plan and no construction activity will be allowed should this application be approved. Any future development activity or building permits will require separate approvals by the appropriate deciding body.

Staff Recommendation- Staff recommends the Planning Board send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the amended contract zone request.

Action Necessary Make a motion pursuant to Article VII, Section 4 and Article XVII, Section 5 of the Zoning and Land Use Code to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the application from Brian Langlais, on behalf of Iron House Engineering to amend the contract zoning conditions to increase the allowable office space from 5,000 sf. to 25,000 sf. for the property located at 299 River Road.

299 River Rd. CZ Staff Report ll-23-20.doc 2 November gth, 2020

Douglas M. Greene Deputy Director Planning and Code Enforcement City of Lewiston 27 Pine Street Lewiston, ME 04240-7201

RE: 8m~ndment to the Contract Rezoning of 299 River Road

Dear Mr. Greene,

I am submitting the enclosed Contract Rezoning request to allow a modification to the Contract Rezoning that was approved on February 20th, 2018. The February 20th Contract Rezoning request was approved by the Lewiston City Council following a Public Hearing with Second Passage contractually rezoning the property at 299 River Road to allow for the permitted use of professional engineering consulting business. This request is to provide revised Contract Rezoning agreement to allow for additional square footage to operate professional office from {5,000} square feet to (25,000) square feet.

The property has been owned by 299 River Road, LLC since 2018. The current use includes a single-family residence and professional electrical engineering consulting business office. The current occupant of 299 River Road, LLC is IRONHOUSE Management, Inc. {IRON HOUSE). IRON HOUSE is a growing professional engineering consultant business which provides consulting services across North America to Utilities and Generators.

299 River Road, LLC is working with Hebert Construction on an office addition project to expand the footprint of the existing barn structure to allow for additional office space (1,800 sf footprint expanded to 3,000 sf), removal of the fina I greenhouse and finish pavement of a new parking lot. This will allow for the current occupant, IRON HOUSE, to maintain their business at this location as they grow. Currently IRONHOUSE employs 24 professionals across the US, 16 of which work from this location.

I respectively request consideration by the City of Lewiston Planning Board and subsequently by the Mayor & City Council. I will be present at the upcoming meetings to present the information and answer questions.

Since_~~-ip .,. /, £z . / ·"" 7·'-"1..,/ (;v~: Brian Langlais 3 Commons Drive Lewiston, ME 04240 PETITION TO AMEND THE CITY OF LEWISTON ZONING AND LAND USE CODE

Pursuant to Appendix A, Article XVII, Section 5 Amendments of the City of Lewiston Zoning and Land Use Code, we the undersigned residents of the City of Lewiston, being eighteen (18) year of age or older, do hereby petition the City of Lewiston to amend the contract rezoning of the property at 299 River Road to increment the limited use for professional business activity from (5,000) square feet to (25,000) square feet as described and shown in the exhibit attached hereto:

SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME PHYSICAL STREET DATE ADDRESS (No PO Boxes) ----+-----1

y CIRCULATOR=§ VERIFICATION I hereby verify that I am the Circulator of this petition that all the signatures to this petition were made in my presence, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, each signature is that of the person it purports to be, and each person is a resident of the City of L~'wist(;t,w( ~ ··· • /-,//'' /-"r.r . -l:z-= .. ·_(:.~J=:::::~ Signature of Circulator Date AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO ZONING BOUNDARIES

THE CITY OF LEWISTON HEREBY ORDAINS:

Appendix A of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lewiston, Maine is hereby amended as follows:

APPENDIX A

ZONING AND LAND USE CODE

ARTICLE IV. ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS

Sec. 1. Zoning Map

The City of Lewiston hereby ordains that the Official Zoning Map of the City of Lewiston be amended by establishing a contract zone for the property at 299 River Road as recorded in the Androscoggin Registry of Deeds Book 2428 Page 263 as described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B", both of which are attached hereto as follows, said property said property to contractually rezoned from the Rural Agricultural (RA) District and to the Neighborhood Conservation "B" (NCB) District .

...... •••..••. ,...... ~~····························"·· ...•.. REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT

The reason for the proposed amendment is to allow the premises situated in the municipality ofLewiston County of Androscoggin County, State ofMaine, located at 299 River Road be allowed to increase the limited use for professional business activity from (5,000) square feet to (25,000) square feet. A modification to the Contract Rezoning request was approved on February 20,2018, by the Lewiston City Council following a Public Hearing and second Passage to contractually rezone the property at 299 River Road from the Rural Agricultural (RA) District to the Neighborhood Conservation "B" (NCB) to include professinal business office up to (5,000) square feet as a Permitted use . That request allowed the new property owner to operate their small professional electrical engineering business in the existing bam structure. This new request will allow for the growing professional electrical engineering business to expand the existing bam structure.

The property contains structures consisting of a single-family residence with 2-car garage constructed in 1978, 1 frame utility sheds totaling 852 sf, a 2-story barn of with an 1,800-sf. footprint, and 1 greenhouse totaling 1,800 sf. built in 2000. The current use includes a single-family residence, professional electrical consulting engineering office (IRONHOUSE Management, Inc.) which has operated at this location since 2018.

The proposed modification of the existing Contract Rezoning approved on February 20, 2018, would maintain the current provisions as outlined in the Contract Rezoning and add professional business as a Permitted Use. The use would be limited to a 1 professional business activity with a facility that occupies less than twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet of total floor space.

The property had been used as a small retail business accessory to the nursey and greenhouse operation since 1989 and more recently been used as a small professional electrical consulting engineering office since 2018. Rather than a straight rezoning, the contract rezoning will allow for the continued use of the property in a similar, limited manner providing a buffer for the few remaining residential properties from the large businesses located in the adjacent Industrial Zone. It should be noted the Industrial Zone is located immediately on the other side of River Road as well as approximately 1,000 feet westerly of the property. The land located on southerly side of River Road between 277 River Road (near Alfred A. Plourde Parkway) and 463 River Road (Lewiston Solid Waste Facility) is currently zoned RA involves 19 parcels owned by 6 parties. This area consists of 142 acres, ofwhich125 acres, or 78% of the total land area is currently owned by two land owners with approximately 79 acres used for storage of earth material and gravel mining operations. The property is located on a busy road, adjacent to the Alfred Plourde Parkway and near the Maine Turnpike Exit 80 Interchange. While the property may be ideal for more intense development, the petitioner remains interested in promoting neighborhood stability by limiting the intensity of possible uses and continue to allow those uses currently allowed in the RA.

CONFORMANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The City Council of the City of Lewiston hereby determines that the change to the Zoning map is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons:

(1) The property is located immediately adjacent to the Industrial Zone. A sector described in the City's Comprehensive Plan as the "Industrial Village Special District is comprised ofland acijacent to the I-95 interchange currently zonedfor conventional industrial development. This particular industrial/and is envisioned as a self-sustaining industrial village with a mix ofindustrial, office, retail, and other supporting development acting as a sustainable, closed-loop eco-village where businesses interact with each other for productivity. This district requires a unique set ofstandards that accommodates trucks, large buildingfootprints, and other unique requirements oflarge industrial enterprises. This sector includes the City's current Industrial zone, which would be rezoned as a form based Special District." (Conservation & Growth, Page 124)

(2) Another section of the Comprehensive Plan states: "Strengthen Neighborhoods & Expand Housing Choice: Encourage creative investment strategies that help to reinforce positive neighborhood identities and provide employment, recreational, and civic opportunities within walking distances ofhomes." (Vision Statement & Guiding Principles, Guiding Principles, page 116.)

(3) Lastly, another section ofthe Comprehensive Plan states: "Grow The Economy: Promote a healthful and sustainable business environment by investing actively in efficient infrastructure, providingfavorable incentives, and building a community 2 that is attractive to employers and their workers". (Vision Statement & Guiding Principles, Guiding Principles, page 116.)

CONTRACT REZONING AGREEMENT

The proponent requests that the official zoning map for the City be amended by removing the subject property from the RA district and contract rezoning the subject premises NCB district subject to the limitations more fully described below.

In compliance with the provisions of the Code, Article XVIT, Section 5(g), the proponent hereby proposes the following conditions:

(a) Land Use Table: Allowed uses of the property shall include those uses which are presently permitted in the RA district with the exception of mobile homes on individuals lots, earth removal material, daycare centers, and airports or heliports and will allow the following uses: neighborhood retail stores, small daycare facility, and art and crafts studios, as listed below and subject to the conditions contained herein.

Proposed Contract Rezoning Land Use Table Neighborhood Conservation B (NCB) for 299 River Road

USES (15) (33) I Accessory use or structure p

Commercial-Service Veterinary facilities excluding kennels and humane societies Veterinary facilities including kennels and c humane societies Small day care facilities p Day care centers Day care centers accessory to public schools, religious facilities, multifamily or mixed res. developments, and mobile home parks

3 Business, professional, and engineering offices (occupying less than 25,000 s.f of total floor space) and NOT including research, experimental, p testing laboratories, research, management and related services ~~~~------4------~------;

r culture c p tail stores Neighborhood retail stores p Lumber and building materials dealer Gasoline service stations Gasoline service stations which are a part subordinate to a retail use ew and used car dealers ecreational vehicle, mobile home dealers ment dealers and equipment repair motive services including repair gistered dispensary (27) Registered primary caregivers engaged in the cultivations of medical marijuana for two to five rePistered )atients. Tattoo Establishments Industrial Light industrial uses Industrial uses uilding and construction contractors Fuel oil dealers and related facilities Wholesale sales, warehousing and distribution facilities and self-storage facilities

ilities Private industrial/commercial developments (23

4 Transportation irports or heliports ommercial parking facilities sit and ground transportation facilities sportation facilities

Public and Utility Pumping stations, standpipes or other water supply uses involving facilities located on or p above the ground surface and towers for municipal use Power transmission lines, substations, telephone exchanges, microwave towers or other public c utilitv or communications use ~unicipal buildings and facilities c eservation ofhistoric areas; emergency an~ p_!otection activities; bridges and public road Dams

Institutional Religious facilities p Cemeteries p Congregate care/assisted living facilities, institutions for the handicapped, nursing or convalescent homes, t_~roup care facilities ~tals, medical clinics, urns, libraries, and non-profit art galleries eaters Academic institutions, including buildings or structures for classroom, administrative, laboratory, dormitories, art, theater, dining services, library, bookstores, athletic facilities and student recreational uses, together with buildings accessory to the foregoing permitted principal buildings or structures. Civic and social organizations Public community meeting and civic function buildinst,s including auditoriums

Residential Single-family detached dwellings on individual I p , residential lots .. \.-.... _ 5 Mobile homes on individual residential lots Two-family dwellings Multifamily dwellings in accordance with th.:. standards of Article XIII gle-Family attached dwelling in ace~ p th the standards of Article XIII ·xed single-family residential deve~~ cordance with the standards of Article xm xed residential developments in accor 'th the standards of Article xm vfixed use structures p odging houses orne occupations p ed and breakfast establishments as a home p cupation In-law apartments in accordance with the p standards of Article XII Single family cluster development p Family day care home p Shelters

Natural Resource ~ Agriculture p Farm Stands p Forest management and timber harvesting activities in accordance with the standards of p Article xrn Earth material removal ~unity gardens (20) p r dependent uses, e.g. docks and marinas ! Non-residential structures for educational, scientific or nature interpretation purposes, containing a maximum floor area of not more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet

Recreation "' Campgrounds Public or private facilities for nonintensive outdoor recreation c ICommercial outdoor recreation and drive-in theaters

6 Fitness and recreational sports centers as listed under NAICS Code 713940

Applicable footnotes: (15) Buildings, structures and uses accessory to permitted or conditional uses are allowed in all districts. (20) Shall comply with Article XII, Section 4 (33) The performance standards of Article XII shall apply, unless otherwise specified.

(b) Space and Bulk Table: Allowed space and bulk standards on the property shall include those standards which are presently permitted in the RA district as listed below, with the exception of Minimum Frontage for "Other Uses" and subject to the conditions contained herein:

_____j

7 Single family detached, mobile homes on 60,000 sf individuallots ' \-=St=·n""'gLle=-f:=am:,.c;;;;i=-l".:c:·,__":att:a:c:h:e-d::c_~_ ~--~- -_-_ ~_ -_ -_-_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -+-+ -.-..:6_=0J)O.~O~s-f----ij Two-family dwelling~s I ,__;..___,.;:~----~-·«"''"---1------""'''''"''"1 Mixed single family residential ti 60,000 sf i ~evelopment ( 14) ····------··---4···------~ Mi~=-e:~;;;~r~e~si~d=-en=u=·ru~d=e=v~cl=oLr'=m=e=n=-t(~l=-4~)--~--~------l -~~:!~~~tu~~i;,;:;,,~-,,,,-,,.-,,--..-,.- ...... ======·~:.=·=·:.. =.~~~------_' ,,,,,,,,j All permitted residential uses I ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~------·-··"'""'''"""'"-+------"'""" "'""'""'"-"1 I i---··""''"'" , .. , ..----! L_ 2ooft_.- .. - _' : Single fumilv attached ~ '_200ft. .j I~:::~~~:~~~7devclopment (wiih- -1· 200ft. (50 feetf'"'ll 1 multiple -yehl.cular accessesL.------1------i j Mixed single family residential j 200ft. (50 feet) ! development (with multiple vehicular I l accesses) · .... , ...... _. __,

8 Simde familv cluster develop_m.-:"ecc::n::.::t__ ~---r-~5-'0'-'f1=-t'- ..----··"! ixed single family residential 50 ft. evelopm~~!iL.'"'···~--·-·"'"'-~·-----+- ,. ·xed re.sidential developmel!!Jl4) --~·-·+··------...... ·-·--·- ..1 ! Ml;!ltifamil v dwellings 1-~~~~9;~~;~~~..... ,_ .. --~----··-+--..::..-'-=~=------l ra~~~~:~ facilities ...... tAll permi!!...:..ed.;;;__u_se_s_~--~~----·~-+--~ _____ [_MiniiJl_l!.!!! side ~~.~}·ear s.~!~~:...:.c.k,..;;;___ ... _ ...... 4 ~--~ j Single family detached, mobile homes on 25ft. , individual lots t···----- ·······---"'"'"""""" -----+--·-----"""""·-·--! L~.!!!&~.~..fan~ih:.~!:!.

ospital, nursing homes and medical flees ------·------··-~----~~---l------~

Applicable footnotes: (1) This development shall meet the requirements set forth in Article XITI, section 8.

10 (3) Or a larger minimum lot size based on the requirements of the Maine Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules.

(13) Modifications (i.e. relaxation of standards) of setbacks, yards, maximum lot coverage ratios, maximum impervious surface ratios, minimum open space ratios, and maximum building height as contained in the district space and bulk standard may be granted by the board of appeals, planning board, staff review committee and the code enforcement official pursuant to Articles V, Vll, Vlll, IX, and XIII of this Code.

(14) This development shall meet the requirements set forth in Article x:m:, section 8.

(22) In areas where the existing buildings have an established uniform setback relationship to the street, any new building or modification to an existing building shall maintain this established relationship notwithstanding the setback provisions of that district. An established uniform setback relationship is deemed to exist when the distances between the front face of the building and the edge of the travel way in the adjoining street for the two adjacent parcels fronting on the same street on each side of the subject parcel are within+/- five (5) feet of mean of this distance for the four (4) parcels. For the purposes of this provision, lots shall be deemed to be adjacent even if separated by a street or public easement.

(24) Minimum lot size may be reduced by the Planning Board for single family cluster developments pursuant to Article Xlll, Section 7.

(c) Violations of any of the conditions herein will constitute a violation of the Code.

(d) The conditions described herein shall bind the proponent, its successors and assigns, and any person in possession or occupant of the subject premises, or any portion thereof, and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the City.

(e) The proponent shall, at their own expense, record in the Androscoggin County Registry of Deeds a copy of the conditions within thirty (30) days following final approval of this proposal by the City. Such form of recording is to be in a form satisfactory to the City.

(d) The conditions described herein shall run with the subject premises.

(g) In addition to other remedies to which the City may be entitled under applicable provisions of statute or ordinance, if any party in possession of use of the subject premises fails or refuses to comply with any of the conditions imposed, any rezoning approved by the City in accordance with the conditions shall be of no force or effect. In that event, any use of the subject premises and any building or structures developed pursuant to the rezoning shall be immediately abated and brought into compliance with all applicable provisions of the Code with the same effect as if the rezoning had never occurred. 11 (h) If any of the conditions are found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such determination shall not invalidate any of the other conditions.

(i) Any rezoning approved by the City contractually shall be of no force or effect if the proponent fails or refuses to comply with conditions imposed.

G) Any allowed proposed use, addition, or expansion of the property deemed applicable to Article XIII, Section 2 of the Zoning and Land Use Code shall be subject to the applicable sections of Article Xlli of the Zoning and Land Use Code, Development Review and Standards.

(k) By submitting this proposal, the proponent agrees in writing to the conditions described herein.

T~~;~:t;;~--he-re;62~spectively submits this Proposal as ofthe :J!..~ ...... day of

Androscoggin, SS 2020 Lewiston, Maine

Personally appeared the above named Brian Langlais and acknowledged the foregoing to be his free act and deed. (")_ ?/"/ JOSEPH JAHAN PHIL!PPON Nota 1y Public-Ma1ne Notary Public ~ , ~~-:;- M y C o ll"'l nl is s i o n E x p J r e s 1 Commission Exp1res: ~_: 11- J.d.. April 1 7. 2022

The owner of 299 River Road, LLC acknowledges and is supportive of this request

0 n ~,.e·-~

2R~-Hrian Langlais, Member

Androscoggin, SS Lewiston, Maine

Personally appeared the above named Brian Langlais and acknowledged the foregoing to be his free act and deed.

Notary Public 12 Commission Expires:

JOSEPH JAHAN PHILIPPON Notary Public-Molf1e My Commission Expires April 17,2022

13 Novermber 2020 LEWISTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 15., 2020

AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET: AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 SUBJECT: Amendment to the Policy Manual regarding Personnel Policies and Earned Leave Time.

INFORMATION:

Last year, the Legislature passed a bill into law (MRSA Title 26 Labor and Industry, Chapter 7 Employment Practices,§ 637, Earned Paid Leave). Subsequently the Bureau of Labor Standards promulgated new rules, Chapter 18: Rules Govening Earned Paid Leave. These will be effective January 1, 2021.

Most City employees are covered under collective bargaining, management policies or individual contracts. These employees currently meet the requirements under this law and rules.

Most temporary and part time employees will be subject to a change under the new law. They will earn 1 hour of "earned time" for every 40 hours worked to a maximum of 40 accrued hours. After one hundred twenty (120) days of employment they will be allowed to use this time for sickness, emergencies or vacation under defined circumstances.

Staff is proposing that at termination of employment the balance of the accrual be paid out to the employee. The maximum is 40 hours.

This section will be a simple amendment into the policy

We recommend that the Council approve this amendment into the existing policy.

APPROVAl AND/OR COMMENTS Of CITY ADMINISTRATOR:

The City Administrator recommends approval of the requested action. y~~\CfJ'«"

REQUESTED ACTION:

To approve the Amendment to the Policy Manual regarding Personnel Policies and Earned Leave Time. PERSONNEL POLICIES

TIME OFF AND LEAVES OF ABSENCE

EARNED PAID LEAVE

Applicability: This policy covers employees that are not provided leave accruals under collective bargaining agreements, individual contracts or other policies that satisfy the requirements ofMRSA Title 26 Labor and Industry, Chapter 7 Employment Practices, § 637, Earned Paid Leave.

Accrual ofEarned Paid Leave: Employees are entitled to earn one hour of paid leave for every 40 hours worked, up to 40 hours in one year of employment. Accrual of leave begins on start of employment. Earned Paid Leave will be paid at the employee's regular rate of pay as established in the week immediately prior to taking Earned Paid Leave. Earned time is to be calculated quarterly and made available to employees at that time based on hours worked.

Employees whom have a vacation accrual already, earned paid time is included in this accrual time. 40 hours of vacation time per year may be used for any type of time off as needed, not exclusive to vacation

Use ofEarned Paid Leave: Once employees have been employed for 120 calendar days, they may use earned paid leave for any reason and can use in increments of 15 minutes or more.

Notice Requirements: Employees must provide at least 2 weeks' prior notice to their supervisor of their intent to use this leave, unless leave is for an emergency, illness, or other sudden necessity where advance notice may not be feasible, and then notice must be given as soon as practicable.

Leave Accrual upon Separation: Unused accrued leave (up to 40 hours) will be paid to the employee at time of separation based on their current hourly rate

Note Additions are underlined; deletions are struck out. LEWISTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 2020

AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET: AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 SUBJECT: Resolve, Authorizing reallocation of $16,485 from the Library Carpeting Replacement project to the Library Roof Restoration Project.

INFORMATION:

The Finance Director, Public Works Director and Library Director are recommending that $16,485 be reallocated from the carpeting project to be used for the additional cost of the roof repair.

The Library Roof Restoration project (approved FY21) was created to restore/repair approximately 4,500 square feet of roofing area on the library. The scope of work for this project was based on a roof coating system recommended by a local roofing contractor in the fall of 2019.

When the prospective bidders did their site walk in November 2020, the consensus was to install a new membrane system, due to the poor condition of base materials. The Purchasing Agent issued an addendum to the RFP that requested pricing for a new membrane roof system.

This project was budgeted for $35,000 and the low bid for the revised RFP came in at $51,485 from Industrial Roofing, leaving a shortfall of $16,485.

With approval of the Finance Director, the Public Works Director and Library Director would like to reallocate $16,485 from another Library Carpeting Project with approved funding of$43,000 (FY20 4559-458000). The remaining balance in the carpeting fund will be used for a reduced scope of carpeting work, with future work to be proposed for the FY22 operating budget.

Please see attached memo from the Finance Committee meeting held on December 7, 2020.

The attached Resolve would reallocate the additional funding required to complete the Library Roof Restoration Project.

APPROVAL AND/OR COMMENTS OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR: €"\)\)()\'{, ("f\~"""- The City Administrator recommends approval of the requested action. REQUESTED ACTION:

To approve the Resolve, Authorizing the transfer of$16,485 from the Library Carpeting Replacement project to fund the shortfall on the Library Roof Restoration project. lewiston

City of Lewiston Maine City Council Order rmr December 15,2020 2007

RESOLVE, Authorizing reallocation of $16,485 from the Library Carpeting Replacement project to the Library Roof Restoration Project.

WHEREAS, The City Council approved Library Roof Restoration Project in the FY21 fund balance ($35,000); and

WHEREAS, the RFP scope of work was updated to include a full membrane roof system, due to the poor condition of the base materials, and recommendations from the pre bid walk through, and

WHEREAS, the low bid came in at $51,485 from Industrial Roofing, leaving a short fall of $16,485; and

WHEREAS, The City Council approved the Library Carpeting Replacement project in FY20 fund balance ( 43,000), and

WHEREAS, the Library Carpeting Replacement is of lower priority and the reduced funds can be used to complete a revised scope of carpeting work, with future work to be proposed in the FY22 operating budget; and

WHEREAS, the Facilities Manager and Library Director are requesting to reallocate $16,485 from the FY20 fund balance Library Carpeting Replacement project to cover the shortfall on the Library Roof Restoration Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCil of the CITY of LEWISTON

That the amount of $16,485 is hereby reallocated from the following fund balance: FY20 fund balance account 4559-458000 to the FY21 Library Roof Restoration Project (4559- 458000). PUBliC WORKS DEPARTMENT

Mary Ann Brenchick, Director

December 03, 2020

To: Allen Ward, Purchasing Agent

From: Louie Turcotte, Jr., Buildings Division Manager

Re: Bid #2020-059 Award for the Lewiston Public Library Roof Restoration

On November 10, 2020 the Purchasing Department received the following bids:

Gladu Roofing.- $69,490

Industrial Roofing Corporation- $51A85

The allocated budget is $35,000 (based on an estimate for a restoration coating, from Gladu Roofing). Unforeseen condition issues warranted an addendum to provide a complete roof membrane replacement. The Finance Director has approved a fund balance transfer for Council consideration to cover the deficit.

After review of the supporting materials and confirmation that they are able to provide the specified services in a timely fashion, I am recommending that this project be awarded to Industrial Roofing Corp. Doing so will allow eliminate further temporary repair costs and potential interior damage to Callahan Hall.

Louie Turcotte, Jr.

Facilities Manager

103 Adams Ave, Lewiston, ME 04240 .. Tel. {207) 513-3003 ., Fax (207) 784-5647 Email: [email protected] Page: www.lewistonmaine.gov LEWISTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 2020

AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET: AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 SUBJECT: Order, Taking Possession of the Following Properties and Authorizing that they Be Offered for Sale Through the Competitive Bid Process: 8 Ann Street, 35 Beechwood Avenue, 71 Brigham Street, 1 Carver Street, 9 Ceres Avenue, 1 James Avenue, 68 Jones Avenue, 47 Payne Street, and 120 Prospect A venue. INFORMATION:

At their November 9, 2020 meeting, the Planning Board voted to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the disposition of City-owned parcels: 8 Ann Street, 35 Beechwood Avenue, 71 Brigham Street, 1 Carver Street, 9 Ceres Avenue, 1 James Avenue, 68 Jones Avenue, 47 Payne Street, and 120 Prospect Avenue.

In addition, 8 Ann St, 68 Jones Ave, and 120 Prospect St. are above the $10,000 appraisal threshold set in the City's Disposition of Real Property requiring a recommendation by the Finance Committee. At their December 7, 2020 meeting, The Finance Committee voted to recommend that the City Council sell these three (3) parcels to abutters or interested parties through formalized sealed bids with no minimized bids set. Please see the attached memo for additional information.

APPROVAL AND/OR COMMENTS OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR:

The City Administrator recommends approval of the requested action.

REQUESTED ACTION:

To approve the Order, directing staff to take possession of the following properties and offer them for sale through a competitive sealed bid process: 8 Ann Street, 35 Beechwood Avenue, 71 Brigham Street, 1 Carver Street, 9 Ceres Avenue, 1 James Avenue, 68 Jones Avenue, 47 Payne Street, and 120 Prospect A venue. CITY OF lEWISTON, MAINE

December 15, 2020 COUNCil ORDER

Order, Taking Possession of the Following Properties and Authorizing that they Be Offered for Sale Through the Competitive Bid Process: 8 Ann Street, 35 Beechwood Avenue, 71 Brigham Street, 1 Carver Street, 9 Ceres Avenue, 1 James Avenue, 68 Jones Avenue, 47 Payne Street, and 120 Prospect Avenue.

Whereas, tax liens have matured on nine parcels that are either unoccupied or vacant land; and

Whereas, numerous attempts have been made to contact the owners of these properties to seek collection of taxes owed through first class mail, certified mail, phone calls, and emails; and

Whereas, none of these attempts resulted in payment of amounts due or consistent compliance with negotiated payment arrangements; and

Whereas, as a result of matured tax liens, the City now legally owns these properties; and

Whereas, these properties should be offered for sale in an effort to recover amounts due to the city;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of lewiston that staff is hereby directed to take possession of the following properties and offer them for sale through a competitive sealed bid process: 8 Ann Street, 35 Beechwood Avenue, 71 Brigham Street, 1 Carver Street, 9 Ceres Avenue, 1 James Avenue, 68 Jones Avenue, 47 Payne Street, and 120 Prospect Avenue.

City Hall, 27 Pine Street, Lewiston, ME 04240" Tel. {207) 513-3121• TIY/TDD (207) 513-3007" Fax (207) 795-5069 LEWISTON CITY COUNCIL Web Page: www.lewistonmaine.gov Purchasing Agent Allen Ward [email protected] 207-513-3040

to: Mayor Mark Cayer And Members of the City Council from: Allen Ward, Purchasing Agent subject: Finance Committee Disposition of Various Parcels Recommendation to Council date: December 8, 2020

Any Planning Board recommendation to sell a parcel is valid for a period of three (3) years from the date of the vote. Any parcel unsold after that time, needs to go back before the committee for reconsideration to re-start the process.

Late summer Purchasing and Planning staff met to revisit the backlog of City owned parcels in an effort to clean up the list and get those without value in retaining for various reasons back on the tax roll.

The below list represents the first grouping of tax acquired or purchased parcels that the Planning Board recommended City Council sell to abutters or other interested parties at their November 9, 2020 meeting with no minimum bid set.

NBR ADDRESS TaxAcq Parcel Acreage Assessed Value Zoning 8 Ann Street 6/6/2006 RE00011557 0.39 $15,800 NCA 35 Beechwood Ave 1/16/2002 RE00005641 0.13 $ 3,900 OS 71 Brigham St 12/3112007 RE00004562 0.27 $ 1,920 NCA 1 Carver St 6/20/2008 RE00003584 0.363 $ 2,520 NCA 9 Ceres Ave 6/20/2008 RE00007976 0.03 $ 900 HB 1 James Ave 1974 RE00006242 0.46 $ 5,900 NCA 68 Jones Ave 11/19/2013 RE00007807 0.12 $10,080 NCA 47 Payne Street 12/6/1994 RE00012338 0.38 $ 4,700 NCA 120 Prospect Street 1971 purchased RE00006212 0.16 $19,650 NCA

In addition, 8 Ann St, 68 Jones Ave, and 120 Prospect St. are above the $10,000 appraisal threshold set in the City's Disposition of Real Property requiring a recommendation by the Finance Committee. At their December 7, 2020 meeting, The Finance Committee voted to recommend that City Council sell these three (3) parcels to abutters or interested parties through formalized sealed bids with no minimized bids set.

Therefore, the above listing of parcels are now being presented to the City Council for consideration to sell.

I have attached both the Finance Committee and Planning Board Packet content to my memo.

If I can be of additional assistance please let me know.

AW/mrr Finance Committee Ralph W . Lenfestey Asst. Finance Director [email protected]

Item #7 to: Finance Committee from: RaJ ph Lenfestey, Asst. Finance Director subject: Sale of City-Owned Vacant Parcels date: December 1, 2020

At their November 9 meeting, the Planning Board voted to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the disposition of City-owned parcels at 8 Ann St, 1 James Ave, 1 Carver St, 35 Beechwood Ave, 9 Ceres Ave, 47 Payne St, 68 Jones Ave, 71 Brigham St, and 120 Prospect Ave.

Of these parcels, those listed below exceed the assessed value threshold of $10,000 outlined in SECTION 3 of the City of Lewiston's Disposition of City Assets Policy. Therefore, they are now being presented to the committee for consideration on the disposition method recommendation to the City Council.

Assessed NBR ADDRESS Tax Acq Parcel Acreage Value Zoning 8 Ann Street 6/6/2006 RE00011557 0.39 $15,800 NCA 68 Jones Ave 11119/2013 RE00007807 0.12 $10,080 NCA 120 Prospect St 1971 purch RE00006212 0.1 6 $19,650 NCA

Given that the City can only deliver a Municipal Release, AKA Quit Claim Deed, to the purchasers of these parcels without incurring more legal costs, their market value is significantly reduced as buyers will have financing issues or will have to undertake legal action to formally clear the title. 1

It is recommended the Finance Committee recommend selling 8 Ann St, 68 Jones Ave, and 120 Prospect St. through a formalized bid process (Property Disposition option 5.3) by sealed bids to abutters and other interested parties for no set minimum bid.

Under SECTION 3 of the Disposition of City Assets Policy, the City Council is tasked with the disposition of real property. As such, they retain the option of acceptance or rejection of any bids deemed in the best interest of the City when bids close and made public.

RWL/aw

1 Even though the state statute has a 5 year limit on an appeal of tax foreclosure, the city attorney advises that even after that period of time, claims can be advanced that the City did not follow the exactly prescribed procedure or potentially failed to noti fy a party of interest of the pending foreclosure. The only truly safe method is to seek and receive title clearance through the courts. CITY OF LEWISTON

Department of Planning & Code Enforcement

TO: Planning Board FROM: James Buzzell, Land Use Planner DATE: November 9, 2020 RE: Disposition of City Owned Properties

Pursuant to Article VII, Section 4(h) of the Zoning and Land Use Code, the Board shall review and make a recommendation to the City Counc il w ith regard to the acquisition and disposition of all public ways, land s, buildings and other municipal facil ities. In additi on, City Po li cy 38, Property Disposition, Section 3. 1.1 notes that '·once the [City] Administrator has determined a property to be surplus, the Planning Board will be asked to review and make a recommendati on on whether to proceed with its disposition. A recommendation from the Planning Board will remain valid for three years: however, should circumstances change during this period. the Administrator may seek an updated review and recommendation.··

The City has tax acquired many properties over the years. Many of these properties are undevelopable due to zoning, environmental restrictions, and/or lack of access. It is not uncommo n for the City to sell properties when approached by an individual entity thro ugh direct negotiatio ns to support a specific project. However, it has been a number of years since the City revisited its li st of City owned properties to determine whether retention or sale of such properties is in the best interest of the City. In some cases, previous recommendations from the Board are no longer valid having been made over three years ago.

Staff is requesting the Board to provide recommendations to the City Council for the disposition of numerous C ity owned properties. When reviewing these properties, the Board may consider • The proposed use of the property; • T he value of any proposed improvements to the property; • The impact of the sale or lease of the property on the assessed value of the adjacent property in the same ownership; and • The extent to which the sale or lease will support overall City policy (i.e. comprehensive plan) in the area or neighborhood w ithin which the property is located.

Staff suggests the Board may want to review all the properties as a whole and to make a single motion as to which properties should be disposed of.

The final decision to accept a bid, proposal, or offer to purchase City-owned property must be made by the City Council.

ACTIONS NECESSARY: Make a motion pursuant to Article VII, Section 4(h) of the Zoning and Land Use Code to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the disposition of the attached properties (including, if any, specific conditions raised by the Planning Board or staff).

1·\CODE\Planning Board Meeting lnfo\2020\1 1-09-20 Meeting Misccllaneous\Property Dispositions\Dispositions Mcmo.doc 8 ANN ST

Zoning District: NCA Acreage: 0.39 Assessed Value: $15,800.00 Frontage: Yes Wetland Coverage (%) 0 Floodplain? No Staff Recommendation: sell

East Coast Greenway

E;3 College Area Bike/Ped Route Paved Multi-Use Unpaved/Gravel/Natural -Current Proposed Trails Concetptual Trails Private Wildlife Sanctuary Trails Shoreland Zoning li:] Wetland 'Z2 Floodway Conservation Easements

""?~~ o.S't.' 1 JAMES AV E

Zoning District: NCA Acr eage: 0.46 Assessed Va lue: $5,900.00 Frontage: Insufficient Wetland Coverage (%) 0 Floodplain? No Staff Recommendation: sell

East Coast Greenway <==> College Area Bike/Ped Route Paved Multi-Use Unpaved/GraveVNatural - Current Proposed Trails Concetptual Trails Private Wildlife Sanctuary Trails Shoreland Zoning Wetland Flood way Conservation Easements 1 CARVER ST

Zoning Di strict: NCA Acreage: 0.363 Assessed Va lue: $2,520.00 Frontage: No- paper street Wetland Coverage (%) 1.002453 Floodplain? No Staff Recommendat ion: sell

East Coast Greenway ~ College Area Bike/Ped Route Paved Multi-Use Unpaved/Gravel/Natural - Current Proposed Trails Concetptual Trails Private Wildlife Sanctuary Trails Shoreland Zoning Wetland Floodway Conservation Easements 35 BEECHWOOD AVE

Zoning Di strict: OS Acreage: 0.13 Assessed Va lue: $3,900.00 Frontage: No- landlocked Wetland Coverage (%) 0 Floodplain? No Staff Recommendation: sell

East Coast Greenway ~ College Area Bike/Ped Route Paved Multi-Use Unpaved/Gravel/Natural - Current Proposed Trails Concetptual Trails Private V\o\ldlife Sanctuary Trails Shoreland Zoning li:JI Wetland tz2l Floodway Conservation Easements li[J City Maintained Parks and Athletic Fields \(b~ ·

4 ROSLIN AVE

Zoning District : NCA Acreage: 0.325 Assessed Value: $2,150.00 Frontage: No - paper street Wetland Coverage (%) 86.18576 Floodplain? Yes Staff Recommendation: sell

East Coast Greenway ~ College Area Bike/Ped Route Paved Multi-Use Unpaved/GraveUNatural - Current Proposed Trails Concetptual Trails Private Wildlife Sanctuary Trails Shoreland Zoning Wetland Floodway Conservation Easements 1 inch =4 0 feel

~-:\'./. 9 CERES AVE

Zoning Di strict : HB Acreage: 0.03 Assessed Va lue: $900.00 Frontage: No -landlocked Wetland Coverage (%) 56.40462 Floodplain? No St aff Recommendation: sell

East Coast Greenway ~ College Area Bike/Ped Route Paved Multi-Use Unpaved/Gravel/Natural - Current Proposed Trails Concetptual Trails Private \NIIdlife Sanctuary Trails Shoreland Zoning [iJJ Wetland i:l2l Floodway Q Conservation Easements City Maintained Parks and Athletic Fields 1 inch =4 0 feet 47 PAYNE ST

Zoning District: NCA Acreage: 0.38 Assessed Va lue: $4,700. 00 Frontage: No- paper street Wetland Coverage (%) 0 Floodplain? No Staff Recomm endation: sell

East Coast Greenway ~ College Area Bike/Ped Route Paved Multi-Use Unpaved/Gravel/Natural· Current Proposed Trails Concetptual Trails Private \Midlife Sanctuary Trails Shoreland Zoning Wetland Floodway Conservaijon Easements 68 JONES AVE

Zoning District: NCA Acreage: 0.12 Assessed Value: $10,080. 00 Frontage: Yes Wetland Coverage (%) 0 Floodplain? No Staff Recommendation: sell

East Coast Greenway ~ Cotlege Area Bike/Ped Route

Paved Mult~Use Unpaved/Gravel/Natural- Current Proposed Trails Concelptual Trails Private Wildlife Sanctuary Trails Shoreland Zoning Wetland Flood way Conservation Easements 71 BRIGHAM ST

Zoning District: NCA Acreage: 0.27 Assessed Value: $1,920.00 Frontage: No - paper street Wetland Coverage(%) 0 Fl oodplain? No Staff Recommendation: sell

East Coast Greenway ~ College Area Bike/Ped Route Paved Multi-Use Unpaved/Gravel/Natural - Current Proposed Trails Concetptual Trails Private Wildlife Sanctuary Trails Shoreland Zoning u:JI Wetland (Z2l Floodway E:Zl Conservation Easements llltJ

't 9 'i' 'i ~ 9 '1' .. " 'r' 'f 'i' 9 'i' 120 PROSPECT AVE

Zo ning District : NCA Acreage: 0. 16 Assessed Va lue: $19,650.00 Frontage: Insufficient Wetland Coverage (%) 0 Floodplain? No Staff Recommendation : sel l

East Coast Greenway ~ College Area Bike/Ped Route Paved Multi-Use Unpaved/Gravel/Natural- Current Proposed Trails Concetptual Trails Private Wi ldlife Sanctuary Trails Shoreland Zoning Wetland Flood way Conservati on Easements CITY OF LEWISTON PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES for NOVEMBER 9, 2020

I. ROLL CALL: The meeting was held through remote access with Zoom Video Conferencing during declaration of state of emergency due to Covid-19 and was called to order at 5:30p.m. Chairperson, Pauline Gudas, chaired the meeting.

Members in Attendance: Pauline Gudas, Normand Anctil, Kristine Kittridge, Lucy Bisson, Linda Scott and Timothy Gallant

Member Absent: Shanna Cox

Associate Members in Attendance: Roger Fuller and Roger Dupre

Roger Fuller was appointed full voting member for this meeting.

Staff Present: David Hediger, Director of Planning and Code, Douglas Greene, City Planner and Linda Tripp, Administrative Assistant

II. ADJUSTMENT TO THE AGENDA: The board agreed to begin the meeting with agenda item V(c) prior to item V(a).

Ill. CORRESPONDENCE: None

IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None

V. OTHER BUSINESS:

a) Planning discussion of FY22 Lewiston Capital Improvement Plan (LCIP), Comprehensive Plan Implementation and Planning Initiatives

Douglas Greene provided the board with an update on the Riverfront Island Master Plan. He then spoke of the need to develop a Canal Plan and an overall Canal Improvement Plan now that the City has obtained ownership of the canals. He spoke of the proposed development in the Beech Street area and a Simard Payne Park Small Area Plan and how it could benefit greatly from a small area planning process. He spoke of the need for future digitization of Property Records and the need to increase housing stock of all types, and strategies on how both items might be accomplished. A lengthy discussion took place, and board members spoke in favor of the Code & Planning department efforts regarding the FY22 LCIP.

b) Planning Board recommendation on property dispositions

David Hediger provided board members with information on each property. Planning Board Meeting Minutes for November 9, 2020 Page 2 of 4

The following motion was made: MOTION: by Lucy Bisson pursuant to Article VII , Section 4(h) of the Zoning and Land Use Code to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the disposition of the property located at 35 Beechwood Avenue and to first consider gifting the lot to the abutter. Second by Timothy Gallant. VOTED: 7-0 (Passed)

The following motion was made: MOTION: by Lucy Bisson pursuant to Article VII, Section 4(h) of the Zoning and Land Use Code to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council to retain property located at 4 Roslin Avenue to assist with any future wetland mitigation. Second by Timothy Gallant. VOTED: 6-1 (Passed. Pauline Gudas Opposed) Planning Board Meeting Minutes for November 9, 2020 Page 3 of 4

The following motion was made: MOTION: by Lucy Bisson pursuant to Article VII, Section 4(h) of the Zoning and Land Use Code to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the disposition of the property located at 9 Ceres Avenue and to first consider gifting the lot to the abutter. Second by Timothy Gallant. VOTED: 7-0 (Passed)

The following motion was made: MOTION: by Lucy Bisson pursuant to Article VII, Section 4(h) of the Zoning and Land Use Code to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the disposition of the property located at 47 Payne Street and to first consider gifting the lot to the abutter. Second by Timothy Gallant. VOTED: 7-0 (Passed)

The following motion was made: MOTION: by Lucy Bisson pursuant to Article VII , Section 4(h) of the Zoning and Land Use Code to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the disposition of the property located at 120 Prospect Street and to consider selling to the abutters in one of the following ways: 1. 25% of the property to 4 existing abutters 2. 50% of the property to 2 existing abutters 3. 100% of the property to 1 existing abutter Second by Timothy Gallant. VOTED: 7-0 (Passed) Planning Board Meeting Minutes for November 9, 2020 Page 4 of 4

c) De minimis change request to L & L Estates, Lot 5, located at 7 Matobian Avenue

David Hediger reviewed the request then introduced Rick Lachapelle who welcomed and answered questions from the board .

The following motion was made: MOTION: by Linda Scott that the amendment to L&L Estates, Lot 5 located at 7 Matobian Avenue to correct a side setback encroachment is a de minimis change pursuant to Article XIII, Section 3(k) of the Zoning and Land Use Code. Second by Normand Anctil. VOTED: 7-0 (Passed)

a) Any other business Planning Board Members may have relating to the duties of the Lewiston Planning Board.

The board had a lengthy discussion regarding a possible new temporary homeless shelter being set up at a hotel in the community.

VI. READING OF MINUTES: Adoption of the September 28, 2020 draft minutes.

The following motion was made: MOTION: by Lucy Bisson to accept the September 28, 2020 draft minutes as presented. Second by Linda Scott. VOTED: 7-0 (Passed)

VII. ADJOURNMENT: The following motion was made to adjourn. MOTION: by Lucy Bisson that this meeting adjourns at 7:15p.m. Second by Linda Scott. VOTED: 7-0 (Passed)

The next regularly scheduled meeting is for Monday, November 23, 2020 at 5:30p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Normand Anctil, Secretary LEWISTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 2020

AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET: AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 SUBJECT:

Authorization to accept transfer of forfeiture funds.

INFORMATION:

The Lewiston Police Department is requesting that the City Council authorize the acceptance of funds, in the amounts outlined below, as reimbursement for costs associated with assisting in a criminal investigation. The funds are available to the Lewiston Police Department due to its substantial contribution to the investigation of this or a related criminal case.

APPROVAL AND/OR COMMENTS OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR:

The City Administrator recommends approval of the requested action. v@\\L'N"\!'1'\

REQUESTED ACTION:

That pursuant to Title 15, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated, Section 5824(3) and Section 5822( 4)(A), the City Council hereby acknowledges and approves of the transfer of$2,856.00 or any portion thereof, in the case of the State of Maine vs. Chad Nichols, CR-19-1963 Court Records, and the transfer of $919.00 or any portion thereof, in the case of the State of Maine vs. Treva Wordell, CR-20-1822 Court Records, being funds forfeited pursuant to the court process. It is further acknowledged that these funds shall be credited to the 'City of Lewiston Drug Enforcement Program' account. STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL COURT Androscoggin, ss Docket No. CR-19-1963

State of Maine } } Municipality of Lewiston v. } Approval of Transfer } 15 M.R.S.A. §5824(3) & §5822(4)(A) Chad Nichols } Defendant; } } And } } $2,856.00 U.S. Currency } Defendant(s) In Rem }

NOW COMES the municipality of Lewiston, Maine, by and through its municipal officers, and does hereby grant approval pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 5824(3) & §5826(6) to the transfer of the above captioned Defendant(s) in Rem, or any portion thereof, on the grounds that the Lewiston Police Department did make a substantial contribution to the investigation of this or a related criminal case.

WHEREFORE, the municipality of Lewiston, Maine does hereby approve of the transfer of the Defendant(s) In Rem, or any portion thereof, pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 5824(3) & §5826(6) by vote of the Lewiston municipal legislative body on or about

Dated: 12/15/2020 Municipal Officer Lewiston, Maine (Impress municipal legislative body seal here) STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL COURT Androscoggin, ss Docket No. CR-20-1822

State of Maine } } Municipality of Lewiston V. } Approval of Transfer } 15 M.R.S.A. §5824(3) & §5822(4)(A) Treva Wordell } Defendant; } } And } } $919.00 U.S. Currency } Defendant(s) In Rem }

Dated: 12/15/2020 Municipal Officer Lewiston, Maine (Impress municipal legislative body seal here) LEWISTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 2020

AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET: AGENDA ITEM NO. 9 SUBJECT:

Executive Session to discuss labor negotiations regarding the International Association of Firefighters, Local 785.

INFORMATION:

The Maine State Statutes, Title 1, section 405, define the permissible grounds and subject matters of executive sessions for public meetings.

APPROVAL AND/OR COMMENTS OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR:

The City Administrator recommends approval of the requested action. 'V~\\cfl\~

REQUESTED ACTION:

To enter into an Executive Session pursuant to MRSA Title 1, section 405 (6) (D) to discuss Labor Negotiations regarding the International Association of Firefighters, Local 785.