May 2018
Summary Report Fire Protection Master Plan
York County, South Carolina
Prepared by:
FITCH & ASSOCIATES, LLC 2901 Williamsburg Terrace #G § Platte City § Missouri § 64079 816.431.2600 § www.fitchassoc.com
Fire Protection Master Plan i Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
SUMMARY REPORT FIRE PROTECTION MASTER PLAN YORK COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA ______1 SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ______1
METHODOLOGY ______3 COMMUNITY BACKGROUND ______4 SYSTEM OVERSIGHT & COORDINATION ______6 Organizational Structure, Authority, Relationships, and Coordination ______6 Budget ______6 Governance ______8 DISPATCH OPERATIONS ______9 FIRE SERVICES ______10 Current Deployment & Staffing ______10 Fire Stations ______10 Fire Apparatus ______13 Current Staffing ______14 Policies & Best Practices ______16 CURRENT PERFORMANCE ______17 Emergency Medical Services ______21 Special Operations – Haz Mat & Technical Rescue______22 RECRUITMENT, RETENTION & INCENTIVES FOR FIREFIGHTER PERSONNEL ______23 Incentive Programs ______23 Qualifying for benefits and incentives ______24 COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION ______25 SECTION 2: SUMMARY POWERPOINT ______27 ______102 SECTION 3: DATA ANALYSIS ______102
METHODOLOGY ______103 COMMUNITY RESPONSE HISTORY ______105 Fire Services ______121 Emergency Medical Services ______131 REVIEW OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ______139 Cascade of Events ______139 RESPONSE TIME CONTINUUM______141 Fire ______141 EMS ______143 DESCRIPTION OF FIRST ARRIVING UNIT PERFORMANCE ______145 First Arriving Unit Response Time by Agency ______147 ______150 SECTION 4: GIS ANALYSIS ______150
ESTABLISHING BASELINE PERFORMANCE ______151 Comparison to National References ______152 Evaluation of Various Distribution models ______153 Validation of Planning Analysis ______155 Validating Internal Performance Objectives______155 Recommended Internal Performance Objectives ______155
Fire Protection Master Plan i Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
RISK ANALYSES ______169 Occupancy Level Risk ______169 Concentration of Risks by Demand Zone ______174 OPTIMIZED STATION DISTRIBUTION PLANS ______185 Geographic Coverage without Consideration for Call Distribution ______189 EFFECTIVE RESPONSE FORCE MAPPING ______191 DISTRIBUTION OF RISK ACROSS THE JURISDICTION ______193 Distribution of Demand by Program Areas ______193 Long-Term Sustainability of the Models Presented ______198 Projected Growth ______199 Population Characteristics ______200 SECTION 5: VOLUNTEER RECRUITMENT & RETENTION ______204 SECTION 6: PERCENTILE CALCULATIONS & PURPOSE IN EMERGENCY SERVICES ______213
PURPOSE ______214 DEFINITION OF PERCENTILE ______216 Rank Order: ______216 Interpolation: ______216 EXAMPLE ______216 ______219 Table of Figures FIGURE 1: POPULATION DENSITY BY CENSUS BLOCK - 2017 ...... 5 FIGURE 2: FY 2017 YORK COUNTY FIRE BOARD BUDGET - #1211 ...... 7 FIGURE 3: HEAT MAP FOR ALL INCIDENTS ...... 11 FIGURE 4: 10-MINUTE URBAN AND 13-MINUTE RURAL TRAVEL TIME W/O PIEDMONT EMS, TEGA CAY, OR ROCK HILL ...... 12 FIGURE 5: 10-MINUTE URBAN AND 13-MINUTE RURAL TRAVEL TIME W/O PIEDMONT EMS, TEGA CAY, OR ROCK HILL ...... 13 FIGURE 6: MAJOR APPARATUS TYPES W/ COUNTS, AVERAGE AGE & AVERAGE MILEAGE ...... 14 FIGURE 7: AGE OF ACTIVE FIREFIGHTERS ...... 14 FIGURE 8: 2012 - 2016 INCIDENT COUNTS BY AGENCY (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) ...... 18 FIGURE 9: 2016 MEAN CALL PROCESSING, TURNOUT AND TRAVEL TIME FOR FIRST ARRIVING UNITS BY FIRE-RELATED PROGRAM (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY)...... 18 FIGURE 10: 2016 MEAN FIRST ARRIVAL RESPONSES BY AGENCY (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY)...... 19 FIGURE 11: 2016 90TH PERCENTILE CALL PROCESSING, TURNOUT, AND TRAVEL TIME OF FIRST ARRIVING UNITS BY FIRE-RELATED PROGRAM (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) ...... 20 FIGURE 12: 2016 90TH PERCENTILE FIRST ARRIVAL RESPONSES BY AGENCY (W/O/ ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY)...... 20 FIGURE 13: SELECTED NFIRS REPORTED LOSS STATISTICS PER CAPITA – ANNUALIZED FROM 2012 THRU 2015 ...... 25 FIGURE 14: 2012 - 2016 INCIDENT COUNTS BY AGENCY (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) ...... 105 FIGURE 15: 2016 NUMBER OF INCIDENTS DISPATCHED BY CALL TYPE (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) ...... 106 FIGURE 16: PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL INCIDENTS DISPATCHED BY PROGRAM IN 2016 (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) ...... 109 FIGURE 17: 2016 NUMBER OF VALID CALLS, RESPONSES, AND TOTAL BUSY TIME BY PROGRAM (W/O ROCK HILL OR TEGA CAY) ...... 109 FIGURE 18: OVERALL AVERAGE CALLS PER DAY BY MONTH (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) ...... 110 FIGURE 19: OVERALL AVERAGE CALLS PER DAY BY WEEKDAY (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) ...... 111 FIGURE 20: AVERAGE CALLS PER DAY BY HOUR (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) ...... 112 FIGURE 21: 2016 OVERALL WORKLOAD BY AGENCY ...... 113 FIGURE 22: 2016 PIEDMONT EMS: OVERALL WORKLOAD BY UNIT ...... 115 FIGURE 23: 2016 PIEDMONT EMS: OVERALL WORKLOAD BY UNIT ...... 116 FIGURE 24: 2016 AVERAGE CALL PROCESSING, TURNOUT AND TRAVEL TIME FOR FIRST ARRIVING UNITS BY PROGRAM (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) ...... 117 FIGURE 25: 2016 AVERAGE CALL PROCESSING, TURNOUT AND TRAVEL TIME OF FIRST ARRIVING UNIT BY PROGRAM CATEGORY (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY)...... 117
Fire Protection Master Plan ii Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
FIGURE 26: 2016 90TH PERCENTILE CALL PROCESSING, TURNOUT, AND TRAVEL TIME OF FIRST ARRIVING UNITS BY PROGRAM (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY)...... 118 FIGURE 27: 2016 90TH PERCENTILE CALL PROCESSING, TURNOUT, AND TRAVEL TIME OF FIRST ARRIVING UNITS BY PROGRAM (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY)...... 118 FIGURE 28: FIGURE 20: ALL CALLS: DISTRIBUTION OF CPT AND TURNOUT TIME OF FIRST ARRIVING UNIT (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) ...... 119 FIGURE 29: ALL CALLS: DISTRIBUTION OF TRAVEL TIME OF FIRST ARRIVING UNIT (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) ...... 120 FIGURE 30: 2016 TOTAL FIRE RELATED CALLS PER DAY BY MONTH ...... 121 FIGURE 31: AVERAGE FIRE RELATED CALLS PER DAY BY MONTH ...... 122 FIGURE 32: TOTAL FIRE RELATED CALLS PER DAY BY DAY OF WEEK ...... 122 FIGURE 33: AVERAGE FIRE RELATED CALLS PER DAY BY DAY OF WEEK ...... 123 FIGURE 34: AVERAGE FIRE RELATED CALLS PER DAY BY HOUR OF DAY ...... 124 FIGURE 35: AVERAGE FIRE CALLS PER DAY BY HOUR OF DAY ...... 125 FIGURE 36: AVERAGE FIRE WORKLOAD (TIME ON TASK) AND UHU BY FIRE DEPARTMENT AND UNIT (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) .. 125 FIGURE 37: NUMBER OF RESPONDING UNITS TO STRUCTURE FIRES (EXCLUDING ROCK HILL AND TEGA CAY) ...... 131 FIGURE 38: 2016 TOTAL AND AVERAGE CALLS PER DAY FOR PIEDMONT EMS BY MONTH OF YEAR ...... 132 FIGURE 39: 2016 AVERAGE PIEDMONT EMS CALLS PER DAY BY MONTH OF YEAR ...... 132 FIGURE 40: ANNUAL TOTAL AND AVERAGE PIEDMONT EMS CALLS PER DAY BY DAY OF WEEK ...... 133 FIGURE 41: AVERAGE PIEDMONT EMS CALLS PER DAY BY DAY OF WEEK ...... 133 FIGURE 42: ANNUAL TOTAL AND AVERAGE PIEDMONT EMS CALLS PER DAY BY HOUR OF DAY ...... 134 FIGURE 43: AVERAGE PIEDMONT EMS CALLS PER DAY BY HOUR OF DAY ...... 135 FIGURE 44: EMS TRANSPORTS BY CALL CATEGORY (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) ...... 136 FIGURE 45: TOTAL EMS CALLS AND EMS TRANSPORTS AND AVERAGE PER DAY BY HOUR OF DAY ...... 138 FIGURE 46: AVERAGE EMS CALLS AND EMS TRANSPORTS PER DAY BY HOUR OF DAY ...... 139 FIGURE 47: CASCADE OF EVENTS ...... 141 FIGURE 48: EXAMPLE OF TRADITIONAL TIME TEMPERATURE CURVE ...... 142 FIGURE 49: VENTILATION CONTROLLED TIME TEMPERATURE CURVE ...... 143 FIGURE 50: CASCADE OF EVENTS FOR SUDDEN CARDIAC ARREST WITH SHOCKABLE RHYTHM ...... 144 FIGURE 51: 2016 MINUTE RESPONSE OF FIRST ARRIVING UNIT EMERGENCY PERFORMANCE (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) ...... 145 FIGURE 52: EMS CALLS: DISTRIBUTION OF CPT AND TURNOUT TIME FIRST ARRIVING UNIT (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) ...... 146 FIGURE 53: EMS CALLS: DISTRIBUTION OF TRAVEL TIME OF FIRST ARRIVING UNIT (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) ...... 146 FIGURE 54: FIRE CALLS: DISTRIBUTION OF CPT AND TURNOUT TIME OF FIRST ARRIVING UNIT (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) ...... 147 FIGURE 55: FIRE CALLS: DISTRIBUTION OF TRAVEL TIME OF FIRST ARRIVING UNIT (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) ...... 147 FIGURE 56: 2016 MEAN FIRST ARRIVAL RESPONSES BY AGENCY (W/O ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY)...... 148 FIGURE 57: 90TH PERCENTILE FIRST ARRIVAL RESPONSES BY AGENCY (W/O/ ROCK HILL & TEGA CAY) ...... 149 FIGURE 58: URBAN AND RURAL CALL DENSITY MAP WITH CURRENT STATIONS ...... 154 FIGURE 59: 8-MINUTE URBAN AND 13-MINUTE RURAL TRAVEL TIME W/O PIEDMONT EMS, TEGA CAY, OR ROCK HILL ...... 157 FIGURE 60: 10-MINUTE URBAN AND 13-MINUTE RURAL TRAVEL TIME W/O PIEDMONT EMS, TEGA CAY, OR ROCK HILL ...... 158 FIGURE 61: 12-MINUTE TRAVEL TIME W/O PIEDMONT EMS, TEGA CAY, OR ROCK HILL ...... 160 FIGURE 62: 13-MINUTE TRAVEL TIME W/O PIEDMONT EMS, TEGA CAY, OR ROCK HILL ...... 161 FIGURE 63: 8-MINUTE URBAN AND 13-MINUTE RURAL TRAVEL TIME W/O PIEDMONT EMS, TEGA CAY, OR ROCK HILL INCIDENTS BUT INCLUDING TEGA CAY AND ROCK HILL FIRE STATION LOCATIONS ...... 163 FIGURE 64: 10-MINUTE URBAN AND 13-MINUTE RURAL TRAVEL TIME W/O PIEDMONT EMS, TEGA CAY, OR ROCK HILL INCIDENTS BUT INCLUDING TEGA CAY AND ROCK HILL FIRE STATION LOCATIONS ...... 165 FIGURE 65: 12-MINUTE TRAVEL TIME W/O PIEDMONT EMS, TEGA CAY, OR ROCK HILL INCIDENTS BUT INCLUDING TEGA CAY AND ROCK HILL FIRE STATION LOCATIONS ...... 167 FIGURE 66: 13-MINUTE TRAVEL TIME W/O PIEDMONT EMS, TEGA CAY, OR ROCK HILL INCIDENTS BUT INCLUDING TEGA CAY AND ROCK HILL FIRE STATION LOCATIONS ...... 169 FIGURE 67: HIGH RISK OCCUPANCIES BY STATION DEMAND ZONE ...... 172 FIGURE 68: MODERATE RISK OCCUPANCIES BY STATION DEMAND ZONE ...... 173 FIGURE 69: LOW RISK OCCUPANCIES BY STATION DEMAND ZONE ...... 174 FIGURE 70: BETHANY-SANTIAGO RISK PROFILE ...... 177 FIGURE 71: BETHEL RISK PROFILE...... 178
Fire Protection Master Plan iii Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
FIGURE 72: BETHESDA RISK PROFILE ...... 178 FIGURE 73: BULLOCKS CREEK RISK PROFILE ...... 179 FIGURE 74: CLOVER RISK PROFILE ...... 179 FIGURE 75: FLINT HILL RISK PROFILE ...... 180 FIGURE 76: FORT MILL RISK PROFILE ...... 180 FIGURE 77: HICKORY GROVE RISK PROFILE ...... 181 FIGURE 78: LESSLIE RISK PROFILE ...... 181 FIGURE 79: MCCONNELS RISK PROFILE ...... 182 FIGURE 80: NEWPORT RISK PROFILE ...... 182 FIGURE 81: OAKDALE RISK PROFILE ...... 183 FIGURE 82: RIVERVIEW RISK PROFILE ...... 183 FIGURE 83: SHARON RISK PROFILE ...... 184 FIGURE 84: SMYRNA RISK PROFILE ...... 184 FIGURE 85: YORK RISK PROFILE ...... 185 FIGURE 86: OPTIMIZED STATION DEPLOYMENT PLAN – 8-MINUTE URBAN AND 13-MINUTE RURAL TRAVEL TIME EXCLUDING PIEDMONT EMS, ROCK HILL, OR TEGA CAY INCIDENTS ...... 186 FIGURE 87: OPTIMIZED STATION DEPLOYMENT PLAN – 10-MINUTE URBAN AND 13-MINUTE RURAL TRAVEL TIME EXCLUDING PIEDMONT EMS, ROCK HILL, OR TEGA CAY INCIDENTS ...... 187 FIGURE 88: OPTIMIZED STATION DEPLOYMENT PLAN – 12-MINUTE TRAVEL TIME EXCLUDING PIEDMONT EMS, ROCK HILL, OR TEGA CAY INCIDENTS ...... 188 FIGURE 89: OPTIMIZED STATION DEPLOYMENT PLAN – 13-MINUTE TRAVEL TIME EXCLUDING PIEDMONT EMS, ROCK HILL, OR TEGA CAY INCIDENTS ...... 189 FIGURE 90: ISO 2.5 MILE ...... 190 FIGURE 91: CURRENT STATION CONFIGURATION - ISO 5 MILE ...... 191 FIGURE 92: 13-MINUTE ERF FROM ALL CURRENT STATIONS ...... 192 FIGURE 93: 18-MINUTE ERF FROM ALL CURRENT STATIONS ...... 193 FIGURE 94: HEAT MAP FOR FIRE RELATED INCIDENTS ...... 194 FIGURE 95: HEAT MAP FOR EMS RELATED INCIDENTS ...... 195 FIGURE 96: HEAT MAP FOR HAZMAT RELATED INCIDENTS ...... 196 FIGURE 97: HEAT MAP FOR RESCUE RELATED INCIDENTS ...... 197 FIGURE 98: HEAT MAP FOR ALL INCIDENTS ...... 198 FIGURE 99: HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED GROWTH IN TOTAL CALL VOLUME ...... 199 FIGURE 100: MEDIAN AGE - 2017 ...... 200 FIGURE 101: POPULATION DENSITY BY CENSUS BLOCK - 2017 ...... 201 FIGURE 102: ANNUAL POPULATION CHANGE 2017-2022 ...... 201 FIGURE 103: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME -2016 ...... 203 FIGURE 104: COMMON REASONS FOR PARTICIPATION LOSS ...... 206 FIGURE 105: RESPONSE TIME COMPONENTS & INTERVALS ...... 215 FIGURE 106: RESPONSE TIME CONTINUUM & ASSOCIATED INTERVALS WITH TIMESTAMPS ...... 215 FIGURE 107: EXAMPLE OF 10 CAD RECORDS & RESPONSE TIME INTERVALS ...... 217 FIGURE 108: RESPONSE TIME INTERVALS IN RANK ORDER ...... 217 FIGURE 109: RESPONSE TIME CALCULATIONS ON SMALL DATA SET ...... 218
Fire Protection Master Plan iv Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
SECTION 1: Executive Summary
Fire Protection Master Plan 1 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fitch & Associates was engaged by York County to assist in the development of a 10-year Master Plan for fire protection services. The following summary report meets the project scope and tasks for this study. As such, it provides a brief community background, an assessment of current service levels, both quantitative and qualitative, and incorporates specific recommendations for stakeholder consideration moving forward through 2028.
Externalities impacting the overall needs for fire services in York County include the community’s growing population, and the concurrent increasing demands for services. These two factors will significantly impact the need for fire services over the next 10-15 year. At the same time, while the County provides the fiscal support for the system, the current governance structure – relying predominantly on the Rural Fire Control Board and Fire Chiefs Association – is too diffuse and unable to influence policy decisions which reflect the regional perspective required by the growing population and changing service demands.
The recommendations derived from the findings below build on the strengths of the current system. Strong and active participation by the fire departments and their many members remain as the foundation for fire services delivery.
However, the County Council must ensure that these services are delivered in an effective and efficient manner. Therefore, the County must ensure a comprehensive fire service framework exists by the following actions:
• With input from key stakeholders, establish appropriate service levels for performance.
• Appropriately fund and support a framework to achieve these defined service levels – and as necessary prioritize program needs for the most effective and efficient delivery.
• Facilitate the development of policies & procedures to provide for the safety of citizens and first responders.
• Ensure the consistent application and enforcement of this framework for delivery of fire service.
• Periodically assess the effectiveness of the fire services system and make adjustments as community needs may require.
Fire Protection Master Plan 2 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Methodology Fitch employed a data driven approach in this project. From a quantitative perspective, computer aided dispatch (CAD) data was used as the primary source to evaluate the current system performance based on historical demand. National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) fire reports, as submitted by individual fire departments to the state, were also included for those years where they were submitted. Separate assessment of risk, as embodied within an Insurance Services Office (ISO) batch report of independently evaluated properties within the County, were used to quantify potential risk, as contrasted with actual demand that was derived from CAD. Finally, budget documents from the County were used to evaluate resources dedicated to fire services.
From a qualitative perspective FITCH spent significant time meeting with key stakeholders. These included members of the County Council, County Administration, Department of Fire Safety, and several meetings with the Rural Fire Control Board. Of particular note were the significant engagements with members of the Fire Chiefs Association. This included meeting with fire chiefs during our initial site visit; individual fire department meetings over several days with all agencies who made themselves available; two separate meetings to discuss preliminary results of the data analysis; a series of four meetings with smaller groups of fire Chiefs conducted virtually to further review data and GIS findings; and finally, a meeting with the fire chiefs to discuss the draft final report.
A significant challenge that emerged during this project was that of obtaining CAD data that was usable for analysis of system performance. While this issue is discussed in more detail in Section 3: Data Report, the problem involved the initial receipt of CAD data with a ‘bad index’. Once identified, County staff and the consultant worked to extract an additional set of CAD data with the correct index which was then reanalyzed to provide the results reflected herein. The updated data report was then presented to all stakeholders again for review and feedback.
NFIRS data used in this project was that which was provided to the State, and ultimately to the U.S. Fire Administration. It was reported that York County fire departments use various software products, if any, to complete fire reports. In addition, some departments did not submit NFIRS reports for all the years reviewed. Nonetheless, the available NFIRS reports represent 82.9% of the total calls1 – more than sufficient for drawing conclusions.
1 Based on a review of NFIRS data from 2012 thru 2015 and a weighted value for each year incidents were submitted by each department.
Fire Protection Master Plan 3 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Community Background York County, SC is located in the northern part of the State and within a short drive of Charlotte, NC. Its proximity to a large metropolitan area has helped generate it recent growth. With an estimated population of 259,723 in 2017, it has grown an extraordinary 58.8% since 2000. Continued growth is expected at an annual rate of 2.02% through 2022 for an estimated population at that time of 287,071.2
This continued population growth will drive additional needs for housing and commercial development, as well as new facilities for police, fire and EMS to adequately serve the county in the future.3 The county sees opportunities for job growth along with increasing markets for office space, industrial growth, housing and increasing tourism. Among the issues facing the county through 2035 are an inadequate road infrastructure, congestion, water and air quality - and most importantly, the tax base to support long-term fiscal needs. The county’s tax base from non-residential development only accounts for 12% of the total taxable value4 providing some constraints on the ability to raise sufficient revenue to address all the County’s long-term needs. Based on the trends facing York County over the next 15 years, it is appropriate to evaluate existing fire services and identify changes that may be necessary to keep the county competitive over the next 10 to 15 years, while simultaneously meeting its obligation to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.
Another significant factor impacting the fire service in York County, and across the nation, is the ability to meet increasing service demand, including the growth of emergency medical services (EMS) demand, with a largely volunteer fire service. While volunteers clearly represent the majority of the nation’s fire service, trends have shown a change – with more than 50% growth in career/paid firefighters while simultaneously experiencing a decline in volunteers of 11%. Some have referred to this phenomenon as “The Disappearing Volunteer Firefighter”.5 Discussions with fire chiefs have highlighted this issue as a concern for fire departments moving forward.
York County had some diverse demographic characteristics – especially in population densities across the county’s almost 700 square miles. In this evaluation we make distinctions between urban/suburban and rural areas of the county.6 These distinctions provide the basis, later in this report, for service levels based on an urban/suburban versus rural designations. York County is predominantly rural, defined as a population density of less than 1,000 per square mile.
2 York County Economic Development (2017). Community Profile. Accessed from http://www.yorkcountyed.com/resources/reports-and-lists on March 20, 2018. 3 LandDesign (2016). York Forward: 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Assessed from https://www.yorkcountygov.com/347/York-Forward-2035-Comprehensive-Plan on March 20, 2018. 4 Ibid 5 Brown, A. & Urbaina, I. (2014). The Disappearing Volunteer Firefighter. New York Times. August 16, 2014. 6 Derived from Commission on Fire Accreditation International (2015). Interpretation Guide for the 9th Edition of the Fire & Emergency Services Self-Assessment Manual (FEDDAM).
Fire Protection Master Plan 4 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
The figure below reflects population densities based on census block data. As the County’s population increases over the next 10 years, adjustments in service levels may be required as areas migrate from a rural designation to a more urban/suburban nature. County staff will need to periodically reevaluate population densities to ensure services are provided at the appropriate level. This should include the need to expand water supply into areas as they become more urban/suburban in nature.
Figure 1: Population Density by Census Block - 2017
Fire Protection Master Plan 5 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
System Oversight & Coordination A theme that emerged several times in discussions with stakeholders could best be characterized as ‘role confusion’. For example, different stakeholders had different opinions on who had commissioned this report, and to whom the consultant should be accountable. There were differing opinions on who should determine funding levels, funding priorities and establishing policies for fire departments.
From an operational perspective, it was acknowledged by stakeholders that certain policies of the Rural Fire Control Board (e.g. blue helmets), even though adopted with apparent support from fire chiefs, were being ignored by a small number of departments. Certain fire personnel were observed to have beards, even though use of SCBA requires personnel to be clean shaven, consistent with OSHA requirements. There was reluctance among some stakeholders for any single entity to take responsibility and to address these safety issues. Some went so far as to say that any attempts to sanction behavior of non-compliant fire departments would likely result in their department opposing those sanctions. In essence, there was an impression that individual fire department’s independence should prevail over needs of the entire system. This issue represents a goal displacement and reflects an inherent risk to the very citizens the system is intended to protect.
The following discussion provides an overview of the system’s current framework and concludes with specific recommendations intended to clarify roles of various stakeholders.
Organizational Structure, Authority, Relationships, and Coordination York County is protected by 18 recognized fire departments, however two of those agencies (Rock Hill and Tega Cay) are not considered part of the County’s fire system. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis we largely consider only the remaining 16 departments.
The majority of these departments are largely volunteer based on data provided by the York County Department of Fire Safety – representing 77.4% of the total 571 fire personnel. Typical of many growing communities across the nation, addressing the increasing demands for fire services with a predominantly volunteer workforce raises significant challenges. Overall, the County must identify strategies for effectively dealing with these issues while honoring the proud and strong services delivered by the many volunteers serving the respective neighbors.
Budget For fiscal year 2017, the Fire Board budget was approximately $3.7 million as reflected in the figure below. Of this, approximately $782,000 is provided as direct assistance to the 16 fire departments based on a formula that weights property values and, as applicable, substations that are operated by some of the 16 fire departments. Revenues for this funding, comes almost exclusively from a countywide fire tax.
Fire Protection Master Plan 6 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 2: FY 2017 York County Fire Board Budget - #1211
Revenues Ad Valorem $ 3,611,000 Delinquent $ 80,419 Interest Income $ 5,000 Total $ 3,696,419
Expenditures Fire Board Salaries & Wages $ 389,884 OT $ 1,500 Salary Adjustments $ 10,000 Health Insurance $ 58,605 Soc. Security $ 29,827 Retirement $ 202,869 SUB_TOTAL PERSONNEL SVCS $ 692,685
Consulting & Tech $ 60,000 Employee Medical Expenses $ 101,480 Insurance $ 200,135 Repairs to vehicles $ 110,000 Repairs to Buildings $ 8,000 Radio Equip. < $5K $ 20,000 Specialized Department Supplies $ 393,494 Other Operating $ 102,700 FD Direct Assistance $ 782,463 SUB_TOTAL OPERATING $ 1,778,272
CAPITAL: Apparatus $ 703,402 CAPITAL: Other $ 190,600 CAPITAL: Radio Replacement $ 331,460 SUB_TOTAL CAPITAL $ 1,225,462
Total $ 3,696,419
In addition to the above, there are seven fire departments that operate as separate special taxing districts which assess and generate an additional $3.3 million based on separately assessed special fire tax rates. While each of these special tax districts were established with their own boards to recommend the annual tax rate, in essence the system is dependent on the County Council – who formally establishes the tax rate each year for the countywide and special fire tax districts.
Fire Protection Master Plan 7 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Various stakeholders acknowledged that there was a need to revise the countywide funding formula currently used to provide direct assistance to the 16 fire departments. It has been reported that a group under the Rural Fire Control Board is working on alternatives for future consideration.
Governance As noted above, the County Council has the fiscal responsibility for funding all fire protection services. Each of the 16 fire departments have their own Fire Chief who establishes that department’s budget and makes most operational decisions. Through county ordinance, there is a Rural Fire Control Board whose membership is defined through its enabling legislation. There also exists an active and engaged Fire Chiefs Association made up of fire chiefs and other command officers from the 16 fire departments.
The County provides dispatch services through its 911 communications center, and further supports the fire mission through the County’s Department of Fire Safety. This county department provides fleet and equipment maintenance; fire prevention services; and training support for the system. In addition, the department also serves in an administrative support function for both the Rural Fire Control Board and the Fire Chiefs Association.
As reflected elsewhere in this report, the increase of York County’s population and concurrent increasing service demands require a more regional approach to fire services in order to be effective. This has not been accomplished with the current structure – and in fact, may be impeded by it. The Rural Fire Control Board’s stated purpose and objectives are not currently being met. • Numerous issues were raised by fire chiefs and others during this project, which can best be described as ‘role confusion’. • As discussed later in this report, Board policies are relatively minimal and fail to adequately address many operational policies expected common in the fire service.7 • Significant safety issues were reported or observed. This includes failure of some departments to enforce the use of blue helmets for non-certified personnel8 and/or tolerance for facial hair that interferes with the use of SCBA.9 While these safety concerns are widely known, there has been no action pursuant to the Board’s own policies.10 Public administration literature makes clear the connection between public policy and public budgeting.11 Some of the current role confusion can be attributed to one group attempting to
7 For example, see Guide to Model Policies and Procedures for Emergency Vehicle Safety from the International Association of Fire Chiefs. Accessed at https://www.iafc.org/topics-and-tools/resources/resource/guide-to-model-policies-and-procedures- for-emergency-vehicle-safety on March 22, 2018. 8 Policies of the Board of Rural Fire Control. As revised 1/25/2018. Page 23 9 See for example 29 CFR 1910.134 OSHA Standards of Personal Protective Equipment; Respiratory Protection 10 Policies of the Board of Rural Fire Control. As revised 1/25/2018. Page 25 11 For example, see Public Budgeting in America: A Twentieth Century Retrospective from The Institute for Public Service and Policy Research at the University of South Carolina.
Fire Protection Master Plan 8 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
make policy with a different group being asked to establish the budget for those policies. In addition, greater efficiencies are inherent in a regional approach to fire services, but that regional perspective requires a clear delineation of roles and authorities. In order to address future challenges as York County continues to grow, it is imperative that a single entity be responsible for both setting policy and establishing the requisite budget to accomplish those policy goals.
The system’s oversight and coordination would best be accomplished by the County Council. Working through the Department of Fire Safety, the County should place a specific emphasis on ensuring input from, and collaboration among, the existing fire departments. The County’s role should focus on the facilitation, coordination and communication among all stakeholders. Operational issues should still be discussed and reviewed by all departments, and to the fullest degree, this should be facilitated through the fire chiefs association – thereby ensuring each department has a voice. Once those operational recommendations are approved/adopted as determined by the County Council, the Department of Fire Safety should ensure its consistent application.
RECOMMENDATION: Eliminate the Rural Fire Control Board and place both fiduciary and policy-making responsibility with the County Council and management with County management.
Dispatch Operations York County’s 911 provides services all fire and EMS agencies. This structure of all 911 calls being handled by a single communications center is a best practice. As the primary public safety answering point (PSAP) for the entire county, 911 staff handle a total of 430,000 calls per year utilizing a computer-aided dispatch system from Tyler Technologies. The County also makes strong use of Active 911, a digital messaging system that delivers critical information quickly to fire department first responders. Evaluation of call-processing times reflected an average of 1.0 minute overall for fire and EMS calls, while at the 90th percentile performance is at 1.6 minutes. This compares favorably to what has been seen in other 911 dispatch centers. The system is CALEA accredited and utilizes APCO’s emergency medical dispatch system.
Supporting largely a volunteer fire service, there are some limitations that were identified in the dispatch process which inhibits more complex assessment of the system’s overall performance. After notifying the department of an incident, volunteers must respond to the station and advise what vehicle is responding before dispatchers begin capturing unit-level data. Historically, this has also been limited to the first responding unit only – thereby limiting the information available on multi-unit responses.
Issues were also identified when attempting to reconcile workloads among departments. It became apparent that some departments could access the County’s records system and ‘pull’
Fire Protection Master Plan 9 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
incident number for events without any communication or knowledge by 911 dispatchers. Reconciling records were also impacted by the County’s initial provision of CAD data with an incorrect ‘index’ for analysis by the consultant. Subsequent extraction of CAD data corrected this initial issue. Finally, multiple agencies use different fire reporting software (NFIRS) and not all agencies routinely report their incident data to the state and federal fire agencies.
Run cards (who responds to what, and where) are defined by individual departments. This may result in lost opportunities to ensure the most timely or appropriate response to significant incidents. Coordination is done between individual fire chiefs, rather than in a more collaborative and outcome-based approach from the perspective of the entire county.
RECOMMENDATIONS: • Departments should ensure all units report their response and status changes to the dispatch center. • Departments should develop run cards in coordination with County staff to ensure most appropriate units are alerted to significant incidents. • The County should track all vehicles that respond to incidents and their respective status changes in CAD. • The County should provide and require the use of a single records system for use by all departments. The County should maintain a full copy of all NFIRS records and ensure their submittal to the appropriate state/federal fire agencies. • The County should restrict the ability to generating incident numbers to 911 center personnel
Fire Services Current Deployment & Staffing Fire Stations York County’s fire system, without Rock Hill or Tega Cay, has 30 fire stations among the 16 departments. As reflected in the figure below, the stations appear adequately dispersed even though there has been no significant regional coordination in their placement.
From a more quantitative perspective, the geographic coverage as reflected in the figure below reflects a high degree of correlation between those areas with higher demands for service – predominately northeast and central, with the greater number of fire stations. Concurrently, other areas of the county with less demand for services also reflect a lesser number of fire stations. As noted in the heat map below, there are areas in the western part of the county, especially the far southwest portion that had no identified or significant calls for service.
Fire Protection Master Plan 10 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 3: Heat Map for ALL Incidents
The full GIS Report, included here in Section 4, provides a number of alternative internal performance objectives. These alternatives are offered to identify the most parsimonious station configuration to achieve the quickest response time available. These alternatives include both differentiated service designs for urban/suburban versus rural population densities as well as uniform performance across the county. We focus here on one of the most reasonable options in relation to current performance levels.
10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Excluding Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill and Tega Cay Incidents and Locations Considering a 10-minute travel time, the (green) shading reflected in the map below indicates the estimated travel time capabilities from the existing road networks. The darker the (green) shading, the more overlap exists between response capabilities within the current configuration. Finally, the number in parenthesis “(1)” indicates the order of contribution to system performance at the specific travel time goal 90% of the time or less. The 10-minute travel time modeling suggests that a 9-station configuration could achieve 10-minute travel time to the 90% of the incidents. The addition of Stations SH1, BS, OD1, BE2, and LS1 would increase the rural coverage to greater than 97% (97.47%) within 13-minutes or less. With a total of 18 stations, 99.21% of the total risk would be covered with a 10-minute urban/suburban and 13-minute rural travel time goal.
Fire Protection Master Plan 11 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 4: 10-Minute Urban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time w/o Piedmont EMS, Tega Cay, or Rock Hill
Rank Station Number Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 FH1 2,661 2,661 37.66% 2 NP3 1,043 3,704 52.42% 3 LS1 575 4,279 60.56% 4 BE1 542 4,821 68.23% 5 YFD 416 5,237 74.12% 6 CLFD 357 5,594 79.17% 7 BT1 343 5,937 84.02% 8 FMFD 283 6,220 88.03% 9 NP2 159 6,379 90.28% 10 SH1 186 6,565 92.91% 11 BS 116 6,681 94.55% 12 OD1 100 6,781 95.97% 13 BE2 54 6,835 96.73% 14 LS1 52 6,887 97.47% 15 MCFD 38 6,925 98.00% 16 CLFD 33 6,958 98.47% 17 FH1 33 6,991 98.94% 18 FMFD 19 7,010 99.21%
Fire Protection Master Plan 12 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 5: 10-Minute Urban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time w/o Piedmont EMS, Tega Cay, or Rock Hill
Fire Apparatus The County maintains most fire apparatus used by participating departments. Their most recent inventory includes 163 vehicles. The figure below summarizes the counts, and for those with age and/or mileage, the average per vehicle type. Not surprisingly, the average mileage for apparatus is quite low. Aerial, pumper, and service type vehicles average between 1,600 and 1,900 miles per year. Grass apparatus average approximately 1,300 miles per year while tankers are on the road slightly less than 600 miles per year on average. This characteristic allows for apparatus to be utilized for a longer time period than may be found in more urban settings.
Fire Protection Master Plan 13 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 6: Major Apparatus Types w/ Counts, Average Age & Average Mileage
Apparatus Type Count Avg. Age Avg. Miles
Aerial 9 14.5 26,058
Grass 33 11.9 15,111
Pumper 53 15.6 25,650
Service 22 18.8 35,416
Tanker 23 25.5 15,030
Of particular interest is the current number of pumpers for the number of existing fire stations. With only 30 fire stations, an inventory of 53 pumpers appears excessive on face value. Employing a regional approach, from a system wide perspective, the county should currently require only 30 pumpers, 1 each for 30 fire stations, plus an appropriate number of spare pumpers as may be required. Assuming at any point in time up to 50% of the pumpers may be out of service, then a total of only 45 pumpers would be required in the fleet.
Current Staffing At the time information was provided, the system has a total of 571 fire personnel, of which 442 are fully volunteer, 68 are paid full-time status, and 30 are paid part-time personnel. Of the 16 departments, only six reported paid personnel. This included the City of York, Fort Mill, Flint Hill, Riverview, Bethel, and Newport. During this engagement, there were a number of conversations with County staff and various fire departments that additional paid personnel may be added in the upcoming year or two.
The overall age of active firefighters represents the majority are younger as reflected in the figure below.
Figure 7: Age of Active Firefighters
200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 30 and 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 under
Fire Protection Master Plan 14 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Of the total number of personnel, only 75.9% were shown to be certified for interior firefighting responsibilities. Of those, only 52.1% had passed a SCBA fit test.
The ability to place apparatus and personnel on the scene of a reported structure fire was also evaluated. A common concern in predominantly volunteer systems is how many apparatus and personnel will respond. For York County’s structure fires the NFIRS reports reflect on average 2.9 apparatus and 7.6 personnel responded. While it was widely reported that the ability to develop an effective response during daytime hours was a problem, this was not reflected in the NFIRS reports.
RECOMMENDATIONS: • The County should adopt an internal performance target for travel times for 90% of the incidents. o As reflected in this report, a 10-minute travel time for urban/suburban areas and 13-minute travel time for rural areas is well-supported with the existing infrastructure. o The County Council may select a different performance target as they best determine. • The County should not fund any additional fire stations or substations unless they are determined to provide the sufficient benefit in meeting adopted turnout time and travel time performance targets. • The county should prioritize the replacement of fire tanker apparatus consistent with their existing plan. Overall, the replacement of apparatus should consider a combination of both age and mileage. o A recommended goal should be to have pumpers, tankers, service, and brush trucks replaced between: § 17-20 years old if the mileage exceeds 75,000; or § 20-25 years if mileage remains below 75,000; or § 25-30 years if mileage remains below 50,000. o Light apparatus replaced between 100,000 and 120,000 miles. Specialty apparatus such as command vehicles, hazardous materials units, etc. should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and included in the capital replacement plan (CIP) as necessary. In many cases these specialized vehicles will have low use and low mileage enabling them to be safely utilized well beyond 25 years. o The County should establish an appropriate number of reserve (non-primary) apparatus for each category. Specifically, a level of no more than 50%, or 15 reserve pumpers, is recommended. o The County should consider rotating apparatus between busier and less busy stations in order to lessen the mileage impact on any one apparatus and thereby prolong its in-service life.
Fire Protection Master Plan 15 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Policies & Best Practices Review of the Rural Fire Control Board’s existing policies as of January 2018 were undertaken. Overall, the policies mostly focus on the Board’s operations and financial issues. Many industry-standard operational polices are largely left to individual agencies. The Rural Fire Control Board’s own policies make note of “Best Practice Guidelines”, apparently derived from a compilation of SOPs/SOGs provided by individual fire departments, the policy states that individual departments “should endeavor” to comply with these best practices. Yet, it is these best practice guidelines that address significant fire ground and safety issues.
A review of the best practice guidelines was also undertaken. The majority of these were quite dated, having been adopted in 2002 or 2003. While a few are comprehensive in nature, for example Guideline 109.00 - Infectious Control Program, a number are also quite limited. For example, Guideline 108.00 related to fire hose testing was originally adopted on June 13, 2002. Nowhere does this best practice make reference to NFPA 1962: Standard for the Care, Use, Inspection, Service Testing, and Replacement of Fire Hose, Couplings, Nozzles, and Firehose Appliances. This national guidance document was originally adopted in 1969 and has undergone four revisions since this best practice was adopted by York County. A best practice in the development of revision of policies & procedures is to ensure a periodic review and revision, as well as their consistent training and use. These practices are not apparent in the current system. Several good resources exist for this endeavor, including efforts by the U.S. Fire Administration12 and the International Association of Fire Chiefs13.
Policies, procedures and best practices are only relevant when they are consistently used to train fire personnel and chief officers consistently enforce their application. A deficit noted in the current system is the lack of a full-time training officer. York County previously made a large investment in a modern training facility. The failure to properly staff the training facility and provide a focal point for consistent training in appropriate polices & procedures, minimizes the County’s investment in its fire service.
12 See United States Fire Administration. (1999). Developing Effective Standard Operating Procedures For Fire and EMS Departments FA-197 13 The IAFC’s Volunteer and Combination Officers Section (VCOS) website has resources on their website. See https://sites.iafc.org/micrositeVCOSorg/Resources/SOPlist.cfm
Fire Protection Master Plan 16 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
RECOMMENDATIONS: • The County should undertake a complete revision/update to both the existing policies and best practice guidelines. • The County should differentiate between basic policies required of all participating fire departments and best practice guidelines recommended for all participating departments. • To the extent possible, the County should incorporate by reference industry standard guidelines, such as those promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), which automatically references the most recent edition of the appropriate standard. • The County should establish a revision cycle that insures policies and best practice guidelines are reviewed/updated at least every five years. • To the fullest degree possible, the County should actively facilitate and engage with the Fire Chiefs Association in the development and revision to policies and best practice guidelines. • The County should budget a fulltime training officer within the Department of Fire Safety. This position, among other generalized training responsibilities, should be responsible for developing and ensuring delivery of training on operational polices & procedure as developed and periodically revised.
Current Performance Reflective of the significant population growth the county has been experiencing, the figure below reflects the growth in fire department activity from 2012 through 2016. Overall, total call volume has increased almost 40% during this five-year period. Accordingly, the County should begin efforts to address ongoing demand for fire services, recognizing the inherent challenge in doing so from a largely volunteer force.
Fire Protection Master Plan 17 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 8: 2012 - 2016 Incident Counts by Agency (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay) 14
Agency 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012-2016 Change Bethany-Santiago Fire Department 119 147 153 174 185 55.5% Bethel Fire Department 461 487 587 671 674 46.2% Bethesda Fire Department 197 225 216 253 298 51.3% Bullocks Creek Fire Department 52 39 34 42 58 11.5% Clover Fire Department 468 472 507 545 554 18.2% Flint Hill Fire Department 989 1,072 1,085 1,316 1,176 18.9% Fort Mill Fire Department 668 1,083 1,345 1,482 1,564 134.0% Hickory Grove Fire Department 54 47 67 85 102 88.9% Lesslie Fire Department 419 420 414 549 626 49.4% McConnells Fire Department 75 84 103 102 119 58.7% Newport Fire Department 523 556 587 682 741 41.7% Oakdale Fire Department 240 249 263 277 355 47.9% Riverview Fire Department 428 365 398 562 581 35.7% Sharon Fire Department 137 95 92 101 130 -5.1% Smyrna Fire Department 60 47 71 86 52 -13.3% York Fire Department 1,052 1,053 967 1,045 1,077 2.4% All Departments 5,942 6,441 6,889 7,972 8,292 39.5%
Figure 9: 2016 Mean Call Processing, Turnout and Travel Time for First Arriving Units by Fire-Related Program (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
Call CPT & Turnout Program Processing Travel Time Total Response Time Time Time Fire 0.9 4.7 7.3 11.5 Haz. Mat. 1.1 5.2 6.0 11.0 Tech. 1.1 5.8 6.9 12.7 Rescue
14 These incident counts were derived from 911 monthly reports and utilized the final incident number issued for each agency for each year through 2015. For 2016 the call count reflects the incident data provided
Fire Protection Master Plan 18 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 10: 2016 Mean First Arrival Responses by Agency (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
Call CPT & Total Response Agency Processing Turnout Travel Time Time Time Time
Bethany-Santiago Fire Department 1.0 7.6 6.9 13.0 Bethel Fire Department 0.9 4.4 7.0 11.2 Bethesda Fire Department 1.0 5.3 5.6 10.9 Bullocks Creek Fire Department 1.0 11.4 7.9 20.3 Clover Fire Department 1.0 8.8 6.0 14.7 Flint Hill Fire Department 0.9 3.2 5.8 9.0 Fort Mill Fire Department 0.9 3.2 4.6 7.4 Hickory Grove Fire Department 0.9 7.4 6.0 12.3 Lesslie Fire Department 0.9 6.5 6.1 12.3 McConnells Fire Department 1.1 9.5 6.8 15.5 Newport Fire Department 0.8 5.3 7.9 13.3 Oakdale Fire Department 1.0 6.4 7.1 12.3 Riverview Fire Department 0.9 4.7 7.3 11.9 Sharon Fire Department 1.3 7.5 6.4 14.0 Smyrna Fire Department 1.0 6.3 6.6 14.1 York Fire Department 0.9 3.3 5.5 8.6
Overall, system performance was evaluated based on mean performance (2 figures above) and at the 90th percentile of performance (2 figures below), both evaluated based on the first arriving unit. Call processing time of 1.0 minute on average and 1.6 minutes at the 90th percentile was found. This performance, while technically not meeting NFPA guidelines, is comparable if not slightly better, than most 9-1-1 centers evaluated. Call-processing and turnout times were calculated in aggregate because of data limitations – described here as CPT and Turnout Time. This is explained more fully in the data report incorporated herein as Section 3. Overall, this metric is at 2.9 minutes on average and 4.6 minutes at the 90th percentile for the entire system. There is a high degree of variance in the CPT and Turnout times at the 90th percentile – which is highly correlated with the availability of paid staff to immediately respond.
Overall, first arriving unit travel times average 7.7 minutes and are 13.0 minutes at the 90th percentile. Unlike turnout times, there is a greater degree of consistency in travel times when evaluated by department. At the 90th percentile, the maximum value is 15.8 and the lowest is 8.0 minutes. However, over 85% of the agencies perform at 12.7 minutes or better utilizing this metric.
Fire Protection Master Plan 19 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 11: 2016 90th Percentile Call Processing, Turnout, and Travel Time of First Arriving Units by Fire-Related Program (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
Call CPT & Turnout Program Processing Travel Time Total Response Time Time Time Fire 1.5 8.3 12.4 18.4 Haz. Mat. 1.9 10.1 9.4 17.0 Tech. 2.0 10.2 12.9 19.0 Rescue
Figure 12: 2016 90th Percentile First Arrival Responses by Agency (w/o/ Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
CPT & Call Processing Total Response Agency Turnout Travel Time Time Time Time
Bethany-Santiago Fire 2.0 14.4 11.6 22.9 Department
Bethel Fire Department 1.6 8.1 11.9 18.2
Bethesda Fire Department 1.8 9.4 10.3 17.2 Bullocks Creek Fire 3.0 22.6 15.8 48.5 Department Clover Fire Department 1.8 14.1 10.5 21.3 Flint Hill Fire Department 1.6 4.8 9.0 12.7 Fort Mill Fire Department 1.6 4.6 8.0 11.3 Hickory Grove Fire 1.8 11.1 12.7 20.5 Department Lesslie Fire Department 1.7 10.5 10.1 19.3 McConnells Fire 2.8 16.7 11.3 28.3 Department Newport Fire Department 1.5 8.5 12.7 19.8 Oakdale Fire Department 2.0 8.3 11.2 18.2 Riverview Fire 1.6 7.0 12.4 18.8 Department Sharon Fire Department 2.7 10.9 11.4 23.8 Smyrna Fire Department 1.9 10.3 13.4 22.6 York Fire Department 1.6 4.3 9.6 13.2
Evaluated with the GIS modeling discussed earlier, the significant time needed by some departments to begin their response (turnout time) identifies a major underlying problem. While the current number of stations are appropriate for the county, it is the lack of paid personnel to immediately respond that slows overall response times to certain portions of the county. The solution moving forward is to maximize the ability for personnel to begin their response immediately.
Fire Protection Master Plan 20 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
RECOMMENDATIONS: • The County should seek to improve turnout time performance for significant / high- priority incidents, by utilizing those departments with paid personnel to immediately respond to station areas without on-duty or paid personnel. o Efforts should include expanding agreements, similar to that with the City of York, for provision of initial fire response to areas outside the department’s primary area. This may include similar arrangements with any department that has on-duty personnel. o The County should consider use of the County’s fire-certified personnel within the Department of Fire Safety to provide immediate response during daytime hours. o Based on the relative benefit to overall system performance as reflected in Figure 4 above, initial efforts should focus on areas covered by Lesslie, Clover, Bethesda, Sharon, and Bethany-Santiago. o An internal performance target of 80 seconds for fire and special operations turnout times when assigning on-duty or paid personnel. o An internal performance target of 60 seconds for EMS turnout times when assigning on-duty or paid personnel.
Emergency Medical Services Across the nation, the fire service has taken an increasingly larger role in emergency medical services (EMS). During 2016, the fire departments had 2,548 responses to EMS related calls - which represents 9.0% of the total 28,397 EMS incidents during the year. Of these, 1,167 were for motor vehicle accidents. With national trends reflecting an approximate 50% decrease in structure fires over the past three decades, and a concurrent 300% increase in fire service responses for EMS, many communities are reassessing the role of their fire services as a medical first responder.
From a national perspective, the most serious medical incidents typically represent around 31.2% of total 911 calls for medical assistance.15 his reflects a potential opportunity for York County to enhance its medical first responder program and thereby improve the overall outcomes of those patients with significant medical problems requiring EMS assistance. However, any value from greater use of fire department medical first responders will need to address the same extended turnout time previously identified in volunteer stations.
The challenge is the relatively stronger performance of Piedmont EMS as reflected in their response times, both at the mean and 90th percentile, compared to those fully volunteer stations. As reflected in the Data Report, Piedmont has a CPT and Turnout Time of 2.5 minutes
15 Scott, G., Olola, C., Corike, T., Clawson, J., & Johnson, A. (2016). Characterization of Call Prioritization Time in a Medical Priority Dispatch System. Annals of Emergency Dispatch & Response, 4(1), 27-33.
Fire Protection Master Plan 21 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
on average and 3.4 minutes at the 90th, and travel times of 8.1 minutes on average and 13.4 at the 90th percentile.
In order to fully evaluate opportunities for enhanced fire-based medical first response, there first needs to be a full evaluation of Piedmont EMS’s service demand, current deployment strategy and performance by geographic regions of the county. Such an evaluation is beyond the scope of this study. However, a separate study of Piedmont EMS would likely identify opportunities for improvement in their current performance while also providing the opportunity to better define a fire-based medical first responder program – allowing for the greatest potential synergy between the fire departments and Piedmont EMS.
RECOMMENDATIONS: • The County should consider a dedicated study of Piedmont EMS, to include the agency’s service demand, current deployment strategy and performance by geographic regions of the county. Based on those findings, the study should also identify opportunities for improved fire-based medical first responder program.
Special Operations – Haz Mat & Technical Rescue Historical data reflects a limited number of specialized calls for service – specifically hazardous materials (haz mat) and technical rescue incidents. In 2016 there were 142 haz mat and 371 technical rescue incidents – though 292 of the technical rescue events were for motor vehicle extrications. In total this represents 1.5% of all calls for service during the year. Without the vehicle extrications, these incidents reflect only 0.6% of total incidents.
Nonetheless, continued growth in population and demands for service will likely require a greater number of special operations incidents. Many counties have taken a regional approach and facilitated regional special operations teams to address these types of unique incidents. The effort will best be served if team members come from paid firefighter personnel even if from multiple departments. Such efforts can be facilitated by the County who ensures the equipment and training are available. Typically, a single department offers to be the ‘host agency’ taking primary responsibility for housing and maintaining equipment along with working closely with county staff to facilitate training and response protocols. While special operations can be accomplished with a single team, the diversity in skill sets and need for continuous training generally suggest two special response teams – one for hazardous materials (Haz Mat Team) and one for technical rescue (Technical Rescue Team – TRT). The county’s current demand and projected growth suggest a two-team approach.
Fire Protection Master Plan 22 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
RECOMMENDATIONS: • The County should develop a specialized operations capability – comprised of two regional teams staffed with personnel from multiple agencies. Selection of personnel and a host department for a separate Haz Mat Team and separate Technical Rescue Team (TRT) should be done in conjunction with the Fire Chiefs Association.
Recruitment, Retention & Incentives for Firefighter Personnel The recruitment and retention of volunteer fire personnel is a significant problem in the U.S. fire service. With approximately 1 million of the nation’s 1.3 million firefighters serving their communities as volunteers, the issue has been a focus of various professional associations including the Volunteer & Combination Officers Section (VCOS) of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC). A more detailed discussion of this issue can be found in Section 5. However, for ease of the reader the following discussion highlights some of the more significant issues.
Incentive Programs York County has a strong history of a vibrant volunteer program. In many regards, issues of longevity and active participation rates reflect the existing fire departments do well when compared to other areas of the country. The County system provides training, equipment, offers medical exams and provides a retirement incentive program in order to maintain interest within the community toward volunteer programs. As the County seeks to address changing service demands due to population growth, more active incentives will likely be required to maintain active participation rates among volunteers. In addition, existing fire departments will need to begin or expand their use of paid personnel to ensure service demands can be met. The County should assist those departments in this effort to convert from volunteer to combination agencies.
In addition to its current efforts, the County should consider taking a more active role to assist individual fire departments in their recruitment and retention aspects. This is not intended to eliminate or minimize individual efforts by departments, but rather supplement those efforts from a regional perspective.
Incentives are most effective when they address personal or intrinsic goals of the volunteer, and further recognize the value of the hours they contribute to the community16. As such, items that provide recognition of their service often have value. For those that take on additional roles, a fiscal incentive can be utilized to motivate a more active role.17
16 A variety of national companies offer discounts for firefighters. For example see https://www.firerescue1.com/fire-ems/articles/1448051-16-fantastic-discounts-for-firefighters/ 17 Legal counsel specializing in labor law should be consulted in the program details. Special attention should be paid to the Department of Labor’s interpretation of 29 U.S.C. §203 (e) (4) (A). For a brief summary of this issue
Fire Protection Master Plan 23 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
RECOMMENDATIONS: • Select a firefighter of the month and year from one of the departments for recognition by the County Council at a formal meeting or special event. • To ensure accurate rolls of personnel in the system, provide “York County Department of Fire Safety” identification cards which are updated annually. These can also be used to permit members to receive discounts from participating local and national businesses. • Recognize volunteers who complete training courses with certificates, plaques, or by featuring them in the local newspaper. • Provide tuition assistance for members attending college, with a maximum cap (i.e. $1,000) depending on their meeting pre-defined active participation rates. • To improve staffing levels at certain times (e.g. daytime), the County should evaluate the efficacy of a “pay-per-call” program for certain stations where required – mostly in the least demand/most rural areas of the county. Personnel would be paid a nominal fee on a pay-per-call basis. • For areas with greater need, the County should consider creating a minimal number of part-time positions that work pre-defined shifts needed during certain hours – for example daytime hours Monday through Friday. Qualified personnel, generally drawn from the volunteer ranks, sign-up to staff these opportunities and are compensated based on their level of expertise and experience.
Qualifying for benefits and incentives The County must establish a base level of performance that a volunteer must meet to qualify for a particular level of awards. Many departments measure this by creating a point system for participating in activities. Volunteers accrue points by running calls, attending training, attending meetings, and providing administrative or support service. Members who attain a sufficient number of points in a year qualify for either a basic, mid-, or high-level award. They then become eligible to receive the incentive benefits they most desire. For example, the Fairfax County (VA) Volunteer Fire & Rescue Association require a minimum of 20 hours volunteering each month and an annual requirement to complete a minimum of 48 hours in training activities.18 Individual departments may wish to require higher levels of participation.
Awards should be given only to members who meet all of the departmental requirements, in addition to meeting point requirements. In other words, members should be required to maintain a certain level of training, attend a certain number of meetings, perform a certain amount of administrative work, or a certain amount of prevention duties to remain qualified for
see https://www.firelawblog.com/2018/03/25/volunteers-day-time-help-and-the-flsa/
18 Accessed at https://www.fcvfra.org/public-info/faq/ on March 29, 2018.
Fire Protection Master Plan 24 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
incentives. The incentive system should be structured so that all members are eligible to receive.
RECOMMENDATIONS: • The County should establish a minimum level of participation for operational personnel. With Fire Chief input, the requirement should be expressed as a percentage of the department total call volume. • The County should establish a minimum level of annual training that is required to remain operationally active. With Fire Chief input, the requirement should be expressed as an annual number of hours in training with certain prescribed topics/competencies by department. At a minimum this should be established at 20 hours per year and demonstrated competency with SCBA.
Community Risk Reduction The County’s public education and risk reduction programs are somewhat limited. Current programs are largely conducted at schools, upon their request, and involve basic fire prevention programs delivered by the county’s fire prevention and other staff.
Best practices in fire related community risk reduction are captured by programs developed under Vision 20/20.19 This effort is funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistance to Fire Fighters Fire Prevention and Safety Grant program. The Institution of Fire Engineers US Branch established a steering committee to identify and address gaps on fire prevention efforts and to guide a national strategic planning process whose strategies include outreach and education; developing a culture of fire prevention; strengthening codes and standards; and advocacy.
Effective risk reduction strategies are derived from a data driven analysis. Much of the community’s demographic and historical risk profile are reflected more fully in the full data (Section 3) and GIS (Section 4) reports. However, as noted elsewhere, York County does not have a significant fire problem. The figure below reflects the average annual losses from incidents reported to NFIRS during the years 2012 thru 2015, comparing York County to the State of South Carolina. As can be seen, based on a population basis, York County losses are significantly less than those of South Carolina. Figure 13: Selected NFIRS Reported Loss Statistics per Capita – Annualized from 2012 thru 2015
Deaths/100,000 Injuries/100,000 $ Loss/Capita York County 0.50 1.19 $ 15.15 South Carolina 1.19 3.34 $ 33.01
19 See for example, http://strategicfire.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Community-Risk-Assessment-Guide- v1.5.pdf
Fire Protection Master Plan 25 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
The Vision 20/20 website provides free materials that can be customized by agencies.
In most communities, there are typical populations that statistically have a greater risk for injury or death from fire. These include children age 5 and under; older adults age 65 and older; people with disabilities; people living in poverty; and populations that speak little or no English.
Most fire departments focus fire prevention efforts on target hazards within the community. These include hospitals; nursing homes; assisted living facilities; community shelters and schools.
RECOMMENDATIONS: • The County should lead & coordinate risk reductions programs in the community, especially those already developed for fire service use by Vision 20/20. • The County should engage fire departments to deliver County developed fire prevention content. • The County should maximize a countywide fire safety marketing campaign utilizing their existing capabilities with local media. • The County should expand efforts to include other vulnerable populations beyond schools – including those found in nursing homes, adult living facilities (ALFs), and other senior housing facilities.
Fire Protection Master Plan 26 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
SECTION 2: Summary PowerPoint
Fire Protection Master Plan 27 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 28 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 29 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 30 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 31 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 32 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 33 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 34 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 35 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 36 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 37 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 38 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 39 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 40 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 41 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 42 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 43 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 44 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 45 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 46 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 47 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 48 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 49 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 50 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 51 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 52 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 53 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 54 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 55 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 56 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 57 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 58 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 59 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 60 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 61 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 62 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 63 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 64 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 65 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 66 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 67 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 68 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 69 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 70 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 71 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 72 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 73 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 74 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 75 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 76 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 77 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 78 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 79 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 80 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 81 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 82 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 83 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 84 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 85 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 86 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 87 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 88 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 89 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 90 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 91 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 92 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 93 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 94 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 95 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 96 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 97 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 98 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 99 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 100 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 101 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
SECTION 3: Data Analysis
Fire Protection Master Plan 102 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Methodology We were provided four years (2012-2015) of summary data, and one year of complete computer aided dispatch (CAD) data for 2016. In this report, we primarily focused our analysis on the 2016 calendar year. However, we utilized all five years (2012-2016) to assess general trends in demand by agency. The five-year trend data is shown in Figure 1.
The primary methodology used is descriptive statistics. That is, the figures provide information based on 2016 actual data. Except where otherwise stated, this means no assertions about future years (inferential statistics) will be made as any such predictive statements will likely not be credible (i.e., not statistically significant) due to having only five years of incident count data.
The master file used for the 2016 calendar year analysis was created by aggregating 19 individual agency files provided by York County 911. When combined into one master file, there were exactly 59,200 records. A method used in the 911 center for mostly the 16 volunteer fire departments is to initially dispatch only the department/agency. This is accomplished by use of ‘dummy variables’ that serve as the unit identification (ID) number for the entire department. When an actual fire unit comes up on the radio and advises they are handling the incident, the actual unit is then assigned and dispatched to the incident and the ‘dummy variable’ unit is removed from the incident response. For purposes of this analysis, ‘dummy variables’ were ignored in any calculations done with unit responses. Only actual vehicle IDs were evaluated. These dummy units generated a record in the data provided which, we would expect, should be replaced by another record once an actual unit was assigned to the response. Our methodology eliminated these 7,424 dummy unit records. After doing so, this reduced the size of the master file down to 51,776 records.
A limitation of this analysis is that for any figure where call processing time (CPT), travel time, total response time, or time on task is calculated, if a time interval calculation for a particular record is missing a time stamp, that record will be excluded from the calculation. For example, one will note that the sum of all responses in Figure 13, where total work hours are calculated, the “valid” response record count is 49,832, not 51,776. The reason for this discrepancy is that 1,944 records were missing either the time stamps for “clear” or “dispatched time” and as such, the record was excluded from the calculation. The term “valid calls” or “valid responses” is used to denote those calculation that required valid timestamps, and therefore may result in slightly different counts.
Additionally, some timestamps resulted in aberrant values. When these resulted in significant statistical outliers, these were also excluded from analysis.
Since the primary focus of this report is on the 16 volunteer fire departments, in the aggregate data (i.e., those data not broken out by department) one delimitation of this report is that Rock Hill and Tega Cay fire departments were mostly excluded to avoid skewing the many time intervals that were calculated. The figures that exclude these two fire departments’ data will be noted in those figures’ descriptive titles.
Fire Protection Master Plan 103 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
We also examined Piedmont EMS for specific workload and performance analyses. We did, therefore, confine this report to the following 19 agencies. § Bethany-Santiago Fire Department § Bethel Fire Department § Bethesda Fire Department § Bullocks Creek Fire Department § Clover Fire Department § Flint Hill Fire Department § Fort Mill Fire Department § Hickory Grove Fire Department § Lesslie Fire Department § McConnells Fire Department § Newport Fire Department § Oakdale Fire Department § Piedmont EMS § Riverview Fire Department § Rock Hill Fire Department § Sharon Fire Department § Smyrna Fire Department § Tega Cay Fire Department § York Fire Department
We utilized two distinct measures – call volume and workload. Call volume is the number of requests for service that are defined as either “incidents”, “dispatches” or “calls”. These are the number of times a distinct incident was created involving any of the 19 agencies. Conversely, workload is the count of each individual unit (or units) that responded to a distinct incident, and each of these units’ time on task.
Because of the use of ‘dummy variables’ significantly skewed the actual turnout times when used, time on task calculations start when a call is received and ends when the unit is ready to be in service for another call. In most instances, this time is when the unit returns to service and is available for another assignment. Responses will be utilized on all agency level analyses, which account for all elements of workload and performance. Calls have been categorized as one of four categories/types: EMS, Fire, Hazardous Materials, or Technical Rescue.
For many metrics, both the average and 90th percentile compliance is reported. While average response time calculations are most often utilized, a more conservative and reliable measure of performance makes use of a fractile or percentile time. This measure is more robust, or less influenced by outliers, than measures of central tendency such as the mean or average. Best
Fire Protection Master Plan 104 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
practice is to use the 90th percentile of the performance times. In other words, 90% of all performance is captured expecting that 10% of the time the department may experience abnormal conditions that would typically be considered an outlier. For example, if the department were to report an average response time of six minutes, then in a normally distributed set of data, half of the responses would be longer than six minutes and half of the responses would be less than six minutes. The 90th percentile communicates that 9 out of 10 times the department performance is predictable and thus more clearly articulated to policy makers and the community.
Community Response History
As noted above, five-years of data were used to identify overall incident call volume by agency. This is reflected in Figure 1 below. From a system perspective, the data reflects a significant increase in calls over this five-year period, a 39.5% increase from 2012 thru 2016.
Figure 14: 2012 - 2016 Incident Counts by Agency (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)20
Agency 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012-2016 Change Bethany-Santiago Fire Department 119 147 153 174 185 55.5% Bethel Fire Department 461 487 587 671 674 46.2% Bethesda Fire Department 197 225 216 253 298 51.3% Bullocks Creek Fire 58 Department 52 39 34 42 11.5% Clover Fire Department 468 472 507 545 553 18.2% Flint Hill Fire Department 989 1,072 1,085 1,316 1,176 18.9% Fort Mill Fire Department 668 1,083 1,345 1,482 1,563 134.0% Hickory Grove Fire 102 Department 54 47 67 85 88.9% Lesslie Fire Department 419 420 414 549 626 49.4% McConnells Fire Department 75 84 103 102 119 58.7% Newport Fire Department 523 556 587 682 741 41.7% Oakdale Fire Department 240 249 263 277 355 47.9% Riverview Fire Department 428 365 398 562 581 35.7% Sharon Fire Department 137 95 92 101 130 -5.1% Smyrna Fire Department 60 47 71 86 52 -13.3% York Fire Department 1,052 1,053 967 1,045 1,077 2.4% All Departments 5,942 6,441 6,889 7,972 8,290 39.5%
20 These incident counts were derived from 911 monthly reports and utilized the final incident number issued for each agency for each year through 2015. For 2016 the call count reflects the incident data provided
Fire Protection Master Plan 105 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
While Figure 1 reflects only those incidents handled by the 16 fire agencies, if all EMS activity was included – even those that Piedmont EMS handled without fire department assistance – the total incident counts are significantly higher. The total number of calls for 2016 was 35,258. EMS accounted for the vast majority of calls with 28,397, which is 80.5% of total calls for the year.
In the following section, we will focus on Piedmont EMS and the system’s 16 fire agencies - excluding Rock Hill and Tega Cay.
In calendar year 2016, there was to a total of 35.258 requests for service, or incidents. EMS service requests totaled 28,397, accounting for 80.5% of the total number of incidents. The number of fire related calls was 6,348, which accounted for 18.0% of the dispatched incidents. Hazardous Materials calls totaled 142, which accounted for 0.4% of the total incidents. A total of 371 incidents were attributed to Technical Rescue, which accounted for 1.1% of incidents during 2016.
Figure 15: 2016 Number of Incidents Dispatched by Call Type (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
Call Type Number of Calls Calls per Day Call Percentage
Abdominal Pain 1,305 3.6 4.83% Allergic Reaction 297 0.8 0.78% Altered Mental 1,019 2.8 2.89% Status Animal Bite 57 0.2 0.16% Back Pain 505 1.4 1.43% Bleeding 522 1.4 1.48% Blood Pressure 432 1.2 1.23% Problems Burns 42 0.1 0.12% Cardiac 3,226 8.8 9.15% Choking 118 0.3 0.33% Coroner Investigation 3 0.0 0.01% Crushing Injury 9 0.0 0.03% Diabetic 725 2.0 2.06% EMS Assist 632 1.7 1.79%
Fire Protection Master Plan 106 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Environmental 89 0.2 0.25% Emergencies Eye Problems 18 0.0 0.05% Fall – Pri 1 1065 2.9 3.02% Fall – Pri 2 1,326 3.6 3.76% Gun Shot Wound 58 0.2 0.16% Hanging 6 0.0 0.02% Headache 308 0.8 0.87% Laceration Pri 1 147 0.4 0.42% Laceration – Pri 2 161 0.4 0.46% Medical Alarm 542 1.5 1.54% Medical Transport 305 0.8 0.87% MVA 2,924 8.0 8.29% OB/GYN 208 0.6 0.59% Overdose 445 1.2 1.26% Seizure 1190 3.3 3.38% Sexual Assault 1 0.0 0.00% Sickness 3,824 10.5 10.85% Stabbing 32 0.1 0.09% Stroke 588 1.6 1.67% Syncope 798 2.2 2.26% Trauma 750 2.1 2.13% Trauma Emergency 236 0.6 0.67% Trouble Breathing 3,331 9.1 9.45% Unconscious 653 1.8 1.85% Unconscious not 500 1.4 1.42% Breathing EMS Total 28,397 77.8 80.54% Aircraft Crash 3 0.0 0.01% Carbon Monoxide 104 0.3 0.29% Alarm Dumpster Fire 16 0.0 0.05% Fire Alarm 2234 6.1 6.34% Fire Investigation 1 0.0 0.00% Fire Other 294 0.8 0.83% Fuel Leak/Spills 41 0.1 0.12% Grass Fire 242 0.7 0.69% Grass Fire Emergency 163 0.4 0.46% Landing Zone 54 0.1 0.15% Lock Out 93 0.3 0.26%
Fire Protection Master Plan 107 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Manpower Assist 718 2.0 2.04% Power Line Hazard 184 0.5 0.52% Service Call 345 0.9 0.98% Stand By 95 0.3 0.27% Structure Fire 1285 3.5 3.64% Structure Fire-Entrap 13 0.0 0.04% Tree in Roadway 302 0.8 0.86% Vehicle Fire 148 0.4 0.42% Vehicle Fire 6 0.0 0.02% Entrapment Fire Total 6,348 17.4 18.00% Hazmat 11 0.0 0.03% Natural/Propane Gas 82 0.2 0.23% Leak Smell of Natural 49 0.1 0.14% Gas/Propane Hazardous Materials 142 0.4 0.40% Confined Space 2 0.0 0.01% Rescue Elevator 15 0.0 0.04% Entrapment/Rescue MVA Entrapment 292 0.8 0.83% Rescue 18 0.0 0.05% Search and Recovery 2 0.0 0.01% Water Rescue 42 0.1 0.12% Technical Rescue 371 1.0 1.05% Total 35,258 96.6 100.00%
Fire Protection Master Plan 108 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 16: Percentage of Total Incidents Dispatched by Program in 2016 (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
2016 Percentage of Incidents
0%1% 18%
EMS Total Fire Total Hazardous Materials Technical Rescue
81%
While counts of incidents and incidents types are informative, the number of individual unit responses will be more reflective of total workload due to 18% of calls resulting in multiple units responding. As summarized below, Piedmont EMS and all units from the 16 fire agencies combined accounted for 40,369 responses. Of these responses, agencies were busy on emergency calls for 32,905 hours. On average, each response lasted 49 minutes from dispatch to clear.
Figure 17: 2016 Number of Valid Calls, Responses, and Total Busy Time by Program (w/o Rock Hill or Tega Cay)
Average Average Busy Number of Number of Total Busy Percentage of Program Responses per Minutes per Valid Calls Responses Hours Total Busy Hours Call Response EMS 28,206 33,514 1.2 28,814 51.6 87.6 % Fire 5,572 6,077 1.1 3,409 33.7 10.4% Haz. Mat. 141 151 1.1 94 37.4 0.3% Tech. Rescue 362 627 1.7 588 56.3 1.8% Total 34,281 40,369 1.2 32,905 48.9 100.0%
Fire Protection Master Plan 109 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Temporal analyses were conducted to evaluate patterns in community demands. These measures examined the frequency of requests for service by month, day of week, and hour of day. In the following temporal analyses, hazardous materials and technical rescue calls were grouped into the “other” category for presentation purpose.
The average requests per day by month was 96.5, and ranged from a low of 92.1 per day in February to a high of 104.5 per day in December. The top three average calls per day by month with the most demands in descending order are: 104.5 per day in December, 101.0 per day in May, and 100.5 in July, respectively.
Figure 18: Overall Average Calls per Day by Month (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
2016 Average Calls per Day by Month 120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
Number of Calls 40.0
20.0
0.0
APRIL MAY JUNE JULY MARCH AUGUST JANUARY FEBRUARY OCTOBER SEPTEMBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER Month
EMS Fire Other
A similar analysis was conducted for requests per day by day of week. The data revealed there is some variability in the demand for services by day of week. Sunday was the lowest for the week at 88.0 calls per day. Monday had the highest frequency of requests for services at 101.2 calls per day. The other five days of the week averaged in the range of 95.1 to 99.2 calls per day.
Fire Protection Master Plan 110 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 19: Overall Average Calls per Day by Weekday (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
2016 Average Calls per Day by Day of Week 120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
Number of Calls 40.0
20.0
0.0 SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY Day of Week
EMS Fire Other
Overall call demand was evaluated by the hour of the day. Considerable variability exists in the time of day that requests for emergency services are received. The middle of the day has the greatest frequency of calls, specifically the hours that begin from 1000 through 1800, with an average of 5.5 calls during each hour of this eight-hour time interval. The overall average number of calls per day is 96.6, which equates to an hourly call average of 4.1 per hour.
To provide a more detailed understanding of the community’s demand for emergency services, this temporal analysis included the average number of calls per hour. In other words, when referring to the figure below, the busiest hour is from 1600-1659 with 2,143 calls during that hour for the 2016 calendar year.
Fire Protection Master Plan 111 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 20: Average Calls per Day by Hour (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
2016 Average Calls per Day by Hour 7
6
5
4
3
Number of Calls 2
1
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hour of Day
EMS Fire Other
Overall, all agencies (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay) had 38,823 unit responses, and the total busy hours were 32,905. Piedmont EMS units made 31,237 responses, and were busy 28,824 hours in 2016. On average, a Piedmont EMS ambulance spent 55.4 minutes from dispatch to clear, and accounted for 80.5% of all responses.
Fire Protection Master Plan 112 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 21: 2016 Overall Workload by Agency21
Avg. Busy Annual Busy Total Valid Unit Agency Minutes per Hours Responses Response
Bethany-Santiago Fire 52.4 137 157 Department Bethel Fire Department 34.6 354 613 Bethesda Fire 42.5 175 247 Department Bullocks Creek Fire 80.0 40 30 Department Clover Fire Department 39.8 265 465 Flint Hill Fire Department 25.3 461 1,092 Fort Mill Fire 24.1 714 1,780 Department Hickory Grove Fire 53.3 72 81 Department Lesslie Fire Department 36.8 301 491 McConnells Fire 53.5 82 92 Department Newport Fire 35.1 363 620 Department Oakdale Fire Department 45.2 220 292 Piedmont EMS 55.4 28,824 31,237 Riverview Fire 28.0 239 512 Department Rock Hill Fire 20.7 3,635 10,537 Department Sharon Fire Department 54.1 83 92 Smyrna Fire Department 61.6 39 38 Tega Cay Fire 24.3 191 472 Department York Fire Department 30.7 536 1,049 Total 44.2 36,731 49,832
The measure of time on task is necessary to evaluate best practices in efficient system delivery and consider the impact workload has on personnel. Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) determinants were developed by a mathematical model. This model includes both the proportion of calls handled in each major service area (EMS, Fire, Hazardous Materials, and Technical Rescue) and
21 Unit responses may be less than total incident counts on an agency level. Valid unit responses only include those with required timestamps for busy hour calculations. In addition, some data was missing certain incidents, or reflected only a single ‘dummy variable’ assigned – thereby limiting the ability to include here.
Fire Protection Master Plan 113 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
total unit time on task for these service categories in 2016. The resulting UHU’s represent the percentage of the work period (24 hours) that is utilized responding to requests for service.
Historically, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) has recommended that 24-hour 22 units utilize 0.30, or 30% workload as an upper threshold. 1F In other words this recommendation would have personnel spend no more than eight (8) hours per day on emergency incidents. These thresholds take into consideration the necessity to accomplish non- emergency activities such as training, health and wellness, public education, and fire inspections. The 4th edition of the IAFF EMS Guidebook no longer specifically identifies an upper threshold. However, FITCH recommends that an upper unit utilization threshold of approximately .30, 0r 30%, would be considered best practice. In other words, units and personnel should not exceed 30%, or eight (8) hours, of their workday responding to calls. These recommendations are also validated in the literature. For example, in their review of the City of Rolling Meadows, the Illinois Fire Chiefs Association utilized a UHU threshold of .30 as an 23 indication to add additional resources.2F Similarly, in a standards of cover study facilitated by the Center for Public Safety Excellence, the Castle Rock Fire and Rescue Department utilizes a UHU of .30 as the upper limit in their standards of cover due to the necessity to accomplish 24 other non-emergency activities.3F
These thresholds take into consideration the necessity to accomplish non-emergency activities such as training, health and wellness, public education, and fire inspections.
For Piedmont EMS usage by unit was analyzed. The top three ambulances all had more than 3,000 runs in a year, and the top 12 ambulances made more than 1,000 runs. EMS3 was dispatched most often, and it averaged 9.4 runs per day and was busy 8.7 hours per day. Utilizing the standard of UHU being 30%, there are six units for Piedmont EMS that are close to, or exceed, this metric. Two units are in the mid-twenty percent range, and four units that exceed this threshold. Again, EMS3 tops all other units with a UHU of 39.1%., although the overall UHU average for all Piedmont units is 12.7%. The Pareto line in Figure 15 clearly shows ambulance units account for most busy hours.
22 International Association of Firefighters. (1995). Emergency Medical Services: A Guidebook for Fire-Based Systems. Washington, DC: Author. (p. 11) 23 Illinois Fire Chiefs Association. (2012). An Assessment of Deployment and Station Location: Rolling Meadows Fire Department. Rolling Meadows, Illinois: Author. (pp. 54-55) 24 Castle Rock Fire and Rescue Department. (2011). Community Risk Analysis and Standards of Cover. Castle Rock, Colorado: Author. (p. 58)
Fire Protection Master Plan 114 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 22: 2016 Piedmont EMS: Overall Workload by Unit
Avg. Busy Annual Busy UHU Unit ID Minutes per Valid Total Responses Hours Percentage Response
Dist1 35.6 756 8.6% 1,274 Dist2 30.0 1 0.0% 2 Dist3 37.7 1,035 11.8% 1,654 Dist4 91.6 24 0.3% 16 EM11 57.8 1,599 18.3% 1,659 EM12 57.4 2,210 25.2% 2,311 EM13 60.4 1,310 15.0% 1,301 EM14 58.1 1,332 15.2% 1,376 EM15 81.3 247 2.8% 182 EM16 159.2 32 0.4% 12 EM17 190.0 25 0.3% 8 EM18 200.0 3 0.0% 1 EM97 283.2 57 0.7% 12 EM98 234.7 4 0.0% 1 EMS1 55.0 3,334 38.1% 3,638 EMS2 54.6 3,030 34.6% 3,333 EMS3 55.2 3,429 39.1% 3,727 EMS4 53.0 1,677 19.1% 1,897 EMS5 59.7 2,788 31.8% 2,809 EMS6 59.3 1,621 18.5% 1,640 EMS7 56.2 2,237 25.5% 2,386 EMS8 63.5 1,957 22.3% 1,850 Medic1 34.2 4 0.0% 7 Medic2 40.5 93 1.1% 138 Medic3 68.5 2 0.0% 2 Trailer1 994.7 17 0.2% 1 Total 55.4 28,824 12.7% 31,237
Fire Protection Master Plan 115 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 23: 2016 Piedmont EMS: Overall Workload by Unit
The following analyses focused on the first arriving units of all distinct incidents. The mean (average) call processing time (CPT) was 1.0 minute. The mean CPT and turnout time was 2.9 minutes, travel mean time 7.7 minutes, and the total response mean time was 10.3 minutes. The mean response time is not the same as the sum of the mean dispatch time, turnout time, and travel time. For both the mean times and 90th percentile times each time interval is calculated as its own variable. That is, each of the mean times, and 90th percentile times, for any one call category are not additive.
The performance for call processing time at the 90th percentile was 1.6 minutes, CPT and turnout time at the 90th percentile was 4.6 minutes, travel time was 13.0minutes, and the 90th percentile for total response time was 15.9 minutes. Again, please note that the summation of 90th percentile turnout time and 90th percentile travel time is not the same as 90th percentile turnout and travel time combined, also the summation of 90th percentile dispatch time, 90th percentile turnout time and 90th percentile travel time is not the same as 90th percentile response time.
Typically, performance varies across call types or categories due to a variety of reasons. For example, the turnout time may be longer for fire related calls because the crews must dress in their personal protective ensemble (bunker gear) prior to leaving the station, whereas on an EMS incident they do not. Similarly, larger fire apparatus may require longer response times due to their size and lack of maneuverability. Data does suggest mean and 90th percentile
Fire Protection Master Plan 116 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
turnout time for fire calls were longer than EMS calls. The mean and 90th percentile travel times for technical rescue were slightly higher for EMS calls, but significantly longer than for fire and hazardous materials calls.
Figure 24: 2016 Average Call Processing, Turnout and Travel Time for First Arriving Units by Program (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
Call CPT & Turnout Program Processing Travel Time Total Response Time Time Time EMS 0.9 2.6 7.8 10.1 Fire 0.9 4.7 7.3 11.5 Haz. Mat. 1.1 5.2 6.0 11.0 Tech. 1.1 5.8 6.9 12.7 Rescue Total 1.0 2.9 7.7 10.3
Figure 25: 2016 Average Call Processing, Turnout and Travel Time of First Arriving Unit by Program Category (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
2016 Average First Unit CPT & Turnout, and Travel Time 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 EMS Fire Haz. Mat. Tech. Rescue
CPT & Turnout Time Travel Time
Fire Protection Master Plan 117 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 26: 2016 90th Percentile Call Processing, Turnout, and Travel Time of First Arriving Units by Program (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
Call CPT & Turnout Program Processing Travel Time Total Response Time Time Time EMS 1.5 3.7 13.1 15.6 Fire 1.5 8.3 12.4 18.4 Haz. Mat. 1.9 10.1 9.4 17.0 Tech. 2.0 10.2 12.9 19.0 Rescue
1.6 4.6 13.0 15.9 Total
Figure 27: 2016 90th Percentile Call Processing, Turnout, and Travel Time of First Arriving Units by Program (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
2016 90th Percentile First Unit CPT & Turnout, and Travel Time 25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0 EMS Fire Haz. Mat. Tech. Rescue
CPT & Turnout Time Travel Time
Fire Protection Master Plan 118 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
The distributions of turnout and travel time for first arriving units were also analyzed. A total of 1.2% of calls had CPT and turnout time of one minute or less, and 37.5% of calls had CPT and turnout time between one to less than two minutes, and 61.3% of first arriving units had a CPT and turnout time in two or more minutes.
For travel time, 27.6% of first arriving units arrived on scene in less than five minutes, 49.5% of calls had travel times between five and ten minutes. Finally, 22.9% of calls had first unit travel times of ten minutes or more. The distribution of these times can be seen in the Figures 20 and 21 below.
Figure 28: Figure 20: All Calls: Distribution of CPT and Turnout Time of First Arriving Unit (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
2016 Average First Unit CPT & Turnout Time in 15-Second Intervals 25000
61.3% 20000
15000
10000 Number of Units 12.1% 12.3% 5000 8.8% 4.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.8% 0 0 - 15 15 - 30 30 - 45 45 - 60 60 - 75 75 - 90 90 - 105 105 - 120 > 120 15-Second Intervals
Fire Protection Master Plan 119 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 29: All Calls: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving Unit (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
2016 First Unit Travel Times in Minutes 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 Number of First Units 500 0
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 > 20 One-Minute Time Intervals
Fire Protection Master Plan 120 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Services Demand for fire services resulted in 8,732 calls or an average of 23.9 calls per day in 2016. After excluding Rock Hill and Tega Cay, the demand was 6,348 or 17.4 calls per day. Details for the demand by call type can be seen in the Figure below.
Figure 30: 2016 Total Fire Related Calls per Day by Month
Total w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay Month Number of Call Number of Calls per Call Calls per Day Calls Percentage Calls Day Percentage January 723 2.0 8.3% 533 1.5 8.4%
February 711 1.9 8.1% 525 1.4 8.3%
March 661 1.8 7.6% 477 1.3 7.5% April 665 1.8 7.6% 490 1.3 7.7%
May 677 1.9 7.8% 492 1.3 7.8%
June 723 2.0 8.3% 518 1.4 8.2% July 785 2.2 9.0% 583 1.6 9.2% August 673 1.8 7.7% 466 1.3 7.3%
September 712 2.0 8.2% 520 1.4 8.2%
October 775 2.1 8.9% 569 1.6 9.0%
November 889 2.4 10.2% 673 1.8 10.6%
December 738 2.0 8.5% 502 1.4 7.9% Total 8,732 23.9 100.0% 6,348 17.4 100.0%
Fire Protection Master Plan 121 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 31: Average Fire Related Calls per Day by Month
2016 Average Calls per Day by Month 3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
April May June July January March August February October September November December
All Agencies W/O Rock Hill & Tega Cay
Similar analyses were conducted for fire related calls per day of week. Excluding Rock Hill and Tega Cay, the data revealed a modest variability in the demand for services by day of week. Sunday had the lowest for the week with an average of 2.2 calls per day or 12.9% of the fire related calls for the week. Saturday had the highest frequency of requests for fire related services averaging 2.7 calls per day, which accounted for 15.4% of calls. Results for this analysis are presented in the Figures below. Figure 32: Total Fire Related Calls per Day by Day of Week
Total w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay Day of Week Number of Calls per Number of Calls per Call Percentage Call Percentage Calls Day Calls Day
Sunday 1,117 3.1 12.8% 817 2.2 12.9%
Monday 1,327 3.6 15.2% 948 2.6 14.9%
Tuesday 1,195 3.3 13.7% 866 2.4 13.6%
Wednesday 1,304 3.6 14.9% 949 2.6 14.9%
Thursday 1,207 3.3 13.8% 865 2.4 13.6%
Friday 1,262 3.5 14.5% 927 2.5 14.6% Saturday 1,320 3.6 15.1% 976 2.7 15.4% Total 8,732 23.9 100.0% 6,348 17.4 100.0%
Fire Protection Master Plan 122 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 33: Average Fire Related Calls per Day by Day of Week
2016 Average Calls per Day by Day of Week 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5
0.0 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
All Agencies W/O Rock Hill & Tega Cay
Fire related calls were evaluated by hour of the day. Considerable variability exists in the time of day that requests for fire related services are received. For all agencies, excluding Rock Hill and Tega Cay, hours that include midnight to 0500 had the lowest demands. The middle of the day and early evening had the greatest frequency of calls, specifically the nine-hour period from 1200 through 2000 where each hour has at least 320 calls in the 2016 calendar year.
To provide a more detailed understanding of the community’s demand for fire related services, this temporal analysis included the average number of calls per day by hour. In other words, when referring to the Figures below, the busiest hour of the day was from 1400 to 1459 with 440 calls during that hour in 2016.
Fire Protection Master Plan 123 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 34: Average Fire Related Calls Per Day by Hour of Day
Total w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay Hour of Day Number of Calls per Call Number of Calls per Call Calls Day Percentage Calls Day Percentage 0 193 0.53 2.2% 141 0.39 2.2%
1 146 0.40 1.7% 96 0.26 1.5%
2 187 0.51 2.1% 136 0.37 2.1% 3 148 0.41 1.7% 114 0.31 1.8% 4 146 0.40 1.7% 116 0.32 1.8% 5 200 0.55 2.3% 137 0.38 2.2% 6 245 0.67 2.8% 181 0.50 2.9% 7 308 0.84 3.5% 220 0.60 3.5% 8 377 1.03 4.3% 258 0.71 4.1% 9 395 1.08 4.5% 269 0.74 4.2%
10 450 1.23 5.2% 334 0.92 5.3%
11 428 1.17 4.9% 298 0.82 4.7% 12 485 1.33 5.6% 351 0.96 5.5% 13 494 1.35 5.7% 346 0.95 5.5% 14 584 1.60 6.7% 440 1.21 6.9% 15 492 1.35 5.6% 354 0.97 5.6% 16 515 1.41 5.9% 373 1.02 5.9% 17 545 1.49 6.2% 419 1.15 6.6% 18 535 1.47 6.1% 407 1.12 6.4% 19 499 1.37 5.7% 353 0.97 5.6% 20 443 1.21 5.1% 332 0.91 5.2% 21 375 1.03 4.3% 284 0.78 4.5% 22 296 0.81 3.4% 220 0.60 3.5% 23 246 0.67 2.8% 169 0.46 2.7% Total 8,732 23.92 100.0% 6,348 17.39 100.0%
Fire Protection Master Plan 124 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 35: Average Fire Calls Per Day by Hour of Day
2016 Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
All Agencies w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay
Fire related calls by agency were examined next to determine total workload. Total workload is the sum of all units’ time on task that responded to a call. Time on task is defined as the time interval between a unit’s dispatch time until the unit’s return to service. Figure 29 provides the detail of workload by all agencies.
Figure 36: Average Fire workload (Time on Task) and UHU by Fire Department and Unit (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
Avg. Busy Annual UHU Unit ID Minutes per Busy Total Valid Responses Percentage Response Hours Bethany-Santiago Fire Department BYE1 60.1 81.2 0.93% 81 BYE2 91.2 7.6 0.09% 5 BYG1 33.1 31.4 0.36% 57 BYG2 46.0 4.6 0.05% 6 BYS5 50.0 2.5 0.03% 3 BYT3 110.4 9.2 0.11% 5 Total 52.2 136.5 1.56% 157
Fire Protection Master Plan 125 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Bethel Fire Department BLE1 36.3 171.0 1.95% 283 BLE2 28.7 18.2 0.21% 38 BLE3 32.6 29.3 0.33% 54 BLG1 33.8 28.2 0.32% 50 BLG2 21.6 3.6 0.04% 10 BLG3 37.6 13.8 0.16% 22 BLL1 22.8 27.0 0.31% 71 BLS1 47.6 36.5 0.42% 46 BLS8 48.0 6.4 0.07% 8 BLT1 39.1 15.0 0.17% 23 BLT2 36.0 4.8 0.05% 8 Total 34.6 353.9 4.04% 613 Bethesda Fire Department BDE1 51.5 30.9 0.35% 36 BDE2 39.8 46.4 0.53% 70 BDG1 29.3 17.6 0.20% 36 BDG2 47.0 47.0 0.54% 60 BDS1 34.1 10.8 0.12% 19 BDS2 24.0 0.4 0.00% 1 BDT1 78.0 5.2 0.06% 4 BDT2 48.9 17.1 0.20% 21 Total 42.6 175.4 2.00% 247 Bullocks Creek Fire
Department BCE1 97.7 11.4 0.13% 7 BCE2 96.0 4.8 0.05% 3 BCG1 52.0 15.6 0.18% 18 BCT1 246.0 8.2 0.09% 2 Total 80.2 40.1 0.46% 30 Clover Fire Department CLE1 33.6 31.4 0.36% 56 CLE2 43.2 113.8 1.30% 158 CLG2 23.6 6.7 0.08% 17 CLG3 37.7 90.5 1.03% 144 CLS1 67.2 11.2 0.13% 10 CLT4 87.0 2.9 0.03% 2 CLT5 40.2 8.7 0.10% 13 Total 34.2 265.2 3.03% 465
Fire Protection Master Plan 126 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Flint Hill Fire Department FHC2 30.0 4.0 0.05% 8 FHE1 24.7 330.2 3.77% 801 FHE2 28.8 65.7 0.75% 137 FHE3 24.9 45.7 0.52% 110 FHE4 21.0 2.8 0.03% 8 FHG1 36.0 4.2 0.05% 7 FHL1 15.3 2.3 0.03% 9 FHS1 32.2 5.9 0.07% 11 FHT1 24.0 0.4 0.00% 1 Total 25.3 461.3 5.27% 1,092 Fort Mill Fire Department FM20 52.5 10.5 0.12% 12 FM207a 21.4 291.3 3.33% 815 FM207b 16.1 7.8 0.09% 29 FM3 21.0 2.1 0.02% 6 FMC1 54.0 0.9 0.01% 1 FME1 25.7 105.6 1.21% 247 FME11 22.9 76.3 0.87% 200 FME2 10.0 0.5 0.01% 3 FMG1 390.0 6.5 0.07% 1 FMG11 42.0 1.4 0.02% 2 FML1 26.1 73.2 0.84% 168 FML2 27.8 137.2 1.57% 296 Total 24.1 713.5 8.14% 1,780 Hickory Grove Fire
Department HGC1 22.0 2.2 0.03% 6 HGE1 62.0 18.6 0.21% 18 HGG1 58.7 18.6 0.21% 19 HGG2 73.5 4.9 0.06% 4 HGR1 38.1 16.5 0.19% 26 HGT4 79.5 10.6 0.12% 8 Total 53.0 71.5 0.82% 81 Lesslie Fire Department LEE1 36.2 63.4 0.72% 105 LEE2 38.9 20.1 0.23% 31 LEE3 39.2 11.1 0.13% 17 LEE4 78.0 5.2 0.06% 4
Fire Protection Master Plan 127 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
LEG1 30.5 88.5 1.01% 174 LEG2 34.3 17.7 0.20% 31 LES1 54.0 1.8 0.02% 2 LES2 42.3 76.9 0.88% 109 LET1 48.0 3.2 0.04% 4 LET2 54.9 12.8 0.15% 14 Total 36.7 300.7 3.43% 491 McConnells Fire
Department MCE1 48.8 12.2 0.14% 15 MCE2 66.0 16.5 0.19% 15 MCG3 50.1 38.4 0.44% 46 MCS1 35.4 5.9 0.07% 10 MCT3 86.0 8.6 0.10% 6 Total 53.2 81.6 0.93% 92 Newport Fire Department NPC9 21.0 0.7 0.01% 2 NPE1 28.3 66.1 0.75% 140 NPE2 31.1 39.4 0.45% 76 NPE3 34.3 45.7 0.52% 80 NPE4 37.2 3.1 0.04% 5 NPE5 55.1 24.8 0.28% 27 NPG1 36.8 66.3 0.76% 108 NPG2 31.9 50.5 0.58% 95 NPG6 33.6 8.4 0.10% 15 NPG7 48.0 4 0.05% 5 NPL1 68.4 5.7 0.07% 5 NPL2 18.0 0.3 0.00% 1 NPS1 50.0 20 0.23% 24 NPS2 78.0 10.4 0.12% 8 NPS3 40.8 3.4 0.04% 5 NPT1 31.6 10 0.11% 19 NPT2 45.6 3.8 0.04% 5 Total 35.1 363.2 4.15% 620 Oakdale Fire Department ODE1 40.4 114.5 1.31% 170 ODE2 88.0 4.4 0.05% 3 ODE3 42.9 36.5 0.42% 51 ODG1 66.0 17.6 0.20% 16
Fire Protection Master Plan 128 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
ODG2 42.0 9.1 0.10% 13 ODG3 93.0 9.3 0.11% 6 ODS1 43.4 9.4 0.11% 13 ODS2 73.7 8.6 0.10% 7 ODT4 60.5 12.1 0.14% 12 ODT5 42.0 0.7 0.01% 1 Total 45.6 222.1 2.54% 292 Riverview Fire Department RVE1 30.5 16.8 0.19% 33 RVE2 24.2 140.2 1.60% 348 RVE3 54.0 3.6 0.04% 4 RVG1 37.0 22.2 0.25% 36 RVL1 26.8 33.9 0.39% 76 RVR1 72.0 7.2 0.08% 6 RVS1 27.6 2.3 0.03% 5 RVS2 12.0 0.2 0.00% 1 RVT1 248.0 12.4 0.14% 3 Total 28.0 238.8 2.73% 512 Sharon Fire Department SHE1 68.1 19.3 0.22% 17 SHE2 68.1 15.9 0.18% 14 SHE3 36.0 0.6 0.01% 1 SHE4 18.0 0.6 0.01% 2 SHG1 48.0 5.6 0.06% 7 SHG2 39.7 25.8 0.29% 39 SHS1 65.1 7.6 0.09% 7 SHT1 94.8 7.9 0.09% 5 Total 54.3 83.2 0.95% 92 Smyrna Fire Department SME1 73.1 13.4 0.15% 11 SME2 97.5 6.5 0.07% 4 SMG1 22.5 1.5 0.02% 4 SMG2 38.5 7.7 0.09% 12 SMR1 24.0 0.8 0.01% 2 SMT1 136.0 6.8 0.08% 3 SMT3 81.0 2.7 0.03% 2 Total 62.2 39.4 0.45% 38 York Fire Department
Fire Protection Master Plan 129 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Y318 23.0 120.4 1.37% 314 YKE1 46.4 11.6 0.13% 15 YKE2 31.8 141.6 1.62% 267 YKE3 24.0 0.8 0.01% 2 YKE4 29.3 16.6 0.19% 34 YKE5 37.3 178.3 2.04% 287 YKG1 29.2 41.4 0.47% 85 YKG3 18.0 0.6 0.01% 2 YKL1 42.0 2.1 0.02% 3 YKMA1 38.6 4.5 0.05% 7 YKMA2 0.0 0 0.00% 1 YKS1 30.7 13.3 0.15% 26 YKT2 67.2 5.6 0.06% 5 Total 30.7 536.2 6.12% 1,049
Effective Response Force We analyzed the number of responding units for incidents classified as either structure fires or structure fires with entrapment for agencies other than Rock Hill, Tega Cay or Piedmont. For 2016, there were a total of 397 such incidents generating 838 responses – or an overall average of 2.1 fire unit responses per structure fire.
Overall, 24.2% of these fire calls were responded by one unit, 55.4% were responded to by two units, and a total of 20.4% were responded to by three or more units. This reflects a limited ability to place a sufficient number of responding units, and therefore an assumed limited number of personnel, on working fire incidents.
Fire Protection Master Plan 130 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 37: Number of Responding Units to Structure Fires (excluding Rock Hill and Tega Cay)25
# Units Count Percentage 1 96 24.2% 2 220 55.4% 3 48 12.1% 4 22 5.5% 5 3 0.8% 6 1 0.3% 7 7 1.8% 8 0 0.0% 9 0 0.0% 10 or More 0 0.0% Total 397 100.0%
Emergency Medical Services Piedmont EMS is the primary patient transportation provider for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in York County. As such, it seems warranted to look at this one agency for EMS calls. Requests for EMS services are specifically broken down by EMD Categorization codes, as shown previously in Figure 2.
Temporal analyses were completed to describe the community’s demands for emergency medical services. These analyses were completed by month of year, day of week, and hour of day. There is some variability between months of the year with December (77.1 EMS requests per day) receiving the most requests for service and February (66.0 EMS requests per day) the least. Results are presented in Figure 31.
25 Does not include 646 responses from Piedmont to the all fire agencies, including Rock Hill & Tega Cay. Additionally, some responses for a single reported structure fire were comprised of multiple agencies.
Fire Protection Master Plan 131 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 38: 2016 Total and Average Calls per Day for Piedmont EMS by Month of Year
Number of Call Month Calls per Day Calls Percentage January 2,075 69.2 8.1%
February 1,980 66.0 7.8%
March 2,174 72.5 8.5%
April 2,130 71.0 8.3%
May 2,220 74.0 8.7%
June 2,072 69.1 8.1% July 2,162 72.1 8.5% August 2,184 72.8 8.6%
September 2,094 69.8 8.2%
October 2,108 70.3 8.3%
November 2,015 67.2 7.9%
December 2,313 77.1 9.1% Total 25,527 69.9 100.0%
Figure 39: 2016 Average Piedmont EMS Calls per Day by Month of Year
2016 Piedmont EMS Average Calls per Day by Month 78.0
76.0
74.0
72.0
70.0
68.0
66.0
64.0
62.0
60.0
April May June July January March August February October September November December
Fire Protection Master Plan 132 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
A similar analysis was conducted examining the frequency of requests for service by the day of the week. There is only minor variability in the demand for services by the day of the week. Monday received the most requests for service per day, and Sunday had the least. Results are provided below.
Figure 40: Annual Total and Average Piedmont EMS Calls per Day by Day of Week
Day of Week Number of Calls Calls per Day Call Percentage
Sunday 3,388 65.2 13.3%
Monday 3,814 73.3 14.9%
Tuesday 3,712 71.4 14.5%
Wednesday 3,707 71.3 14.5%
Thursday 3,653 70.3 14.3%
Friday 3,745 72.0 14.7%
Saturday 3,508 67.5 13.7%
Total 25,527 69.9 100.0%
Figure 41: Average Piedmont EMS Calls per Day by Day of Week
2016 Piedmont EMS Average Calls per Day by Day of Week 74.0 72.0 70.0 68.0 66.0 64.0 62.0 60.0 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Fire Protection Master Plan 133 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Finally, the analysis for EMS services was conducted by identifying Piedmont EMS calls by hour of day and the average hourly rate of EMS calls per hour. The demand curve for requests for EMS service follows an expected pattern experienced in similar communities across the nation. The higher frequency of service calls begins from 1000 to 2059, where each of these hours had more than 1,200 calls. The demand peaked from 1600 to 1659 with 1,513 calls during the year. 2300 through 0759 the next day had the lowest requests per hour with an average hourly request for calls of 3.4 or fewer. The overall average hourly rate of service requests is 2.9 calls for any hour during the day. Results are provided below.
Figure 42: Annual Total and Average Piedmont EMS Calls per Day by Hour of Day
Hour of Number of Calls Calls per Day Call Percentage Day 0 683 1.9 2.7%
1 668 1.8 2.6%
2 550 1.5 2.2%
3 511 1.4 2.0%
4 477 1.3 1.9% 5 500 1.4 2.0% 6 629 1.7 2.5% 7 867 2.4 3.4% 8 1,070 2.9 4.2% 9 1,173 3.2 4.6% 10 1,368 3.7 5.4% 11 1,317 3.6 5.2% 12 1,396 3.8 5.5% 13 1,465 4.0 5.7% 14 1,433 3.9 5.6% 15 1,416 3.9 5.5% 16 1,513 4.1 5.9% 17 1,399 3.8 5.5% 18 1,461 4.0 5.7% 19 1,284 3.5 5.0% 20 1,282 3.5 5.0% 21 1,131 3.1 4.4% 22 1,054 2.9 4.1% 23 880 2.4 3.4% Total 25,527 69.9 100.0%
Fire Protection Master Plan 134 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 43: Average Piedmont EMS Calls per Day by Hour of Day
2016 Piedmont EMS Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day 4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Three call types accounted for 39.1% of all Piedmont EMS calls with over 3,000 calls each during 2016. These are: Cardiac, Sickness, and Trouble Breathing with 11.8%, 15.0%, and 12.3% of calls, respectively. No other EMD category type for Piedmont EMS calls averaged more than 6.7%. during 2016.
A total of 17.9% of the EMS incidents had multiple responding units. On average, 1.4 Piedmont units were dispatched per EMS call.
EMS Transport We analyzed outcomes for the requests for EMS services. The number of EMS transports totaled 14,483, which averages out to 39.7 transports per day. Approximately 68% of EMS calls have patients being transported to the hospital. Cardiac and stroke calls had a transport rate of 78.3%. Duration of a call is defined as the difference between the earliest dispatch time and the last unit clear time. On average, the duration of a non-transport EMS call was 25.7 minutes. The duration of a transport EMS call was 73.3 minutes, which was 47.6 minutes longer than a non- transport EMS call.
Fire Protection Master Plan 135 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 44: EMS Transports by Call Category (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
Non-Transport Transport
Percentage EMD Category Duration Number of Calls Duration Number of Calls Rate Abdominal Pain 33.1 146 67.1 1,088 88.2 Allergic Reaction 24.2 77 71.8 122 61.3 Altered Mental Status 25.4 178 77.0 565 76.0 Animal Bite 31.0 22 71.3 35 61.4 Back Pain 37.3 85 77.6 415 83.0 Bleeding 32.7 124 77.8 373 75.1 Blood Pressure Problems 29.3 149 71.2 280 65.3 Burns 23.9 10 77.9 25 71.4 Cardiac 20.4 454 74.1 1,658 78.5 Choking 13.8 35 58.7 19 35.2 Coroner Investigation 2.3 2 0.0 0 0.0 Crushing Injury 56.5 2 114.1 1 33.3 Diabetic 27.0 211 77.5 218 50.8 EMS Assist 22.4 555 0.0 0 0.0 Environmental Emergencies 19.2 23 71.3 30 56.6 Eye Problems 25.9 10 58.1 8 44.4 Fall - Pri 1 24.5 188 75.2 567 75.1 Fall - Pri 2 31.5 351 72.1 943 72.9 Gun Shot Wound 28.7 19 129.7 9 32.1 Hanging 48.9 4 61.5 1 20.0 Headache 29.0 47 62.1 253 84.3 Laceration - Pri 1 25.6 46 72.4 73 61.3 Laceration - Pri 2 25.7 99 64.2 60 37.7 Medical Alarm 20.0 364 76.8 153 29.6 Medical Transport 72.5 26 108.5 276 91.4 MVA 30.4 805 74.8 388 32.5 OB/GYN 15.6 31 70.3 89 74.2 Overdose 24.7 90 79.7 200 69.0 Seizure 21.9 230 76.0 479 67.6 Sexual Assault 0.0 0 101.2 1 100.0 Sickness 33.7 822 69.7 2,950 78.2 Stabbing 35.8 10 70.3 7 41.2 Stroke 23.9 92 77.2 313 77.3
Fire Protection Master Plan 136 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Syncope 25.2 296 72.6 447 60.2 Trauma 28.3 325 78.1 407 55.6 Trauma Emergency 24.1 45 78.3 105 70.0 Trouble Breathing 21.8 546 76.1 1,596 74.5 Unconscious 24.1 143 79.4 270 65.4 Unconscious not Breathing 30.3 262 86.8 59 18.4
We analyzed variation of total EMS requests and transport requests by the hour of the day and the average hourly rate of requests. The variation of total EMS requests and EMS transports reports followed a similar pattern. The busiest period for EMS and EMS transport requests was between 0900 and 1900, where the total EMS number of calls per hour for the year exceeded 1,000 and transports were over 700 during these hours. As seen in previous hourly temporal analyses, the least amount of both calls and transports occurred between midnight and 0600. Requests by hour of the day are represented below.
Fire Protection Master Plan 137 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 45: Total EMS Calls and EMS Transports and Average per Day by Hour of Day
Number of EMS Number of EMS Transports Transport Hour EMS Calls per Day Transports EMS Calls per Day Percentage Rate
0 383 590 1.0 1.6 64.9 1 363 528 1.0 1.4 68.8 2 308 446 0.8 1.2 69.1 3 279 430 0.8 1.2 64.9 4 283 403 0.8 1.1 70.2 5 297 430 0.8 1.2 69.1 6 382 546 1.0 1.5 70.0 7 496 752 1.4 2.1 66.0 8 641 953 1.8 2.6 67.3 9 723 1018 2.0 2.8 71.0 10 833 1159 2.3 3.2 71.9 11 789 1119 2.2 3.1 70.5 12 790 1185 2.2 3.2 66.7 13 837 1221 2.3 3.3 68.6 14 827 1182 2.3 3.2 70.0 15 799 1188 2.2 3.3 67.3 16 859 1260 2.4 3.5 68.2 17 752 1139 2.1 3.1 66.0 18 793 1200 2.2 3.3 66.1 19 707 1052 1.9 2.9 67.2 20 702 1062 1.9 2.9 66.1 21 599 930 1.6 2.5 64.4 22 570 883 1.6 2.4 64.6 23 471 731 1.3 2.0 64.4
Fire Protection Master Plan 138 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 46: Average EMS Calls and EMS Transports per Day by Hour of Day
2016 EMS Calls and Transports per Day by Hour 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
EMS Transports EMS Calls
Review of System Performance The first step in determining the current state of the system’s deployment model is to establish baseline measures of performance. This analysis is crucial to have the ability to discuss alternatives to the status quo and in identifying opportunities for improvement. This portion of the analysis will focus efforts on elements of response time and the cascade of events that lead to timely response with the appropriate apparatus and personnel to mitigate the event. Response time goals should be looked at in terms of total response time, which includes the dispatch or call processing time, turnout time, and travel time.
Cascade of Events The cascade of events is the sum of the individual elements of time beginning with a state of normalcy and continuing until normalcy is once again returned through the mitigation of the event. The elements of time that are important to the ultimate outcome of a structure fire or critical medical emergency begin with the initiation of the event. For example, the first on-set of chest pain begins the biological and scientific time clock for heart damage regardless of when 911 is notified. Similarly, a fire may begin and burn undetected for a period of time before the fire department is notified. The emergency response system (CAD) does not have control over the time interval for recognition or the choice to request assistance.
Therefore, York County utilizes quantifiable “hard” data points to measure and manage system performance. These elements include call processing time, turnout time, travel time, agency response time, and total time on task. Time on task is calculated as the difference between
Fire Protection Master Plan 139 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
dispatch time until the time all units have returned from the scene. An example of the cascade 26 of events and the elements of performance utilized by the system is provided below.0F
Detection This is the element of time between the time an event occurs, and someone detects it, and the emergency response system has been notified. This is typically accomplished by calling the 911 Primary Safety Answering Point (PSAP).
Call Processing This is the element of time measured between when 911 answers the 911 call, processes the information, and subsequently dispatches the units and/or stations.
Turnout Time This is the element of time that is measured between the time the fire department is dispatched, or alerted of the emergency incident, and the time when the fire apparatus or ambulance is enroute to the call.
Travel Time The travel time is the element of time between when the unit went enroute, or began to travel to the incident, and their arrival on-scene.
Agency Response Time Agency response time is the element of time between dispatch and arrival on-scene.
Total Response Time The total response time is the total time required to arrive on-scene, beginning with 911 answering the phone request for service, and the time the units arrive on-scene.
Time on Task This is the time element of time from dispatch, until all units have returned from the scene to their respective stations.
26 Olathe Fire Department. (2012). Adapted from Community Risk and Emergency Services Analysis: Standard of Cover. Olathe, Kansas: Author.
Fire Protection Master Plan 140 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 47: Cascade of Events
Response Time Continuum Fire The number one priority with structural fire incidents is to save lives followed by the minimization of property damage. A direct relationship exists between the timeliness of the response and the survivability of unprotected occupants and property damage. The most identifiable point of fire behavior is Flashover.
Flashover is the point in fire growth where the contents of an entire area, including the smoke, reach their ignition temperature, resulting in a rapid-fire growth rendering the area un- survivable by civilians and untenable for firefighters. Best practices would result in the fire
Fire Protection Master Plan 141 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
department arriving and attacking the fire prior to the point of flashover. A representation of 27 the traditional time temperature curve and the cascade of events are provided below.4F
Figure 48: Example of Traditional Time Temperature Curve
Recent studies by Underwriter’s Laboratories (UL) have found that in compartment fires such as structure fires, flashover occurs within 4 minutes in modern fire environment. In addition, the UL research has identified an updated time temperature curve due to fires being ventilation controlled rather than fuel controlled as represented in the traditional time temperature curve. While this ventilation-controlled environment continues to provide a high risk to unprotected occupants to smoke and high heat, it does provide some advantage to property conservation efforts as water may be applied to the fire prior to ventilation and the subsequent flashover. An 28 example of UL’s ventilation-controlled time temperature curve is provided below. 5F
27 Example of Traditional Time Temperature Curve. Retrieved at http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/coffee-break/time-vs-products-of-combustion.pdf 28 UL/NIST Ventilation Controlled Time Temperature Curve. Retrieved from http://www.nist.gov/fire/fire_behavior.cfm
Fire Protection Master Plan 142 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 49: Ventilation Controlled Time Temperature Curve
EMS The effective response to Emergency Medical Service (EMS) incidents also has a direct correlation to the ability to respond within a specified period of time. However, unlike structure fires, responding to EMS incidents introduces considerable variability in the level of clinical acuity. From this perspective, the association of response time and clinical outcome varies depending on the severity of the injury or the illness. Research has demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of requests for EMS services are not time sensitive between 5 minutes 29 and 11 minutes for emergency and 13 minutes for non-emergency responses.6F The 12-minute upper threshold is only the upper limit of the available research and is not a clinically significant time measure, as patients were not found to have a significantly different clinical outcome 30 when the 12-minute threshold was exceeded.7F
Out of hospital sudden cardiac arrest is the most identifiable and measured incident type for EMS. In an effort to demonstrate the relationship between response time and clinical outcome,
29 Blackwell, T.H., & Kaufman, J.S. (April 2002). Response time effectiveness: Comparison of response time and survival in an urban emergency medical services system. Academic Emergency Medicine, 9(4): 289-295. 30 Blackwell, T.H., et al. (Oct-Dec 2009). Lack of association between prehospital response times and patient outcomes. Prehospital Emergency Care, 13(4): 444-450.
Fire Protection Master Plan 143 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
a representation of the cascade of events and the time to defibrillation (shock) is presented as below. The American Heart Association (AHA) has determined that brain damage will begin to occur between four and six minutes and become irreversible after 10 minutes without intervention.
Modern sudden cardiac arrest protocols recognize that high quality Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) at the Basic Life Support (BLS) level is a quality intervention until 31 defibrillation can be delivered in shockable rhythms. The figure 8F below is representative of a sudden cardiac arrest that is presenting in a shockable heart rhythm such as Ventricular Fibrillation or Ventricular Tachycardia.
Figure 50: Cascade of Events for Sudden Cardiac Arrest with Shockable Rhythm
31 Olathe Fire Department. (2012). Adapted from Community Risk and Emergency Services Analysis: Standard of Cover. Olathe, Kansas: Author.
Fire Protection Master Plan 144 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Description of First Arriving Unit Performance Analyses of the response characteristics of the first arriving units were conducted. This analysis focused on lights and sirens responses. Overall the system had a mean call processing time of 0.9 minutes, and a 1.9-minute call processing time at the 90th percentile. The system had a mean CPT plus turnout time of 1.9 minutes, and a 4.6-minute turnout time at the 90th percentile. The mean travel time for all first arriving unit responses was 7.8 minutes, and 13.0 minutes at the 90th percentile. The mean total response time of all first arriving units was 10.3 minutes, while the 90th percentile for total response time was 15.9 minutes. Total response time is defined as the time interval from call entry through unit arriving on scene. Results of first arriving unit performance are provided below.
Figure 51: 2016 Minute Response of First Arriving Unit Emergency Performance (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
Measure Average 90th Percentile Call Processing Time (CPT) 1.0 1.6 CPT and Turnout Time 2.9 4.6 Travel Time 7.7 13.0 Total Response Time 10.3 15.9
The data presented above are calculated using all EMS, Fire, Hazardous Materials, and Technical Rescue. Below we have disaggregated EMS and Fire because these calls constitute the majority of calls for service.
For EMS calls, a total of 6.2% of calls had CPT and turnout times of less than one minute. 43.9% of first arriving EMS calls had a CPT and turnout time of less than two minutes. Approximately 76.5% of travel time for the first arriving EMS units was less than ten minutes. These data are represented in figures below.
For Fire calls, 1.6% of first responding units had a CPT and turnout time of less than one minute. For times of less than two minutes, about 14.5% of first unit responders completed CPT and turnout. Travel times for fire first unit responders had a more typical distribution of times with almost 80.4% arriving in under ten minutes. These data are represented in the figures below.
Fire Protection Master Plan 145 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 52: EMS Calls: Distribution of CPT and Turnout Time First Arriving Unit (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
2016 EMS CPT & Turnout Times for First Arriving Unit
16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000
Number of Uniits 4000 2000 0 0 - 15 15 - 30 30 - 45 45 - 60 60 - 75 75 - 90 90 - 105 105 - 120 > 120 15-Second Time Intervals
Figure 53: EMS Calls: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving Unit (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
2016 EMS Travel Times for First Arriving Units 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 Number of Units 500 0
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 > 20 1-Minute Time Intervals
Fire Protection Master Plan 146 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 54: Fire Calls: Distribution of CPT and Turnout Time of First Arriving Unit (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
2016 Fire CPT & Turnout Times for First Arriving Unit 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 Number of Units 1000 500 0 0 - 15 15 - 30 30 - 45 45 - 60 60 - 75 75 - 90 90 - 105 105 - 120 > 120 15-Second Time Intervals
Figure 55: Fire Calls: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving Unit (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
2016 Fire Travel Times for First Arriving Units 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 Number of Units 100 50 0
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 > 20 1-Minute Time Intervals
First Arriving Unit Response Time by Agency Further analyses were conducted to measure the performance of the first responding unit by agency. Response times are reported below at both the mean and 90th percentile.
Fire Protection Master Plan 147 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Examination of the mean performance for first arriving units’ total response times varies from a low of 7.4 minutes to 20.3 minutes between agencies, with the overall mean response time being 10.3 minutes. Similarly, variability in the total response time for first arriving units at the 90th percentile was significant between agencies, but to a much greater degree. Total response times at the 90th percentile ranged from a low of 11.3 minutes to high of 48.5 minutes. The overall 90th percentile response time for first arriving units was 15.9 minutes. Detailed times by agency can be found in the figures below.
Figure 56: 2016 Mean First Arrival Responses by Agency (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
CPT & Call Processing Total Response Agency Turnout Travel Time Time Time Time
Bethany-Santiago Fire 1.0 7.6 6.9 13.0 Department
Bethel Fire Department 0.9 4.4 7.0 11.2
Bethesda Fire Department 1.0 5.3 5.6 10.9 Bullocks Creek Fire 1.0 11.4 7.9 20.3 Department Clover Fire Department 1.0 8.8 6.0 14.7 Flint Hill Fire Department 0.9 3.2 5.8 9.0 Fort Mill Fire Department 0.9 3.2 4.6 7.4 Hickory Grove Fire 0.9 7.4 6.0 12.3 Department Lesslie Fire Department 0.9 6.5 6.1 12.3 McConnells Fire 1.1 9.5 6.8 15.5 Department Newport Fire Department 0.8 5.3 7.9 13.3 Oakdale Fire Department 1.0 6.4 7.1 12.3 Piedmont EMS 0.9 2.5 8.1 10.3 Riverview Fire 0.9 4.7 7.3 11.9 Department Sharon Fire Department 1.3 7.5 6.4 14.0 Smyrna Fire Department 1.0 6.3 6.6 14.1 York Fire Department 0.9 3.3 5.5 8.6 Total 1.0 2.9 7.7 10.3
Fire Protection Master Plan 148 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 57: 90th Percentile First Arrival Responses by Agency (w/o/ Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
CPT & Call Processing Total Response Agency Turnout Travel Time Time Time Time
Bethany-Santiago Fire 2.0 14.4 11.6 22.9 Department
Bethel Fire Department 1.6 8.1 11.9 18.2
Bethesda Fire Department 1.8 9.4 10.3 17.2 Bullocks Creek Fire 3.0 22.6 15.8 48.5 Department Clover Fire Department 1.8 14.1 10.5 21.3 Flint Hill Fire Department 1.6 4.8 9.0 12.7 Fort Mill Fire Department 1.6 4.6 8.0 11.3 Hickory Grove Fire 1.8 11.1 12.7 20.5 Department Lesslie Fire Department 1.7 10.5 10.1 19.3 McConnells Fire 2.8 16.7 11.3 28.3 Department Newport Fire Department 1.5 8.5 12.7 19.8 Oakdale Fire Department 2.0 8.3 11.2 18.2 Piedmont EMS 1.5 3.4 13.4 15.8 Riverview Fire 1.6 7.0 12.4 18.8 Department Sharon Fire Department 2.7 10.9 11.4 23.8 Smyrna Fire Department 1.9 10.3 13.4 22.6 York Fire Department 1.6 4.3 9.6 13.2 Total 1.6 4.6 13.0 15.9
Fire Protection Master Plan 149 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
SECTION 4: GIS Analysis
Fire Protection Master Plan 150 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Establishing Baseline Performance The first step in completing GIS planning analyses is to establish the desired performance parameters. Measures of total response time can be significantly influenced by both internal and external influences. For example, the dispatch time, defined as the time from pick up at the 911 center to the dispatching of units, contributes to the customer’s overall response time experience. Another element in the total response time continuum is the turnout time, defined as the time from when the units are notified of the incident until they are actually responding. However, in this data, the turnout time could not be distinctly measured and is therefore aggregated with call processing. Turnout time can have a significant impact to the overall response time for the customer and is generally considered under management’s control.
Travel time, defined as the period from when the units are actually responding until arrival at the incident is a factor of the number of fire and EMS stations, the ability to travel unimpeded on the road network, the existing road network’s ability to navigate the community, and the availability of the units. Largely, travel time is the most stable variable to utilize in system design regarding response time performance.
Therefore, these GIS planning analyses will focus on travel time capability as the unit of measure. The 2016 countywide aggregate performance for travel time across programs is provided below. Overall, the travel time is approximately 13 minutes (13.1) or less for 90% of the EMS incidents. However, the fire related incidents had a travel time performance of approximately 12.4 minutes or less for 90% of the incidents.
Table 1: 2016 90th Percentile Call Processing, Turnout, and Travel Time of First Arriving Units by Program (w/o Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
Call Processing Program CPT & Turnout Time Travel Time Total Response Time Time
EMS 1.5 3.7 13.1 15.6 Fire 1.5 8.3 12.4 18.4 Haz. Mat. 1.9 10.1 9.4 17.0 Tech. Rescue 2.0 10.2 12.9 19.0
1.6 4.6 13.0 15.9 Total
However, there is considerable variability within York County across the district areas. Therefore, an analysis was completed to differentiate the 90th percentile performance between agencies. Travel time performance varies between 8 minutes in Fort Mill to a high of 15.8 minutes in Bullocks Creek. Data are presented in the table below.
Fire Protection Master Plan 151 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Table 2: 90th Percentile First Arrival Responses by Agency (w/o/ Rock Hill & Tega Cay)
CPT & Call Processing Total Response Agency Turnout Travel Time Time Time Time
Bethany-Santiago Fire 2.0 14.4 11.6 22.9 Department
Bethel Fire Department 1.6 8.1 11.9 18.2
Bethesda Fire Department 1.8 9.4 10.3 17.2 Bullocks Creek Fire 3.0 22.6 15.8 48.5 Department Clover Fire Department 1.8 14.1 10.5 21.3 Flint Hill Fire Department 1.6 4.8 9.0 12.7 Fort Mill Fire Department 1.6 4.6 8.0 11.3 Hickory Grove Fire 1.8 11.1 12.7 20.5 Department Lesslie Fire Department 1.7 10.5 10.1 19.3 McConnells Fire 2.8 16.7 11.3 28.3 Department Newport Fire Department 1.5 8.5 12.7 19.8 Oakdale Fire Department 2.0 8.3 11.2 18.2 Piedmont EMS 1.5 3.4 13.4 15.8 Riverview Fire 1.6 7.0 12.4 18.8 Department Sharon Fire Department 2.7 10.9 11.4 23.8 Smyrna Fire Department 1.9 10.3 13.4 22.6 York Fire Department 1.6 4.3 9.6 13.2 Total 1.6 4.6 13.0 15.9
Comparison to National References There are two notable references for travel time available to the fire service in National Fire 32 Protection Association (NFPA) 17100F and the Commission on Fire Accreditation International 33 th (CFAI)1F . NFPA 1710 suggests a 4-minute travel time at the 90 percentile for first due arrival of Basic Life Support (BLS) and Fire incidents and the CFAI recommends a 5 minute and 12 seconds travel time for first due arrival in an urban/Suburban population density. The arrival of an Advanced Life Support (ALS) unit is recommended at 8-minutes travel time by NFPA 1710. Finally, the CFAI has provided for a 13-minute travel time in rural areas. It is important to note
32 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. 33 CFAI. (2009). Fire & emergency service self-assessment manual, (8th ed.). Chantilly, Virginia: Author. (page 71)
Fire Protection Master Plan 152 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
that the latest edition (9th edition) of the CFAI guidelines have de-emphasized response time 34 and only reference the legacy standards with a separately provided companion document2F .
The CFAI recommendations for rural areas are more closely aligned with the system’s historical travel time performance as the aggregate performance is 13-minutes at the 90th percentile. When referring to the marginal utility analysis provided below, the ascending rank order is the station’s capability to cover risk (incidents) in relation to the total historical call volume of the sample period (2016). The Station number is the current fire station identifier in York County. The station capture is the number of calls the station would capture within a 13-minute travel time. The total capture is the cumulative number of calls captured with the addition of each fire and EMS station. The percent capture is the total cumulative percentage of risk covered by each station. The goal would be to achieve at least 90 percent capture.
Therefore, the station that contributed the most to the overall system’s performance was FMFD in the first column and would capture 42.36% of the risks within 13-minutes. NP3 would cover an additional 23.42% of the risk bringing the cumulative total to 65.78% between the FMFD and NP3 stations. In total, with all 20 fixed facilities, 99.83% of the incidents could be responded to within 13-minutes travel time or less. Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill, and Tega Cay incidents were not included. However, fixed facilities in Rock Hill and Tega Cay are included. Results are provided as Table 3.
Evaluation of Various Distribution models As previously discussed, these analyses utilized 2016 historical performance as the desired performance for system designs. As previously evaluated, the 13-minute model most closely aligns with the capabilities for road network and impedance and matches well with the historical performance.
Alternatively, differentiation can also be developed through analyses of the historical demand as opposed to population density or land use plans. In this manner, we calculate call density based on the relative concentration of incidents based on approximately 0.5-mile geographic areas as well as the adjacent 0.5-mile areas. The results demonstrate an “urban/rural” designation based on call density for services. The red areas are designated as “urban” service areas and the green areas are designated as “rural” service areas. Any area that is not colored has less than one call every six months in the 0.5-mile area and the at least half of the adjacent areas.
The model presented as Figure 1, is well aligned with the occupancy risk identified in the risk analyses.
34 CFAI. (2016). Fire & emergency service self-assessment manual, (9th ed.). Chantilly, Virginia: Author.
Fire Protection Master Plan 153 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 58: Urban and Rural Call Density Map with Current Stations
Fire Protection Master Plan 154 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Table 3: Marginal Fire and EMS Station Contribution for 13-Minute Travel Time (excluding Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill, and Tega Cay incidents but Rock Hill and Tega Cay Facilities Remain)
Rank Station Number Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 FMFD 2,993 2,993 42.36% 2 NP3 1,655 4,648 65.78% 3 CLFD 689 5,337 75.53% 4 RH1 666 6,003 84.96% 5 RV2 261 6,264 88.65% 6 SH1 251 6,515 92.20% 7 MCFD 137 6,652 94.14% 8 BE2 134 6,786 96.04% 9 LS1 119 6,905 97.72% 10 SM2 73 6,978 98.75% 11 FH1 17 6,995 99.00% 12 HG1 17 7,012 99.24% 13 BT1 13 7,025 99.42% 14 NP2 9 7,034 99.55% 15 BE3 7 7,041 99.65% 16 RH5 6 7,047 99.73% 17 BSFD 3 7,050 99.77% 18 BE1 2 7,052 99.80% 19 LS3 1 7,053 99.82% 20 OD1 1 7,054 99.83%
Validation of Planning Analysis The first step in this validation analysis is to utilize the historical performance to validate the planning analyses utilized by the GIS system. The historical performance demonstrated a 13- minute travel time from the existing fire and EMS stations at the 90th percentile. As the previous analysis demonstrated the current system is able to achieve greater than 99.83% coverage in 13-minutes or less. Therefore, there is high degree of agreement between the planning tools and the actual historical performance.
Validating Internal Performance Objectives York County does not currently utilize internal performance measures or have adopted levels of service for fire suppression activities. While it is understood that fire and EMS stations may be placed for a wide variety of options, from a purely operational standpoint, York County could maintain a 13-minute travel time performance for 90% of the incidents with a minimum of 6 of the current facilities.
Recommended Internal Performance Objectives The previous section demonstrated the agreement between the historical performance data and the GIS modeling with respect to the ability to maintain or improve performance.
Fire Protection Master Plan 155 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Therefore, internal performance objectives are offered to identify the most parsimonious station configuration to achieve the quickest response time available. These alternatives include both differentiated service designs for urban/suburban versus rural population densities as well as uniform performance across the county.
8-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Excluding Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill and Tega Cay Incidents and Locations Considering an 8-minute travel time, the (green) shading indicates the estimated travel time capabilities from the existing road networks. The darker the (green) shading, the more overlap exists between response capabilities within the current configuration. Finally, the number in parenthesis “(1)” indicates the order of contribution to system performance at the specific travel time goal 90% of the time or less. For example, referring to Figure 2, Station FH1 contributes the most to the overall success of the system and Station BS contributes the least. However, as illustrated, 19 York County stations would be needed to achieve an 8-minute travel time to 90% of the urban/suburban incidents. With the addition of Stations LS3 and HG1, the same stations would achieve a total of 99.24% of all incidents within 13-minutes or less. In other words, a 21-station configuration could achieve both 90% of all incidents in 8-minutes and 99% of all incidents in 13-minutes or less travel time. Results of this analysis are presented as Table 4 and Figure 2 below.
Table 4: 8-Minute Urban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time w/o Piedmont EMS, Tega Cay, or Rock Hill
Rank Station Number Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 FH1 2,144 2,144 30.34% 2 YFD 845 2,989 42.30% 3 FMFD 625 3,614 51.15% 4 BE1 456 4,070 57.60% 5 LS1 411 4,481 63.42% 6 NP2 320 4,801 67.95% 7 CLFD 318 5,119 72.45% 8 BT1 281 5,400 76.42% 9 NP3 241 5,641 79.83% 10 OD2 148 5,789 81.93% 11 SH1 87 5,876 83.16% 12 SM2 85 5,961 84.36% 13 BT2 71 6,032 85.37% 14 FH2 70 6,102 86.36% 15 MCFD 68 6,170 87.32% 16 BE3 67 6,237 88.27% 17 BE2 52 6,289 89.00% 18 LS2 52 6,341 89.74% 19 BS 51 6,392 90.46%
Fire Protection Master Plan 156 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 59: 8-Minute Urban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time w/o Piedmont EMS, Tega Cay, or Rock Hill
10-Minute Urban/Suburban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Excluding Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill and Tega Cay Incidents and Locations The 10-minute travel time modeling suggests that a 9-station configuration could achieve 10- minute travel time to the 90% of the incidents. The addition of Stations SH1, BS, OD1, BE2, and MCFD would increase the rural coverage to greater than 99% (99.21%) within 13-minutes or less. Stations LS1, CLFD, FH1, and FMFD would cover both urban and rural responsibilities. In other words, a total of 14-stations would achieve 90% of all incidents within 10-minutes and 99% of all incidents (including rural) within 13-minutes. This scenario would require 5 less stations than the 8-minute scenario previously presented.
Fire Protection Master Plan 157 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Table 5: 10-Minute Urban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time w/o Piedmont EMS, Tega Cay, or Rock Hill
Rank Station Number Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 FH1 2,661 2,661 37.66% 2 NP3 1,043 3,704 52.42% 3 LS1 575 4,279 60.56% 4 BE1 542 4,821 68.23% 5 YFD 416 5,237 74.12% 6 CLFD 357 5,594 79.17% 7 BT1 343 5,937 84.02% 8 FMFD 283 6,220 88.03% 9 NP2 159 6,379 90.28% 10 SH1 186 6,565 92.91% 11 BS 116 6,681 94.55% 12 OD1 100 6,781 95.97% 13 BE2 54 6,835 96.73% 14 LS1 52 6,887 97.47% 15 MCFD 38 6,925 98.00% 16 CLFD 33 6,958 98.47% 17 FH1 33 6,991 98.94% 18 FMFD 19 7,010 99.21%
Figure 60: 10-Minute Urban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time w/o Piedmont EMS, Tega Cay, or Rock Hill
Fire Protection Master Plan 158 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
12-Minute Travel Time Excluding Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill and Tega Cay Incidents and Locations The 12-minute travel time modeling suggests that a 7-station configuration would achieve a travel time of 12-minutes or less to 90% of the incidents. The 8th station, beginning below the shaded row, through the 21st station would only improve performance by approximately 7%. In other words, the first 7 stations would provide 90% coverage and the next 14 stations would provide an additional 7% coverage.
Table 6: 12-Minute Travel Time w/o Piedmont EMS, Tega Cay, or Rock Hill
Rank Station Number Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 FH1 2,890 2,890 40.90% 2 NP3 1,501 4,391 62.14% 3 CLFD 703 5,094 72.09% 4 LS1 643 5,737 81.19% 5 BT1 352 6,089 86.17% 6 SH1 262 6,351 89.88% 7 BE2 236 6,587 93.22% 8 FMFD 155 6,742 95.41% 9 SM2 108 6,850 96.94% 10 MCFD 33 6,883 97.41% 11 HG1 29 6,912 97.82% 12 BE3 27 6,939 98.20% 13 NP2 26 6,965 98.57% 14 OD2 26 6,991 98.94% 15 LS2 14 7,005 99.14% 16 BS 13 7,018 99.32% 17 BE1 8 7,026 99.43% 18 RV2 4 7,030 99.49% 19 YFD 2 7,032 99.52% 20 FH2 1 7,033 99.53% 21 LS3 1 7,034 99.55%
Fire Protection Master Plan 159 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 61: 12-Minute Travel Time w/o Piedmont EMS, Tega Cay, or Rock Hill
13-Minute Travel Time Excluding Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill and Tega Cay Incidents and Locations The 13-minute travel time modeling suggests that a 6-station configuration would achieve a travel time of 13-minutes or less to 90% of the incidents. The 7th station, beginning below the shaded row, through the 19st station would only improve performance by approximately 7%. In other words, the first 6 stations would provide 92% coverage and the next 13 stations would provide less than 8% additional coverage.
Fire Protection Master Plan 160 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Table 7: 13-Minute Travel Time w/o Piedmont EMS, Tega Cay, or Rock Hill
Rank Station Number Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 FMFD 2,993 2,993 42.36% 2 NP3 1,655 4,648 65.78% 3 CLFD 689 5,337 75.53% 4 LS1 595 5,932 83.95% 5 BT1 328 6,260 88.59% 6 RV2 261 6,521 92.29% 7 SH1 238 6,759 95.66% 8 BE2 134 6,893 97.55% 9 SM2 73 6,966 98.58% 10 MCFD 18 6,984 98.84% 11 FH1 17 7,001 99.08% 12 HG1 17 7,018 99.32% 13 LS3 9 7,027 99.45% 14 NP2 9 7,036 99.58% 15 BE3 7 7,043 99.67% 16 LS2 5 7,048 99.75% 17 BS 3 7,051 99.79% 18 BE1 2 7,053 99.82% 19 OD1 1 7,054 99.83%
Figure 62: 13-Minute Travel Time w/o Piedmont EMS, Tega Cay, or Rock Hill
Fire Protection Master Plan 161 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
8-Minute Urban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Excluding Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill and Tega Cay Incidents but Including Rock Hill and Tega Cay Fire Stations Considering an 8-minute travel time, the (green) shading indicates the estimated travel time capabilities from the existing road networks. The darker the (green) shading, the more overlap exists between response capabilities within the current configuration. Finally, the number in parenthesis “(1)” indicates the order of contribution to system performance at the specific travel time goal 90% of the time or less. For example, referring to Figure 6, Station FMFD contributes the most to the overall success of the system and Station OD1 contributes the least. However, as illustrated, 19 York County stations would be needed to achieve an 8-minute travel time to 90% of the urban/suburban incidents. The same stations would achieve a total approximately 98% of all incidents within 13-minutes or less. In other words, a 19-station configuration could achieve both 90% of all incidents in 8-minutes and 98% of all incidents in 13-minutes or less travel time. Results of this analysis are presented as Table 8 and Figure67 below.
Table 8: 8-Minute Urban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time w/o Piedmont EMS, Tega Cay, or Rock Hill Incidents but Including Tega Cay and Rock Hill Fire Station Locations Rank Station Number Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 FH1 2,144 2,144 30.34% 2 YFD 845 2,989 42.30% 3 FMFD 625 3,614 51.15% 4 BE1 456 4,070 57.60% 5 LS1 411 4,481 63.42% 6 NP2 320 4,801 67.95% 7 CLFD 318 5,119 72.45% 8 BT1 281 5,400 76.42% 9 NP3 241 5,641 79.83% 10 RH1 174 5,815 82.30% 11 SH1 87 5,902 83.53% 12 SM2 85 5,987 84.73% 13 FH2 70 6,057 85.72% 14 MCFD 68 6,125 86.68% 15 BE3 67 6,192 87.63% 16 BE2 52 6,244 88.37% 17 LS2 52 6,296 89.10% 18 BSFD 51 6,347 89.82% 19 RH3 45 6,392 90.46%
Fire Protection Master Plan 162 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 63: 8-Minute Urban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time w/o Piedmont EMS, Tega Cay, or Rock Hill Incidents but Including Tega Cay and Rock Hill Fire Station Locations
10-Minute Urban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Excluding Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill and Tega Cay Incidents but Including Rock Hill and Tega Cay Fire Stations The 10-minute travel time modeling suggests that a 10-station configuration could achieve 10- minute travel time to the 90% of the incidents. The addition of Stations RH3, VSFD, and BE3 would increase the rural coverage to nearly 98% (97.81%) within 13-minutes or less. Stations SH1, BT1, FM1, FMFD, and CLFD would cover both urban and rural responsibilities. In other words, a total of 13-stations would achieve 90% of all incidents within 10-minutes and approximately 98% of all incidents (including rural) within 13-minutes. This scenario would require 6 less stations than the 8-minute scenario previously presented.
Fire Protection Master Plan 163 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Table 9: 10-Minute Urban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time w/o Piedmont EMS, Tega Cay, or Rock Hill Incidents but Including Tega Cay and Rock Hill Fire Station Locations
Rank Station Number Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 FH1 2,661 2,661 37.66% 2 NP3 1,043 3,704 52.42% 3 RH1 589 4,293 60.76% 4 BE1 542 4,835 68.43% 5 YFD 416 5,251 74.31% 6 CLFD 357 5,608 79.37% 7 FMFD 280 5,888 83.33% 8 LS3 240 6,128 86.73% 9 BT1 209 6,337 89.68% 10 SH1 130 6,467 91.52% 11 RH3 143 6,610 93.55% 12 BSFD 116 6,726 95.19% 13 SH1 56 6,782 95.98% 14 BE3 54 6,836 96.74% 15 BT1 42 6,878 97.34% 16 FH1 33 6,911 97.81% 17 LS2 33 6,944 98.27% 18 BE2 26 6,970 98.64% 19 FMFD 19 6,989 98.91% 20 HG1 19 7,008 99.18% 21 MCFD 18 7,026 99.43% 22 CLFD 16 7,042 99.66% 23 OD2 9 7,051 99.79% 24 RV2 3 7,054 99.83% 25 SM2 3 7,057 99.87% 26 LS1 1 7,058 99.89%
Fire Protection Master Plan 164 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 64: 10-Minute Urban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time w/o Piedmont EMS, Tega Cay, or Rock Hill Incidents but Including Tega Cay and Rock Hill Fire Station Locations
12-Minute Travel Time Excluding Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill and Tega Cay Incidents but Including Rock Hill and Tega Cay Fire Stations The 12-minute travel time modeling suggests that a 7-station configuration would achieve a travel time of 12-minutes or less to 90% of the incidents. The 8th station, beginning below the shaded row, through the 23rd station would only improve performance by approximately 8%. In other words, the first 7 stations would provide 91.57% coverage and the next 16 stations would provide an additional 8% coverage.
Fire Protection Master Plan 165 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Table 10: 12-Minute Travel Time w/o Piedmont EMS, Tega Cay, or Rock Hill Incidents but Including Tega Cay and Rock Hill Fire Station Locations
Rank Station Number Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 FH1 2,890 2,890 40.90% 2 NP3 1,501 4,391 62.14% 3 CLFD 703 5,094 72.09% 4 RH1 696 5,790 81.94% 5 SH1 272 6,062 85.79% 6 BE2 236 6,298 89.13% 7 MCFD 172 6,470 91.57% 8 FMFD 155 6,625 93.76% 9 LS1 150 6,775 95.88% 10 SM2 108 6,883 97.41% 11 RH2 33 6,916 97.88% 12 HG1 29 6,945 98.29% 13 BE3 27 6,972 98.67% 14 BT1 17 6,989 98.91% 15 LS2 14 7,003 99.11% 16 BSFD 13 7,016 99.29% 17 BE1 8 7,024 99.41% 18 RV2 4 7,028 99.46% 19 LS3 2 7,030 99.49% 20 YFD 2 7,032 99.52% 21 FH2 1 7,033 99.53% 22 OD1 1 7,034 99.55% 23 RH3 1 7,035 99.56%
Fire Protection Master Plan 166 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 65: 12-Minute Travel Time w/o Piedmont EMS, Tega Cay, or Rock Hill Incidents but Including Tega Cay and Rock Hill Fire Station Locations
13-Minute Travel Time Excluding Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill and Tega Cay Incidents but Including Rock Hill and Tega Cay Fire Stations The 13-minute travel time modeling suggests that a 6-station configuration would achieve a travel time of 13-minutes or less to 90% of the incidents. The 7th station, beginning below the shaded row, through the 2oth station would only improve performance by approximately 8%. In other words, the first 6 stations would provide 92% coverage and the next 14 stations would provide less than 8% additional coverage.
Fire Protection Master Plan 167 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Table 11: 13-Minute Travel Time w/o Piedmont EMS, Tega Cay, or Rock Hill Incidents but Including Tega Cay and Rock Hill Fire Station Locations
Rank Station Number Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 FMFD 2,993 2,993 42.36% 2 NP3 1,655 4,648 65.78% 3 CLFD 689 5,337 75.53% 4 RH1 666 6,003 84.96% 5 RV2 261 6,264 88.65% 6 SH1 251 6,515 92.20% 7 MCFD 137 6,652 94.14% 8 BE2 134 6,786 96.04% 9 LS1 119 6,905 97.72% 10 SM2 73 6,978 98.75% 11 FH1 17 6,995 99.00% 12 HG1 17 7,012 99.24% 13 BT1 13 7,025 99.42% 14 NP2 9 7,034 99.55% 15 BE3 7 7,041 99.65% 16 RH5 6 7,047 99.73% 17 BSFD 3 7,050 99.77% 18 BE1 2 7,052 99.80% 19 LS3 1 7,053 99.82% 20 OD1 1 7,054 99.83%
Fire Protection Master Plan 168 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 66: 13-Minute Travel Time w/o Piedmont EMS, Tega Cay, or Rock Hill Incidents but Including Tega Cay and Rock Hill Fire Station Locations
Risk Analyses Occupancy Level Risk Occupancy risk was evaluated across the jurisdiction utilizing the most recent ISO batch reports. The ISO Batch report provided specific building occupancy information for the needed fire flow, the number of stories, location, building construction, burning degree, and the presence of automatic sprinklers. Ultimately, a quantifiable risk-rating matrix was developed that categorized 1,214 occupancies within the jurisdiction into high, moderate, and low risks. The risk matrix is presented in Table 12 below.
Due to the relatively higher demands for personnel and apparatus required for fire events that have a large square footage, higher elevation (stories), and specific types of occupancy and construction risks garnished the highest numeric values. Conversely, the presence of an automatic sprinkler system elicited a negative numeric value. In this manner, the fact that 96% of the fires are controlled with sprinkler activation is included into the matrix for a more
Fire Protection Master Plan 169 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
realistic risk factor rating. The results of the risk assessment process categorized the 1,214 occupancies into 12 high-risk structures, 1,060 moderate structures, and 142 low risk structures.
Geospatial analyses were completed to map the locations of each of the commercial occupancies included in the risk matrix process and specifically overlaid with station locations identified. This analysis lends validity to the risk assessment matrix and the process utilized as the concentration of risks is correlated with the historical demand for fire related services. The results of the geospatial analyses of high, moderate, and low risk structures are presented below as Figures 10, 11, and 12, respectively.
Fire Protection Master Plan 170 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Table 12: Summary of Occupancy Risk Matrix
Full Credit Total Number of Building Combustion Fire Flow Square Footage Construction Class Sprinkler System Risk Risk Class Stories Class (Yes/No) Score Value Scale Value Scale Value Scale Value Scale Value Scale Value Scale Quick >=100k Combustible Free and High 3 ≥ 1500 gpm 5 ≥ 4 5 5 5 -10/0 ≥ 17 Sq. Ft. or Frame Rapid Burning > 1 > 10k < > 499 and Joisted >5 and Moderate 2 3 and < 3 100k 3 3 Combustible -10/0 < 1500 gpm Masonry <17 4 Sq. Ft. Non- Slow < 10k Combustible Sq. Ft. Masonry Non/Limited Low 1 ≤ 499 gpm 1 1 1 1 1 -10/0 ≤ 5 Non- Combustible Combustible Fire Resistive
Fire Protection Master Plan 171 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 67: High Risk Occupancies by Station Demand Zone
Fire Protection Master Plan 172 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 68: Moderate Risk Occupancies by Station Demand Zone
Fire Protection Master Plan 173 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 69: Low Risk Occupancies by Station Demand Zone
Concentration of Risks by Demand Zone Analyses were conducted to describe and measure the relative concentration of risks in each of the agency jurisdictions. Therefore, an agency level risk matrix was developed to quantitatively evaluate the relative risk by including measures for the frequency of moderate and high risk occupancies in each jurisdiction that are directly correlated to the necessity of higher concentrations of resources. In addition, variables were utilized that both serves the distribution aspect of the risk evaluation, but also contributes to the need for higher concentrations of resources. For example, a higher call volume may serve to drive the need for additional resources to cover the community’s demand.
The variables included in the risk matrix are the demand for services for each agency, the number of high and moderate-risk occupancies, and the impact of simultaneous events in each jurisdiction. All measures were weighted equally, however, two variables have surrogate relationships with historical community demands and one variable is dedicated to prospective occupancy risk. Community demands were rated more heavily in an effort to provide a realistic balance between the risk potential with historical experience. The risk tool and the scoring template are provided below.
Fire Protection Master Plan 174 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Table 13: Agency/Jurisdiction Risk Concentration Matrix
g
Station FDZ Station Community Demand ConcurrencyCall High/Moderate Occupancies Risk Score risk Total Ratin Risk
Bethany-Santiago 1 4 1 4.06 Low Bethel 2 4 3 11.05 Low Bethesda 1 3 1 3.08 Low Bullocks Creek 1 3 1 3.08 Low Clover 2 4 4 13.86 Low Flint Hill 3 4 6 22.85 Moderate Fort Mill 4 8 1 23.49 Moderate Hickory Grove 1 2 1 2.12 Low Lesslie 2 2 2 4.90 Low McConnels 1 3 1 3.08 Low Newport 2 3 2 6.63 Low Oakdale 1 3 1 3.08 Low Riverview 2 3 2 6.63 Low Sharon 1 3 1 3.08 Low Smyrna 1 1 1 1.22 Low York 3 4 4 16.49 Moderate
In total the risk profile resulted in three moderate-risk areas in Flint Hill, For Mill, and York. All other areas were determined to be a low-risk response area based on the occupancy data available.
The following concentration matrix was utilized to create three-dimensional models of each agency’s risk profile base on the variables of community demand, call concurrency, and the number of high and moderate risk occupancies.
Fire Protection Master Plan 175 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Table 14: Summary of Agency Level Risk Concentration Matrix
High/Moderate Risk Community Demand (D) Call Concurrency (C) Total Risk Score Occupancies (R) Risk Class Scale ($%)' + ($))' + ()%)') Value Scale (Calls) Value Scale (%) Value √ (Occupancies) '
Maximum ≥10 ≥4,050 ≥10 ≥ 27 ≥10 ≥500 ≥72
≥ 2,700 and ≥ 18 and High 7 − 9 7 7 to 9 ≥ 300 and <449 ≥ 39.35 and < 72 < 4,049 < 27
≥ 1,350 and < Moderate 4 to 6 5 ≥ 9 and < 18 4 to 6 ≥ 150 and < 300 ≥ 16.49 and < 39.35 2,700
Low 1 to 3 < 1,350 1 <9 1 to 3 < 150 < 16.49
* Definitions for Occupancy Risk Type were provided as part of the full risk assessment previously.
Fire Protection Master Plan 176 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
The resulting three-dimensional models illustrate the representativeness of each of the variables as they contribute to each agency’s risk profile. For example, one agency may score heavily in potential risk and have moderate or low demand for services and another agency may have little potential risk but have high demand and call concurrency that drives the necessity for a greater concentration of resources.
Graphic representations of the three axis risk matrices are provided below. When reviewing these radar figures, the larger the shaded area, the greater the risk. In addition, each axis is labeled so that the reader can determine the relationship between the risk drivers for each station area.
Figure 70: Bethany-Santiago Risk Profile
Bethany-Santiago Demand 4 3 2 1 0
Call Concurrency Risk
Low
Fire Protection Master Plan 177 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 71: Bethel Risk Profile
Bethel Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0
Call Concurrency Risk
Low
Figure 72: Bethesda Risk Profile
Bethesda Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0
Call Concurrency Risk
Low
Fire Protection Master Plan 178 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 73: Bullocks Creek Risk Profile
Bullocks Creek Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0
Call Concurrency Risk
Low
Figure 74: Clover Risk Profile
Clover Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0
Call Concurrency Risk
Low
Fire Protection Master Plan 179 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 75: Flint Hill Risk Profile
Flint Hill Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0
Call Concurrency Risk
Moderate
Figure 76: Fort Mill Risk Profile
Fort Mill Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0
Call Concurrency Risk
Moderate
Fire Protection Master Plan 180 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 77: Hickory Grove Risk Profile
Hickory Grove Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0
Call Concurrency Risk
Low
Figure 78: Lesslie Risk Profile
Lesslie Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0
Call Concurrency Risk
Low
Fire Protection Master Plan 181 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 79: McConnels Risk Profile
McConnels Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0
Call Concurrency Risk
Low
Figure 80: Newport Risk Profile
Newport Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0
Call Concurrency Risk
Low
Fire Protection Master Plan 182 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 81: Oakdale Risk Profile
Oakdale Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0
Call Concurrency Risk
Low
Figure 82: Riverview Risk Profile
Riverview Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0
Call Concurrency Risk
Low
Fire Protection Master Plan 183 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 83: Sharon Risk Profile
Sharon Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0
Call Concurrency Risk
Low
Figure 84: Smyrna Risk Profile
Smyrna Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0
Call Concurrency Risk
Low
Fire Protection Master Plan 184 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 85: York Risk Profile
York Demand 10 8 6 4 2 0
Call Concurrency Risk
Moderate
Optimized Station Distribution Plans 8-Minute Urban and 13-Minute Travel Time Excluding Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill, or Tega Cay Incidents Analyses were completed to develop an optimized station distribution model for an 8-minute urban and 13-minute travel time. This evaluation suggests, that an optimized 14 or 15-station model can provide for 90% effectiveness covering all incidents within 8-minutes in the urban areas and greater than 98% of all incidents in 13-minutes or less. A graphic illustration is presented below.
Fire Protection Master Plan 185 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 86: Optimized Station Deployment Plan – 8-Minute Urban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Excluding Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill, or Tega Cay Incidents
Fire Protection Master Plan 186 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
10-Minute Urban and 13-Minute Travel Time Excluding Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill, or Tega Cay Incidents Analyses were completed to develop an optimized station distribution model for a 10-minute urban and 13-minute travel time. This evaluation suggests, that an optimized 8-station model can provide for 90% effectiveness covering all incidents within 10-minutes in the urban areas and greater than 96% of all incidents in 13-minutes or less. A graphic illustration is presented below.
Figure 87: Optimized Station Deployment Plan – 10-Minute Urban and 13-Minute Rural Travel Time Excluding Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill, or Tega Cay Incidents
12-Minute Travel Time Excluding Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill, or Tega Cay Incidents Analyses were completed to develop an optimized station distribution model for a 12-minute travel time. This evaluation suggests, that an optimized 5-station model can provide for 91.5% effectiveness covering all incidents within 12-minutes or less. A graphic illustration is presented below.
Fire Protection Master Plan 187 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 88: Optimized Station Deployment Plan – 12-Minute Travel Time Excluding Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill, or Tega Cay Incidents
13-Minute Travel Time Excluding Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill, or Tega Cay Incidents Analyses were completed to develop an optimized station distribution model for a 13-minute travel time. This evaluation suggests, that an optimized 5-station model can provide for 91.62% effectiveness covering all incidents within 13-minutes or less. A graphic illustration is presented below.
Fire Protection Master Plan 188 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 89: Optimized Station Deployment Plan – 13-Minute Travel Time Excluding Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill, or Tega Cay Incidents
Geographic Coverage without Consideration for Call Distribution While there are multiple deployment strategies that may be adopted, two clear policy positions emerge in communities. First, position stations that are best prepared to meet the community’s historical distribution of calls or demand for services. The advantage to this approach is that it is a more efficient model to address meeting 90% of the risk within the desired performance. This is a very stable outlook for communities that are established and are growing in density or in-fill rather than through significant annexations or urban growth.
A second strategy is to provide station response coverage purely on a geographic lens without any consideration for how calls are distributed throughout the community. In addition, this analysis utilized distance without consideration to the relative impendence and/or the robustness of the road network. For example, when time is the unit of measure, a station could travel a farther distance on a highway then through a school zone, but this approach caps the coverage area at 1.5 miles regardless of available travel speeds. This strategy more closely follows the recommendations of the Insurance Services Office (ISO). Therefore, the following analyses examine the current coverage areas through the lens of ISO utilizing 2.5-mile truck
Fire Protection Master Plan 189 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
polygons and 5-mile station locations, respectively. Understanding the 2.5-mile truck polygons difficulty in connectivity, the 1.5-mile engine polygons were not completed.
2.5 Mile Engine/Ladder Truck Coverage As elevated occupancies become more prevalent, a greater need for ladder coverage may need to be evaluated. ISO allows for Service Vehicles in lieu of Ladder Trucks in geographic areas that do not have the requisite elevated structures. However, the risk profile and rural component within the county jurisdiction does not suggest a robust need for ladder truck coverage. As the development continues to grow, additional consideration may be appropriate.
Figure 90: ISO 2.5 Mile
5-Mile Station Distributions Finally, mapping analyses for the ISO 5-Mile configuration is provided below. ISO requires that each station has contiguous road miles within 5-miles of each other. This analysis confirms 5- mile connectivity, with the greatest degree of overlap on the eastern side of the county. Stations that are distant from 5-miles may be subject to independent rating.
Fire Protection Master Plan 190 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 91: Current Station Configuration - ISO 5 Mile
Effective Response Force Mapping Similar to previous discussion, there are two prevailing recommendations for the time to assemble an effective response force for structure fires. First, NFPA 1710 suggests that the Effective Response Force (ERF) should arrive in eight (8) minutes travel time or less. Second, the CFAI provides a baseline travel time performance objective of 10 minutes and 24 seconds 90% of the time or less in urban areas. Finally, the CFAI also affords 13-minutes in suburban areas, and 18-minutes to assemble and ERF in the rural areas. Therefore, 13-minute, and 18- minute travel times were created to demonstrate the relative coverage throughout the jurisdiction.
Overall, the ERF coverage is reasonable for much of the county and where the greatest historical demand exists. The areas in the perimeters of the county, especially to the west and south west, are most prone to be challenged since they do not benefit from concentric response zones.
Fire Protection Master Plan 191 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 92: 13-Minute ERF from All Current Stations
Fire Protection Master Plan 192 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 93: 18-Minute ERF from All Current Stations
Distribution of Risk Across the Jurisdiction Distribution of Demand by Program Areas Heat maps were created to identify the concentration of the historic demand for services by program area. Therefore, the following mapping will present the relative concentration of service demands by fire, EMS, hazmat, and rescue, respectively. The Blue areas have the least demand and the dark red areas have the highest concentration of demand.
When reviewing the heat maps, it is clear that the greatest relative density of service demands is generally located in and around the northeastern portion of the county and the City of York.
In all heat mapping, Piedmont EMS, Rock Hill, and Tega Cay incidents are excluded.
Fire Protection Master Plan 193 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 94: Heat Map for Fire Related Incidents
Fire Protection Master Plan 194 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
The distribution of EMS calls follows a similar pattern as the fire related incidents, with concentrates to the east-northeast and the City of York.
Figure 95: Heat Map for EMS Related Incidents
The relatively lower frequency of incidents for hazardous materials and rescue events provide a less concentrated distribution of incidents. In each case the higher concentrations account for less than 5 calls. Therefore, caution should be used to alter deployment schemes based on such low call volume. However, it is recognized that the hazmat and rescue programs continue to follow a similar pattern.
Fire Protection Master Plan 195 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 96: Heat Map for HazMat Related Incidents
Fire Protection Master Plan 196 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 97: Heat Map for Rescue Related Incidents
As expected, a heat map of all incidents provides the greatest concentrations of incidents in the northeast and the City of York.
Fire Protection Master Plan 197 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 98: Heat Map for ALL Incidents
Long-Term Sustainability of the Models Presented It is important to understand that the distribution models are restrictive to the geographic limitations of the jurisdiction and the historical demand for services. Therefore, the number of stations is descriptive of the number of fixed facilities required from which to deploy resources. These analyses do not specifically describe the concentration of resources required at each fire and EMS station facility to adequately handle the demand for services. For example, some stations may require two or more units in order to handle the demand for services.
With respect to the long-term sustainability of the deployment models presented here, the models will remain accurate for as long as the jurisdictions’ overall coverage area has not expanded. In other words, as the square mileage remains, then the deployment strategy will be sustainable indefinitely with respect to the coverage area. As other variables such as population density or changes in socioeconomic status change over time, there may be a need for a higher concentration of resources necessary to meet the growing demand for services, but
Fire Protection Master Plan 198 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
not additional stations. The most prominent reason that the geographic distribution model would need to be updated is for changes in traffic impedance that significantly limit the historical average travel speed. Monitoring travel time performance, system reliability, and call concurrency will provide timely feedback for changes in the environment that could impact the distribution model.
Projected Growth Five years of historical call volume were utilized to identify any general trends in community demands for service. Similar to many communities, the overall call volume is increasing at approximately 10% per year (9.9%).
Utilizing a forecasting model based on the 2012-2016 call data the departments included are predicted to see over a 10,000-call increase by 2025. This assumes no changes in the current variables. The Department may have to reinvest or reallocate resources to meet the growing demand in the future to meet the future system demand. A graphic representation of the historical and the forecasted growth is provided below. The forecast calls for 9.9% increase in call volume each year moving forward. The low was 3.9% and the high was 15.7%. Overall the forecast shows a 39.4% increase in total calls between 2012 and 2016.
Figure 99: Historical and Projected Growth in Total Call Volume
Projected Growth 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Low 3.9% High 15.7% Actual - 9.9%
Assuming that future demands will be reasonably distributed across the various stations in the system, the system will require a redistribution of workload and ultimately reinvestment in resources to meet the growing demand. While the system should be evaluated continuously for performance and desired outcomes, the department should specifically re-evaluate workload and performance indicators for every 1,000-call increase to ensure system stability.
Fire Protection Master Plan 199 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Population Characteristics Generally, older populations and very young populations are considered to be most vulnerable to the frequency and incidents of fire. In addition, older populations historically utilize EMS services with greater frequency. It is important to understand, what field crews often recognize intuitively, is that the distribution of population risks are not uniform across the jurisdiction. According to these data, overall the median age is less than 53. The US median age is 38. The median age is provided below.
Figure 100: Median Age - 2017
The population density in the County is largely of a rural density of less than 1,000 people per square mile with some urban/suburban concentrations. Of the more concentrated populations, all of the census tracts were below 4,000 persons per square mile and the majority were between 1,000 and 2,000 per square mile.
Fire Protection Master Plan 200 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 101: Population Density by Census Block - 2017
Growth is typically not experienced uniformly across large geographic areas. Graphically, projections between 2017 and 2022 anticipate that the population change is increasing with the greatest increases in the eastern portions of the County. There are little to no reductions in population projected in this data set. The greatest growth identified was 4% for any census block area with the majority of the darkest green growing at 2%. The rest of the county is growth at less than 2% per year.
Figure 102: Annual Population Change 2017-2022
Fire Protection Master Plan 201 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Finally, population alone is not the sole variable that influences the demand for services as socioeconomic and demographic factors have greater influence over demand. The median household income was evaluated to determine the degree to which the community had underprivileged populations. The national median income is estimated at approximately $54,149.
Fire Protection Master Plan 202 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 103: Median Household Income -2016
Fire Protection Master Plan 203 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
SECTION 5: Volunteer Recruitment & Retention
Fire Protection Master Plan 204 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Although the recruitment and retention challenges continue to grow, some volunteer organizations maintain good membership while others continue to function with reduced numbers. Those organizations that seek solutions and adapt to the changing personnel environment are successful. Individuals are still willing to give their time to volunteer emergency services organizations provided the following: • The experience is rewarding and worth their time. • The training requirements are not excessive. • The time demands are adaptable and manageable. • They are rewarded with a personal sense of value. • There is good leadership minimizing conflict. • There is ample support for the organization.
The emergency services are some of the most demanding of volunteer activities today. The physical and time demands associated with training; responding to incidents; maintaining facilities, apparatus, and equipment; fundraising; and administering a nonprofit corporation are grueling if not managed properly. In today’s hectic world, strong leadership is required to make the emergency services the organizations that will attract and retain volunteers.
As indicated by earlier research, there is no single reason for the decline in volunteers in most departments. However, there is a universal consensus that skilled department leadership is a key to resolving the problems. Retention and recruitment problems usually can be traced to several underlying factors: more demands on people’s time in a hectic modern society; more stringent training requirements; population shifts from smaller towns to urban centers; changes in the nature of small town industry and farming; internal leadership problems; and a decline in the sense of civic responsibility, among other factors. Although some regions are more affected than others, and the problems and solutions vary across regions, even within States and counties, volunteer retention and recruitment is a problem nationwide. Specifically, it is a local issue and must be dealt with locally.
Can the trend in declining volunteerism be reversed? Information collected reveals that departments that have taken steps to deal with the problems have seen a resurgence in volunteerism. This indicates that many of the problems can be mitigated or eliminated if proper attention and resources are given to them. This Section will attempt to identify and share the ideas and practices that are successful in recruitment and retention. Departments that have failed to address the problems and challenges of volunteering in today’s world have been forced to hire career firefighters, consolidate, or even close their doors.
Several factors underlie today’s retention and recruitment problem in the volunteer fire service. It is a complex and multifaceted problem. Although stringent training standards, leadership problems, and time constraints caused by increased family responsibilities-- particularly in two-career families and single-parent households--seem to be the most common causes, there are many other factors contributing to the turnover that volunteer departments are currently facing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics surveyed those that had volunteered at
Fire Protection Master Plan 205 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
some point in the past and reported the most common reasons for no longer participating.35 The results are reflected in the figure below.
Figure 104: Common Reasons for Participation Loss
Reason % Lack of time 44.7% Health/Medical problems 14.7% Family responsibilities 9.5% Other 8.2% No longer required/relevant 5.8% Wasn’t interested 4.3% Moved, transportation, expenses 4.2% No one asked 3.2% Burnout 2.4% No longer member of organization 1.7%
The following data are from the St. Joseph’s University Study in 2004:
What makes Your members leave Your organization? * No time to volunteer 93.3% Conflicts in organization 47.8% Organizational leadership created adverse atmosphere 46.7% Too much training 45.6% Attitude of existing personnel to newcomers 39.1% Criticism received from officers/older members 38.0% Lack of camaraderie 9.5% * Many respondents indicated more than one reason for leaving the organization
The causes of the problems are similar in all 50 States. No single region of the country is dealing with problems that are significantly different than those found in other regions. There are some differences, however, in problems faced by urban versus rural communities. These differences stem from the sociological differences in the urban versus rural communities.
Increased training requirements have had a major effect on retention and recruitment. On-the- job training is no longer permitted as a substitute for formal training and certification. The time when a volunteer can start to go on calls and do other “exciting” duties is delayed, and their initial enthusiasm may be lost. Also, some volunteers are not good at taking written tests and may quit rather than face one, fail, and have to leave. Formal training, however, has made both
35 U.S. Fire Administration. (2007). Retention and Recruitment for the Volunteer Emergency Services: Challenges and Solutions. (FA-310). Emmitsburg, MD: U.S. Fire Administration.
Fire Protection Master Plan 206 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
the volunteer and career fire service more professional and effective. Increased training requirements have been particularly traumatic for older members who have no certifications and are no longer allowed to run certain calls. Some who once volunteered to simply join in and pull hose or drive the apparatus are no longer allowed to do so.
During the same time in which the number of volunteers has declined, the volunteer fire service has had to contend with an increase in the volume of emergency calls due to the lack of education on when to call 9-1-1. The NFPA reports that fire department call volumes increase at varying rates depending on the community. This means that volunteer fire departments have to do more with fewer people, and that the overall demands on individual volunteers have increased.
Increasing Emergency Medical Call Volume --Emergency medical calls have created the greatest increase in call volumes for fire departments. Years ago, most fire departments did not respond to EMS calls. Currently, more departments are becoming involved with providing medical service. This may only be at a first responder level; but regardless of the level, increases the response load considerably.
Increase in the Number of Automatic Alarms --As previously noted, the volume of automatic alarms has grown steadily, particularly in areas with commercial buildings that often have alarm systems. Fire departments have also experienced a sharp increase in call volume due to alarm system malfunctions. Many volunteers are growing tired of the time demands associated with responding to these malfunction false alarms. Some departments enact polices that, after a set number of malfunctions in a given time period, the occupants are charged the response costs and/or fined to reduce the unnecessary use of volunteer resources. In addition, medical alert alarms are adding to unnecessary emergency responses.
Less Emphasis on Social Aspects of Volunteering--The loss of the social aspects associated with volunteering has hurt recruitment and retention. Many volunteers join fire departments and stay involved not only to serve their community and help others in need, but also to develop social relationships. Some volunteers report that the time demands of volunteering coupled with the time constraints of everyday life have left no time to develop social ties or spend time outside of the station with other firefighters. Likewise, many fire departments have closed their firehouse clubs and pool rooms that historically have been social centers for many volunteers.
Many retention and recruitment problems can be traced back directly or indirectly to leadership problems. Effective leadership helps retain members as well as reduce dissatisfaction. Ineffective leadership is the most common reason for a decline in membership. Internal conflicts and other stresses drive members out of fire departments. The two greatest problems with internal conflict in the volunteer fire service originate among leaders or between volunteer and career members in combination departments.
Fire Protection Master Plan 207 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
The erosion of the volunteer fire service in the United States has economic and social effects. The economic ramifications are obvious, as towns are forced to hire career firefighters in place of volunteers. The 75 percent of the country served by volunteer firefighters relies on them to be the first line of defense in almost any type of emergency from fires and medical emergencies to technical rescues and hazardous materials spills. Volunteers are the initial mitigators before the arrival of county, State, or Federal backup emergency response teams for all types of natural disasters. Of the over 30,000 fire departments in the United States, 88 percent are volunteer, protecting 40 percent of the population.
Fire Chiefs Jack Snook, Jeff Johnson, and Dan Olsen are national experts on retention of volunteer firefighters. In their book, Recruiting, Training, and Maintaining Volunteer Firefighters36, they identify four characteristics of a volunteer department that are essential to retaining members: • The program must meet individual needs. • The program must provide its membership with reward and recognition. • The program must provide adequate supervision and leadership. • The program must challenge members.
The research by St. Joseph’s University confirmed these as core elements to recruitment and retention coupled with the issue that all recruitment and retention is local. Additionally, the needs, leadership, and challenges are all local.
“Volunteer Viewpoint” If you want my loyalty, interests, and best efforts, remember that:
1. I need a sense of belonging, a feeling that I am honestly needed for my total self, not just for my hands, nor because I take orders well. 2. I need to have a sense of sharing in planning our objectives. My need will be satisfied only when I feel that my ideas have had a fair hearing. 3. I need to feel that the goals and objectives of the organization are within reach and that they make sense to me. 4. I need to feel that what I’m doing has a real purpose that contributes to human welfare-- that its value extends beyond my personal gain, or hours. 5 . I need to share in making the rules by which, together, we shall live and work toward our goals. 6. I need to know with some clear detail just what is expected of me--not only my detailed task but where I have opportunity to make personal and final decisions. 7. I need to have some responsibilities that challenge, that are within range of my abilities and interest, that contribute toward reaching my assigned goal, and that cover all goals. 8. I need to see that progress is being made toward the goals we have set.
36 Snook, J; Johnson, J; Olson, D. (2011). Recruiting, Training, and Maintaining Volunteer Firefighters, 3rd Ed. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. ISBN 13: 978-0763742102
Fire Protection Master Plan 208 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
9. I need to be kept informed. What I’m not up on, I may be down on. (Keeping me informed is one way to give me status as an individual.) 10. I need to have confidence in my superiors--confidence based upon assurance of consistent fair treatment, or recognition when it is due, and trust that loyalty will bring increased security.
The Effective Management of Volunteer Programs. J. Donald Philips, Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan.
As volunteers quit or are unable to respond in the daytime, more and more communities are forced to hire career firefighters. This may further diminish volunteers’ interest and cause more to drop out, or it may lighten the volunteers’ workload, thereby increasing their willingness to volunteer. Much depends on how the concept is sold to the department and how both the career and volunteers are managed. The greatest factor influencing the success of a combination department is good leadership that encourages the career and volunteer members to work together as a team recognizing the need for and importance of each other.
When career members are hired, fire departments must establish the roles and responsibilities of career and volunteer members in a clear, written format. These should include responsibilities with station duties and emergency calls. In the long run, written, defined roles will help to avoid conflict over who is supposed to do what.
Some departments that have hired career members have found that volunteers quit because they feel like they are being replaced and no longer have a purpose in the organization. To avoid this feeling, departments can give volunteers their own special role such as technical rescue response, staffing the second engine, staffing a ladder truck (if career personnel staff only an engine), or other fire ground support duties.
INCENTIVES Incentive programs are used throughout the volunteer fire service as a retention tool. They are necessary to help recruit and retain volunteers. Localities benefit financially from having experienced volunteers who are willing to stay active for years. Due to the demanding and risky nature of firefighting, many departments find that members consider leaving the service after only 5 to 10 years. Long-term (10 to 20 years) retention of members is important to ensure that there is a solid base of experienced members.
There are many ways to set up an incentive system in a fire department. The most successful incentive programs today are diverse and appeal to volunteers of all ages, experience, and ranks. Any of the incentives listed previously could be offered, but fire departments should not limit themselves to one type of incentive program for all volunteers because one program may not appeal to all members. Instead, they should offer a menu of several different programs from which volunteers could select to receive. Certain incentives are more appealing to individual volunteers--such as older volunteers--than others. Since membership in the volunteer fire service has become more diverse, fire departments must strive to find the right types of recognition and incentives that appeal to all or a majority of the members. However, it
Fire Protection Master Plan 209 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
must be remembered that these incentives can vary extensively for the different age groups within the department.
The incentive system must be equitable. In other words, each item on the menu should provide similar benefits so that volunteers who choose different items receive similar benefits. Volunteers should be allowed to choose the incentive (or combination of incentives) they want to receive on an annual basis.
Civic leaders are sometimes hesitant to provide financial incentives to volunteers. However, the benefits of retaining members by providing small financial incentives far outweigh the costs of excessive turnover or hiring full-time firefighters.
While monetary benefits are becoming a higher priority in what attracts personnel to the volunteer fire department, this should not be the primary purpose for joining. The time demands are very high, making the hourly return very low. Those who join strictly for the material benefits will soon become disheartened and leave. They need to be mentored and learn the concept that the real goal of volunteering is the desire to help others who are in need. Financial awards, besides their obvious reward, have the psychological aspect of helping volunteers rationalize to themselves and their families that they are getting some tangible benefit from the extra hours.
Types of Direct Financial Incentives • retirement/pension or length-of-service award programs (LOSAP); • individual retirement accounts; • pay per call or per hour, or through “monthly pots”; • annual reimbursements; • tax exemptions and tax deductions; • health insurance (for volunteers and their families) including dental and vision; • tuition assistance; • housing assistance; • low-interest housing loans; • in-season bonuses; • scholarships; • emergency funds (loans); and • death benefits
Other Incentives There are many incentives that have little or no cost, but can be highly motivational nonetheless. These go a long way because they acknowledge dedication and hard work while allowing all members an equal opportunity to achieve them. • Select a member of the year or month, for both operational and administrative positions. • Ask local merchants for discounts or gift certificates for volunteers at local businesses. • Recognize volunteers who complete training courses with certificates, plaques, or by featuring them in the local newspaper.
Fire Protection Master Plan 210 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
• Award outstanding volunteers with subscriptions to fire or EMS magazines. • Cover the reasonable expenses associated with sending a volunteer to a special out-of-town training class. • Award outstanding members with all-expense paid trips to State Firefighter Association meetings or training conferences. • Award a top responder with a family get-away trip to a local hotel or resort. • Occasionally excuse members who have given certain numbers of years of service from work details or mandatory duty nights. • Excuse the “member of the month” from housework. • Exempt volunteers from local utility bills (water, trash, etc.). • Issue officers fire department vehicles that they can take home. • Give the top responder of the department a reserved parking spot. • Give flowers to spouses on special occasions. • Permit members to use the station washer and dryer for personal use. • Provide an area and tools for car maintenance at the station. • Provide free videos, cable television, and movie channels at the station. • Create departmental trading cards with pictures of the volunteers (good for the kids). • Provide physical fitness facilities at the station. • Provide free meals to members on duty or at training. • Give volunteers passes to local sporting events. (Local sporting teams often will donate to the department to give away.)
Qualifying for benefits and incentives
Fire departments must establish a base level of performance that a volunteer must meet to qualify for a particular level of awards. Many departments measure this by creating a point system for participating in activities. Volunteers accrue points by running calls, attending training, attending meetings, and providing administrative or support service. Members who attain a sufficient number of points in a year qualify for either a basic, mid-, or high-level award. They then are eligible to receive the incentive benefits they choose.
The awards should be given only to members who meet all of the departmental requirements, in addition to meeting point requirements. In other words, members should be required to maintain a certain level of training, attend a certain number of meetings, perform a certain amount of administrative work, or a certain amount of prevention duties to remain qualified for incentives. The incentive system can be structured so that all members are eligible to receive benefits (active firefighters and EMTs, administrative members, public educators), or that only certain members receive them (firefighters, or only those participating on duty crews).
The system allows members, both operational and administrative, to earn points through a wide range of activities. Certain categories have restrictions about the number of points that can be earned. Others have no maximums so that volunteers are encouraged to spend more time in these activities. It is recommended that the points for the Public Education and Administrative Duties categories be increased to encourage participation. Volunteers who earn
Fire Protection Master Plan 211 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
points above the minimum requirements for a basic-level award can qualify for higher-level awards. A department may require volunteers to earn a certain minimum number of points in an area to qualify for any award (e.g., a volunteer must accrue at least 4 points in meetings, 8 points in training, 1 point in public education).
Fire Protection Master Plan 212 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
SECTION 6: Percentile Calculations & Purpose in Emergency Services
Fire Protection Master Plan 213 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Purpose Various national groups endorse or mandate the use of percentile/fractile evaluations when assessing public safety departments. These include the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) as outlined in NFPA 122137 and NFPA 171038, National Emergency Number Association’s Standard NENA 56-00539, as well as the Center for Public Safety Excellence’s Standard of Cover document40. The use of 90th, 95th, or even 99th percentile evaluations in fire and EMS services is a best practice in the industry. While many organizations will report performance using ‘average response time’, the utility of this approach is quite limited. If one assumes a normal distribution of fire or EMS response times, which in reality they are not, then half of the time the response time performance is better than average and half the time the performance is worse. When asking policy makers to establish a performance goal for significant incidents within their community, doing so as a 50/50 proposition does little to reassure the citizen. When framing the performance goal at a 90th percentile, policy makers are ensuring that 9 out of 10 times the performance will be achieved. Because of the nature of public safety events, providing a 100% assurance of performance is both costly for almost all communities and essentially unrealistic.
Performance measurement and benchmarking performance have been consistent themes in public administration for decades. Within fire and EMS services, the most often cited measure is that of response time.41 Yet problems with “definitional ambiguity” often make comparisons between communities quite challenging.42 Across the nation, agencies may utilize any number of response time definitions. In fact, the definition technically involves defining a time interval’s two endpoints – when the response time clock starts and when it stops. The Figure below highlights the generally utilized timestamps along the response time continuum along with the associated time intervals most often evaluated.
37 National Fire Protection Association. (2016). NFPA 1221: Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems. Quincy, MA: NFPA 38 National Fire Protection Association. (2016). NFPA 1710: Standard for the Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. Quincy, MA: NFPA 39 National Emergency Number Association. (2006). NENA 56-005 Call Answering Standard/Model Recommendation. 40 Center for Public Safety Excellence. (2016). Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover, 6th Edition. Chantilly, VA: CPSE. 41 Flynn, J. D. (2009). Fire Service Performance Measures. National Fire Protection Association. Quincy, MA: 42 Moeller, B. (2001). Measuring performance in the public sector: An examination of benchmarking paramedic response times. (Doctor of Philosophy PhD), Florida Atlantic University.
Fire Protection Master Plan 214 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 105: Response Time Components & Intervals
A comprehensive analysis of response time is best accomplished by assessing both the average and percentage performance for each component of response time. These intervals, and their associated timestamps are defined below.
Figure 106: Response Time Continuum & Associated Intervals with Timestamps
Interval Name Clock Start Timestamp Clock Stop Timestamp Call Processing Interval Call Received Units Dispatched Turnout Interval Unit Dispatched Unit Enroute Travel Time Interval Unit Enroute Unit Arrived Total Response Interval Call Received Unit Arrived
In practice, the ability to accurately evaluate any response time interval is dependent on a number of factors. The first timestamp within the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system may reflect any number of discrete events – the time the 911 call was received, the first keystroke of a call-taker filling out the incident form, the geo-validation of the incident address, or other timestamps depending on the specific 911 phone system and/or CAD system in use. In addition, the failure of a dispatcher or first responder to accurately report or record their activity may also impact the timestamps available upon which to calculate a specific response time interval. Since each interval is calculated separately, as defined above, both the start and stop timestamps must be available. When a timestamp is missing, as is often the case in a small number of CAD records, then that specific record is not included in the assessment of the average or fractile (e.g. 90th) percentile calculation. The failure to include these small number of records is not significant in most cases as it is assumed the missing timestamp was the result of random error.
Fire Protection Master Plan 215 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Definition of Percentile An important consideration in any significant data analysis involves the count and/or percentage of records you have available for analysis. As data sets grows larger, any differences in the following methods tend to disappear. For example, if you had 1,000 records to analyze, then the top ten percent would consist of 100 records. Therefore, the probability that values would be clustered around the 90th percentile would be quite high, and any differences in the output from various methods would be minor. If evaluating a data set of 10,000 records, any differences would be even smaller and likely irrelevant. There are several methods which can be used to calculate a percentile. The following discussion highlights a few of the commonly used approaches.
Rank Order: The value under which ‘X’ percent of the data fall. If using a set of 100 records, the 90th percentile would be the value under which 90 percent of all the data fall. In the example of 100 records, it would be the 91st value when sorted in rank order. In a data set of 10, it would be the 9th value.
Interpolation: This method is based on linear interpolation and is used when the percentile sought is not necessarily a whole number. For example, the 90th percentile in a set of 100 records sorted in rank order is 90. We know that because we multiply the desired percentile (e.g. 90th) by the number of records in the data set. However, if we needed to find the 90th percentile with a set of only 25 records sorted in rank order, then we would multiply 25 by 0.9, which would result in a value of 22.5. There may be no value of 22.5, so we would need to either round up or round down depending on the adjacent values to 22.5.
A more precise method is easily obtained through the use of Microsoft Excel or other statistical software. A more robust discussion for calculating interpolated percentiles can be found from a variety of sources should the reader desire. An expanded discussion can also be found from The Center for Public Safety Excellence.43
Regardless of the program you use, document the formula you use and, if possible, be prepared to explain its operation. However, the most important issue is to be consistent in the method utilized and document it’s approach so that you can do it the same way each time and communicate these methods to your backup and successor.
Example In the Figure below is a small set of 10 CAD records reflecting the calculated values for Call Processing, Turnout, Travel and Total Response Time Intervals.
43 Derived from The Center for Public Safety Excellence (2016). Community Risk Assessment: Standard of Cover, 6th Edition. Author: Chantilly, VA. pp. 85-87.
Fire Protection Master Plan 216 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Figure 107: Example of 10 CAD Records & Response Time Intervals
Call-Processing Total Response Call # Time Turnout Time Travel Time Time 2018-0001 1 2 4 7 2018-0002 2 3 6 11 2018-0003 3 1 8 12 2018-0004 2 3 7 12 2018-0005 1 1 5 7 2018-0006 1 2 6 9 2018-0007 2 1 3 6 2018-0008 3 3 4 10 2018-0009 2 1 7 10 2018-0010 1 2 5 8
We then take these same time intervals – by each category – and sort them in rank order in ascending fashion, as reflected in the Figure below. The highlighted cells reflect the 9th out of 10 values for each response time interval. Of particular note is that when examining all the 90th rank order values below, the Total Response Time does not equal the sum of the sub- components within the same row, that is Call Processing, Turnout and Travel times. The reason for this unexpected finding is that as reflected in the full CAD records above, there are some incident times where there is a slow turnout time on the same call where there is a shorter travel time. In another incident, the opposite may be true. Since each response time interval is calculated separately based on the definition defined earlier, the 90th percentiles often will not sum exactly to the Total Response Time.
Figure 108: Response Time Intervals in Rank Order
Call-Processing Total Response Time Turnout Time Travel Time Time 1 1 3 6 1 1 4 7 1 1 4 7 1 1 5 8 2 2 5 9 2 2 6 10 2 2 6 10 2 3 7 11 3 3 7 12 3 3 8 12
Fire Protection Master Plan 217 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
The Figure below reflects the results of Average and 90th percentile calculations for the CAD records above. Both the rank order and interpolated 90th percentile (calculated with Microsoft Excel) are shown. In this small data set, note the difference (highlighted) in Travel Time depending on the method used for the calculation.
Figure 109: Response Time Calculations on Small Data Set
Call- Total Processing Response Method Time Turnout Time Travel Time Time Average (Mean) 1.8 1.9 5.5 9.2 90th Rank Order Percentile 3.0 3.0 7.0 12.0 90th Percentile.exc (Excel) 3.0 3.0 7.9 12.0
Fire Protection Master Plan 218 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018
Fire Protection Master Plan 219 Fitch & Associates, LLC York County, South Carolina May 2018