Management Advisory Group International, Inc.

Transcription

1 Fire Department Feasibility Study July 2016 By: Management Advisory Group International, Inc Groupe Drive, Suite 200 Woodbridge, VA (703)

2 MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSULTING August 5, 2016 Warren Hutmacher City Manager City of Johns Creek Findley Rd. Johns Creek, Ga Dear Mr. Hutmacher: (MAG) is pleased to present the enclosed draft report to the City of Johns Creek, for a Fire Department Feasibility Study. This report has been a cooperative, yet independent, work effort between the Fire and Rescue Department and. We appreciate the hard work of Fire Department staff in providing substantial data and a wide variety of maps based on MAG s inquiries. On behalf of Chief Neville of MAG and myself, MAG extends its appreciation to all within the City who contributed ideas, feedback, and views on the important services provided by the Johns Creek Fire Department. We look forward to continuing towards finalization of the report. Sincerely, Donald C. Long, Ph.D. President Groupe Drive, Suite 200 Lake Ridge, VA (703)

3 City of Johns Creek, GA Fire Department Feasibility Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page... Letter of Transmittal... Table of Contents Project Goals and Objectives Fire Department Current Situation Findings and Observations Options for Review Implementation Schedule... 45

4 1.0 Project Goals and Objectives The Request for Proposals indicated several objectives that described the goals and objectives for this project. They included: Perform a comprehensive review of the current service delivery strategy for the provision of fire and rescue services in the City; Review the potential for continued/expanded use of mutual/automatic aid agreements; Consider alternate emergency service deployment methods; Examine existing fire station locations to include relocating fire station(s), eliminating fire stations or locating new fire stations; Review the use of substations/partnering with existing facilities such as Emory Johns Creek Hospital; and, Review and consider any creative or alternate ideas that would provide a solution to perceived service delivery inequity. 1.1 Overall Approach This type of study is best undertaken through a cooperative effort that includes extensive feedback and discussion of issues, cost factors, and desired outcomes. This has been accomplished through structured personal interactions with key officials and personnel, analysis of City provided data and reports, personal survey of the fire, rescue and emergency medical services environment and Fire Department resources. Generally, the first portion of the study resulted in a clarification of the issues and existing operations. Subsequent analysis has provided a base of information upon which recommendations for action are based. 1

5 The second major portion of the study has been to create a series of options focusing on the critical scope of work items for the study. Options are balanced between the desired level of services and the cost-effectiveness of delivering those services. MAG is sensitive to the demands of emergency services, the rather unusual traffic conditions and infrastructure, the unusual number of very large dwellings, and the limitations of public funding for critical services. The third major portion of the scope of work has been the preparation of a report that includes a plan of action and primary fiscal impact anticipated. Stakeholder Input. MAG received quality information from City officials, Department management, and personnel. The approach included in-depth interviews and data review with key individuals in City management, fire administration and operating staff, and others who would have valuable information to communicate to the study team. Practical Solutions. Our ultimate goal is to provide you with a series of recommendations that can be used now and in the future that will serve as a road map for the future. Thus, our approach has concentrated on developing recommendations that will result in a higher, more evenly distributed, level of service, a safer environment for your citizens and firefighters, and a maintenance of the current ISO grade or improvement in the City s ISO Grade. 2

6 1.2 Methodology PHASE I: INITIATE PROJECT TASK 1.0: INITIATE PROJECT Objectives: Gain a comprehensive understanding of the project's background, goals, and expectations. Identify, in greater detail, specific objectives for the review, and assess how well the initial work plan would accomplish those objectives. Collect and review existing operational data, information, agreements, relevant policies and procedures. Activities: 1.1 MAG met with City management, project management, key Fire Department staff and others to establish working relationships, make logistical arrangements, and determine communication lines. 1.2 We discussed the objectives of the project and identified policy and issue concerns to be addressed during the review. 1.3 MAG obtained pertinent reports and background materials relevant to the review, such as: organization charts and historical staffing data and deployment data; descriptions of staffing and deployment in meeting service demands; location and description of facilities and equipment; description of the current service delivery system and organization; demographic and other data related to community growth; capital and operational budgets; funding data; traffic mapping data; response time projection data; and, demonstrated response time data. 1.4 Finalized: Result: data collection approach; interview plan and tentative schedule and interview guide; and, interim milestones and deliverables. Revised project work plan. 3

7 TASK 2.0: CONDUCT INTERVIEWS Objectives: PHASE II: OBTAIN STAKEHOLDER INPUT Discuss expected service levels for services. Consider views of officials concerning the operations and performance of the services. Discuss perceived and demonstrated gaps in existing service levels. Activities: 2.1 Worked with the Project Manager to finalize the interviewee list. 2.2 Drafted an interview guide. 2.3 Established a final interview schedule. 2.4 Conducted interviews as scheduled. 2.5 Analyzed interview results. Result: Feedback on interviews regarding expressed views towards existing programs, service levels, and perceived strengths and weaknesses, and related issues. TASK 3.0: CAPTURE INPUT FROM OPERATIONAL PARTICIPANTS Objectives: Identify concerns and satisfactions at the operating department and staff level. Identify strengths and weaknesses that may exist in the community. Activities: 3.1 Developed interview questions. Included questions on staffing, operations, facilities, and service level focused issues. 3.2 Conducted interviews with Fire Department staff at the stations and JCFD Headquarters. 3.3 Reviewed feedback obtained from these interviews. 4

8 Result: Identification of issues raised, with analysis to be used as part of the facilitation process and development of the draft and final reports. PHASE III: PREPARE ANALYSES AND DEVELOP CORE STRATEGIES TASK 4.0: EVALUATE AND PREPARE INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS Objectives: Build a series of options focused on study objectives. Activities: 5.1 Reviewed all input and consensus determinations. 5.2 Assessed issues in reference to best practices and desired outcomes. 5.3 Assessed critical operational components in light of data, and interview input. 5.4 Reviewed the services delivery system in context of the environment. 5.5 Provided a draft report on the results of all previous tasks. Result: A draft report. 5

9 TASK 6.0: PREPARE A FINAL REPORT AND PLAN Objective: Develop a final plan that identifies the critical action steps to ultimately achieve the recommended outcomes. Activities: 6.1 Discussed draft report findings and recommendations with appropriate parties. 6.2 Received and reviewed technical feedback on the draft report. 6.3 Made technical adjustments to the draft to produce a final report. Deliverable: A final report that recommends action steps needed, to include the specific action required, the relative timing of the action, and any cost impact of each action. Deliverables: Final Report 6

10 2.0 Fire Department Current Situation The stated mission of the Fire Department is to: Provide high quality advanced life support medical response; Rescue individuals from life threatening situations; Suppress fires; Respond to calls for service; Ensure safe buildings, homes and neighborhoods; Develop creative, innovative programs that educate the community regarding fire and life safety; and, Support community and citizen events resulting in a safe community for all. 2.1 Station Locations Fire Department Headquarters is located on the 3rd floor of City Hall at Findley Road, Suite 380, in Johns Creek. The fire stations are located at: Fire Station #61 is at Medlock Bridge Parkway; Fire Station #62 is at Rogers Circle; and Fire Station #63 is at 3165 Old Alabama Road. 2.2 Department Services The Johns Creek Fire Department provides a diverse set of services to the citizens of the City of Johns Creek, both emergency and non-emergency. They include: Fire Incident Response; Advanced Life Support Medical Response; Technical Rescue Response; Water Rescue Response; Hazardous Materials Response; SWAT Medics; Public Fire & Life Safety Education; Construction Plan Review; Fire Prevention Inspections; Community CPR (Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation) Training and Certification; Charitable Organization Collections; Toy Drives; Neighborhood Smoke Detector Blitz and Installation; Fire Station Blood Pressure Monitoring for the Public; Child Safety Car Seat Installations; Fire Origin and Cause Investigations; Station Visits for the Public and Home and Business Safety Inspections; and, Community Special Events Participation. 7

11 2.3 Department Staffing Staffing within the Fire Department is as follows: Headquarters / Administrative Staffing Fire Chief: (EMT) Deputy Fire Chief: (Operations) (Paramedic) Assistant Fire Chief: (Administration) (Paramedic) Fire Marshal (Division Chief): (EMT) Support & Technical Services (Division Chief): (EMT) EMS Coordinator (Lieutenant): (Paramedic) Fire Inspector / Investigator (Lieutenant): (EMT) Fire Educator / Inspector (Lieutenant): (Paramedic) Plan Reviewer (Part-Time): Executive Assistant: Administrative Assistant: 10 FT & 1 PT Total Part-Time Field Operations Staffing Firefighter II (EMT) Firefighter II (Paramedic) Firefighter II (EMT) Firefighter II (AEMT) Firefighter II (Paramedic) Firefighter II (EMT) Firefighter II (EMT) 7 PT Total Grand Current Total Staffing = 89 (81 FT & 8 PT) Staff positions are assigned to the various shifts in the following manner: 8

12 Field Operations Current Staffing Battalion 6 "A" Shift Battalion 6 "B" Shift Battalion 6 "C" Shift Battalion Chief Battalion Chief: (EMT) Battalion Chief: (Paramedic) Engine 61 Engine 61 Engine 61 Lieutenant: (Paramedic) Lieutenant: (EMT) Lieutenant: (EMT) FAO: (EMT) FAO: (EMT) FAO: (EMT) Firefighter II: (EMT) Firefighter I: (EMT) Firefighter I: (Paramedic) Firefighter I: Firefighter I: (AEMT) Firefighter II: (EMT) Truck 61 Truck 61 Truck 61 Captain: (EMT) Captain: (EMT) Captain: (EMT) FAO: (EMT) FAO: (EMT) FAO: (EMT) Firefighter II: (EMT) Firefighter II: (AEMT) Firefighter II: (AEMT) Firefighter I: (Paramedic) Firefighter I: (Paramedic) Vacant Rescue 61 Rescue 61 Rescue 61 Sergeant: (Paramedic) Sergeant: (Paramedic) Sergeant: (Paramedic) Firefighter II: (EMT) Firefighter II: (AEMT) Firefighter II: (AEMT) Engine 62 Engine 62 Engine 62 Captain: (Paramedic) Captain: (EMT) Captain: (Paramedic) FAO: (EMT) FAO: (EMT) FAO: Robert Jackson (EMT) Firefighter I: (EMT) Firefighter I: (Paramedic) Firefighter I: (EMT) Firefighter II: (EMT) Firefighter I: (EMT) Firefighter II: (EMT) Engine 63 Engine 63 Engine 63 Lieutenant: (EMT) Lieutenant: (Paramedic) Lieutenant: (EMT) FAO: (EMT) FAO: (EMT) FAO: Firefghter I: (AEMT) Firefighter II: Firefighter II: (Paramedic) Firefighter I: (EMT) Firefighter I: (Paramedic) Firefighter II: (EMT) Truck 63 Truck 63 Truck 63 Captain: (EMT) Captain: (EMT) Captain: (EMT) FAO: FAO: FAO: (EMT) Firefighter II: (EMT) Firefighter II: (EMT) Firefighter II: (EMT) Vacant Vacant Vacant Rescue 63 Rescue 63 Rescue 63 Sergeant: (Paramedic) Sergeant: (Paramedic) Sergeant: (Paramedic) Firefighter II: (AEMT) Firefighter II: (EMT) Firefighter II: (AEMT) 24 Total 24 Total 23 Total Minimum staffing (current 20) represents the minimum number of staff that are assigned to each shift to ensure that apparatus can be safely deployed. Operations staffing is slightly greater in order to accommodate lost time due to vacations, sick time, and training time. 9

13 2.4 Department Organization The Fire Department is organized in a relatively traditional manner and with a traditional and common rank structure. 10

14 2.5 Apparatus The Fire Department has three engines (pumpers) and two 100' aerial ladder trucks (equipped with pumps and hose as well as ground ladders and other typical ladder truck equipment), in front-line service. The Department also has two (2) transport capable rescues (sometimes referred to as Quick Response Vehicles or QRVs), which can often respond to emergencies more quickly than larger equipment. The QRVs are equipped with 12-lead monitors which monitor heart and lung conditions and have wired and wireless networking capability to area hospitals, allowing for monitoring of a patient from the time the first responders in the QRV arrives at the scene of a medical emergency. A river rescue boat and a mobile air unit are also part of the department's apparatus. The Department also has a single reserve engine used in case a front-line apparatus is disabled. 11

15 3.0 Findings and Observations 3.1 Current Level of Resources are Inadequate While MAG finds that the Fire Department appears well managed and operationally sound, the current John s Creek Fire Department resources are inadequate to provide an evenly distributed high level of fire protection and emergency medical service resources to the majority of the City. 3.2 Issues of Concern to be Addressed MAG has identified several issues of concern that should be addressed going forward in the delivery of fire and medical rescue services. They include: Inadequate incident command support for shift Battalion Chiefs, thus reducing incident management effectiveness and heightening firefighter safety issues. Large areas of the City of Johns Creek experience extended emergency medical service response times, thus delaying prompt emergency medical action in those areas. First-response emergency medical service is good only for the southern two-thirds of the City with time of arrival on-scene approximating 6 minutes or less. In the northern third, especially in the shark s fin area, prolonged initial emergency medical response needs improvement to meet generally accepted good practice. The mutual aid responders often arrive on-scene in the Shark s Fin area after the initial JCFD unit, which often exceeds 10 minutes. Delayed dispatch procedures seem to be the most likely cause for the slower than anticipated response time of the mutual-aid unit. Numerous traffic control devices such, as curbed lane dividers, slow emergency response by requiring units to go to the next break before carrying out a u-turn toward an incident on the other side of the street. 12

16 Other areas in the northern areas needs initial and support structure fire response improvement, especially in the proximity of: Jones and State Bridge Roads intersection Jones and Abbots Bridge Roads intersection Municipal Court/City Hall North of Sergeant Road Inadequate staffing at Station 62, thus limiting that station s interior fire attack and rescue actions pending arrival of additional resources in order to meet generally accepted good practice and OSHA regulations ( 2in 2out ). There is delayed Truck Company support for Station 62, thus limiting firefighting effectiveness for that area of the City. The current aerial ladder apparatus are ill suited for the Johns Creek environment. Their design does not allow the mobility required for many development streets and access roadways which limits utilization of the aerial ladder. There is insufficient equipment and long ground ladder capacity on current Truck Company apparatus, thus limiting fire and rescue activities. The Department lacks long ground ladder (45-50 ) capability limiting certain fire and rescue operations. There are an insufficient number of reserve (relief) vehicles to replace vehicles out of service for maintenance or repair. There is no reserve vehicle for the ladder trucks. Fireground training facilities are distant placing significant restrictions on JCFD firefighting and rescue workouts. 13

17 3.3 Johns Creek Fire Department Current Resource Deployment STATION APPARATUS DAILY STAFF Shift Battalion Chief: 1 response per 24 hour shift GPM AERIAL COMMENTS Light truck BC Inadequate command staff 61: 11 responses per 24 hour shift Engine Truck (Aerial Quint) Rescue (ambulance) LT / FAO / FF CPT / FAO / FF SGT / FF Current Truck Company apparatus not well suited for John s Creek. Current Rescue apparatus designed as an ambulance, a function rarely provided. 62: 1 response per 24 hour shift Engine Reserve Engine CPT / FAO / FF 1500 Current minimum staffing limits initial interior fire attack and rescue operations. 63: 7 responses per 24 hour shift Engine Truck (Aerial Quint) Rescue (ambulance) LT / FAO / FF CPT / FAO / FF SGT / FF Current Truck Company apparatus not well suited for John s Creek community. Current Rescue apparatus designed as an ambulance, a function rarely provided. Totals I Command Vehicle Min. Staff: Battalion Chief (BC) 3 Captains (CPT) 3 Engines 2 Trucks Lieutenants.(LT) 2 Sergeants (SGT) 2 Rescue Ambulance 5 Fire Apparatus Operators (FAO) 7 Firefighters (FF) 1 Reserve Engine Mutual Aid Engine?? Dispatch and staffing issues make mutual aid response to Station 61 district problematic Alpharetta Engine often does not reach the Shark Fin region before JCFD units

18 3.4 Review of Mutual Aid Neither the value nor the limitations of mutual aid can be overstated. What is necessary is that both the value and limitations be fully understood by all parties. No U.S. fire department is staffed or equipped to successfully control the most calamitous incident that could befall their community, including the City of New York, the City of Chicago, the City of Los Angeles or the City of Atlanta. All communities should have a means of obtaining additional resources in time of need. There are several forms of mutual aid, or mutual assistance, as it is often termed. The most prevalent are: Call When Needed: This is the most utilized form of mutual-aid used in the U.S. Simply put, an agency requests another agency to send some type of fire resource to assist in controlling an incident or providing coverage when the majority or large portion of the requesting agency s resources are unavailable for response to emergencies. The other agency may or may not provide the requested resources, probably dependent on that agency s resource status or the situation status in the area for which the agency is primarily responsible for protecting. It is important to remember that each agency s primary responsibility is to the community that fiscally supports them. It is likely that the requesting agency would not be aware of the requesting agency s inability to send assistance until the time of request. The requesting agency then must request assistance from the next closest agency for which they have an agreement (assuming there is one). In some states a coordinating system has been established so that an agency need only call a single point to request aid to obtain the closest or most appropriate assistance. 15

19 3.4.2 Automatic-Aid This often utilized form of mutual aid simply adds another agency s resource to the dispatch order for certain, or in some cases all, areas of the community being protected. It is important to recognize that there is no guarantee that the agency supplying automatic-aid will be able to send the nearest, or for that matter, any resource to the requesting agency for the reasons stated above. Hopefully, the requested (supplying) agency will notify the requesting agency of their inability to supply the request or that the responding resource will arrive later than expected. However, that notice could be significantly delayed if the agencies use different dispatch centers Contract Aid Contract aid may not be mutual aid in every case. If one party contracts with another to provide, usually, automatic aid for compensation, typically, in the form of cash, that is simply contract aid. In this case, the warrantee for service is explicitly spelled out in the contract and there may or may not be fiscal penalties for failing to provide the aid. Typically, however, there is not a guarantee as to which station or unit (typically the closest) must respond. So, although one may contract because of the desire to have a certain unit respond because they are the closest, it is not likely that the contracted agency would be willing, or even able to provide that sort of guarantee. In some cases, two agencies will contract to pay each other when mutual aid is rendered. In this case it can be termed contracted mutual aid. In the specific case of Johns Creek, the utilization of mutual aid to receive credit for a first-in response of five miles or less, was clearly significantly advantageous to the property owners (and insurance premium payers) in the Sharks Fin area. However, taxpayers should not be led to believe that this is a free lunch. 16

20 First, mutual indicates that in some cases Johns Creek will have one (or more) less fire company(s) available for Johns Creek needs because JCFD resources will be assisting the agencies that, on occasion, provide Johns Creek aid. Second, in practice, the Sharks Fin area, having a mutual fire protection resource within five miles does not mean Johns Creek is providing that area the same level of service provided the lower portion of the City. In MAG s opinion that can only be done with additional Johns Creek provided resources. 3.5 Review of Potential Relocation of Current Stations As part of the overall evaluation of resources, station location, and types of apparatus and deployment issues considered, MAG has reviewed the potential relocation of existing stations Station 61: Although moving to a site on State Bridge Road, near Johns Creek High School looks somewhat promising for improving initial response to the west, lack of an obvious suitable site and impairment of response northerly tarnished this possibility. Moving the station north on Medlock would improve a problem area in proximity to City Hall and ladder truck support for station 62, but resulting delays in supporting station 63 would seem to make that move a net 0 gain. On balance, MAG finds moving station 61 to be unjustified Station 62: The most modern and suitable JCFD station appears to be the site most inappropriate for the area served. However, the only rationale site (Bell Road / Rogers Bridge Road) that would improve response to the larger area served would probably result in only slight improvement and in MAG s judgment, it is not worth the expense to relocate this station. 17

21 3.5.3 Station 63: Moving this station seems the most promising but in MAG s opinion, is probably not worth the expense. Establishing a site eastward along Old Alabama Road, toward Jones Bridge Road, would improve response to the north while maintaining reasonable response time to the western most part of the City, but is not enough to diminish the need for the recommended station 64. If, in the future, station modernization becomes feasible, this move should be considered. 18

22 4.0 Recommendations and Options for Improvement Most of the options presented in this report for improvement include recommendations for utilization of a quint - squad concept as a means to hold personnel costs in check. This concept would provide a means to spread a full spectrum of operational fire rescue EMS capability throughout the access challenged community at significantly less personnel cost than the traditional Engine / Truck Company format. In typical Quint operations, the Quint functions as an independent unit, equipped to carry out either Engine or Truck Company functions as the incident requires. However, in the City s case, there is a need to maximize the hose load carried, due to the existence of very long driveways and very large residences, while limiting vehicle length for access purposes. This would seem to preclude carrying the full load of firefighting and rescue equipment on a quint. To meet that space problem, MAG proposes, in essence, to replace the current rescue vehicle (QRV- an ambulance) with a vehicle with greater equipment storage volume, using a slightly larger vehicle without patient transport capability (rescue squad). The two units would function as a single Company except in those few instances where the rescue squad was dispatched singularly for a limited need EMS call (under current operating procedures a small percentage of station dispatches). MAG proposes that the rescue squad would carry the majority of physical rescue and EMS equipment, with the quint carrying the majority of the firefighting equipment. This would enable the quint to function in typical instances at fires without the Rescue squad being in attendance pending arrival of either another station s rescue squad or the ladder truck from station

23 The historic, basic emergency resource configuration in the American fire service has (with many alterations and adjustments) been engine (pumper) and ladder truck (typically fitted with an aerial ladder device). Essentially, at structure fires, the engine crew applies the water to the fire, the ladder truck crew forces open locked doors (pry-bars, axes, hydraulic tools), ventilates noxious gases (powered fans, power saws & axes to open roofs), provides extensive search and rescue, and carries out salvage duties. This arrangement of resources has served the USA well for well over a century. However, several relatively recent matters have caused some rethinking of resource configuration. First, and probably foremost, is the matter of personnel costs. Firefighter compensation has dramatically increased over the last several decades making fire protection staffing one of local governmental agencies most expensive budget items. Using the engine/truck format necessitates two separate crews, staffing two separate vehicles. In order for either crew to effectively carry out their function, certain minimum crew sizes have proven necessary. Because many fires to which a fire department responds, do not require the truck company support, typically only about one in three or four stations were equipped with truck companies (typically with engine companies). The idea of this arrangement of resources being that when encountering a structure fire requiring truck company operations, the engine company could prepare to enter the building while awaiting the arrival of the truck company to open up. In reality, it is often the case that truck work is necessary before the engine company can function effectively, however, staffing additional ladder trucks (not to mention the million dollars or so for the vehicle), for the majority of agencies, is not fiscally feasible. Another issue is the reality that most fire agencies, especially those in urban areas are experiencing fewer structure fires, resulting in a situation where fire agencies now respond primarily to other than structure fires, e.g. emergency medical emergencies, physical rescues, auto accidents, etc. This results in the ladder trucks, while becoming more expensive to staff and purchase, being utilized less and less. 20

24 This situation has resulted in many agencies experimenting with different ways of configuring their fire/rescue/emergency medical service resources. These include: Use of lighter-weight, less expensive, less heavily staffed, rescue vehicles, e.g. ambulances, panel trucks, pickups, etc. - This has had generally good, but limited beneficial results (better for EMS, not so good when encountering fire or heavier rescue situations). Cross-staffing of engines and ladder trucks, i.e., depending on the call received, staffing one or the other. - This has resulted in some very confused responses and, in MAG s opinion, is not an effective allocation of resources. Task force, i.e. minimally staffing two vehicles that respond in tandem This provides great flexibility in capability but has resulted in very expensive vehicles responding to minor (in terms of resource requirements, e.g. EMS) events and heavier use of said expensive vehicles resulting in required early replacement of those vehicles. Again, in MAG s view, not an effective use of resources. Spacing ladder trucks even further apart, - Making their effective arrival even less likely. Use of multi-functional vehicles quints meaning: They are equipped with a large pump ( GPM) Carry several different size (diameter) hose (4-5 for hydrant supply, for fire attack) Have a large water tank ( gallon) Carry a large array of ground ladders (35-12 ) Are equipped with a powered aerial ladder device ( ) No knowledgeable party in the fire service would argue that having a quint staffed with four (4) firefighters arrive at the scene of a structure fire is the equivalent of an engine and a ladder truck, each staffed with four (or even three) firefighters. However, it is MAG s (and others experienced in the fire service) position that having three (3) properly equipped quints, staffed with four (4) firefighters each, arrive at the scene at different times, but all within minutes, is superior to having two engines, and one ladder truck arrive within those same time periods. 21

25 We take that position based on the fact that any one of the three quints can undertake either engine or ladder truck functions as required by the situation they encounter as opposed to having engines arrive on scene but being essentially limited to applying water (and any making straight-forward rescue attempts necessary), while awaiting arrival of the ladder truck. One disadvantage of the quint concept is the tendency to over-equip the vehicle, making it too large to maneuver sufficiently to properly place at the fire scene, e.g. trucks (quints) 61 and 63. More recent quint designs have found means around that negative tendency. These vehicles have in the main limited the length of the aerial ladder (typically 75 ), the capacity of the water tank (typically gallons) and the amount of hose carried. These vehicles have turning radiuses approximating that of an engine (pumper). In MAG s view, for use in the Johns Creek environment, the limited aerial ladder length is more than justified by the ability of these more maneuverable apparatus to be placed in advantageous firefighting and rescue positions and negotiate Johns Creek traffic. Because the City is so well provided with fire hydrants, the limited water tank would not seem to be a significant disadvantage. But, limited hose capacity is an issue that must be addressed. The very large and sometimes convoluted residences with very long driveways require extended length of attack hose availability as well as hydrant supply hose lines The shorter, more maneuverable quints with which MAG is familiar are not designed, in MAG s opinion, with sufficient hose storage capacity to meet Johns Creek needs. To meet this dilemma MAG proposes allocating to each station housing a quint, a larger capacity rescue vehicle than the ambulances now in service with the JCFD. 22

26 Their function would be to respond to EMS calls, as the QRV s (ambulances) now do, as well as to fires and to carry rescue, salvage, lighting and other support equipment in order to provide additional hose capacity space on the quint apparatus. The quint apparatus proposed by MAG would be equipped to initiate immediate fire attack in those few instances where the supporting Rescue Squad apparatus did not respond in tandem. Examples of equipment carried on the Rescue Squad in lieu of the quint would be: Incident scene lighting and large generator Salvage equipment (e.g., water & fire resistant covers, sawdust, scoop shovels, brooms) Hydraulic tools Large powered fans (for noxious gas evacuation) Cutting torch Air hammer /chisel The situation where a quint might arrive without an accompanying rescue squad will occur primarily when the rescue squad is assigned to an emergency medical incident. In that event, the nearest rescue squad from another station would be dispatched in support. As well as carrying support equipment for the quints, using the lighter, less expensive rescue squads for certain EMS dispatches would save wear and tear on the quints and typically make the quints available for further dispatch more expeditiously at EMS incidents. The recommended staffing for a quint-equipped station is six (6), with four (4) personnel on the quint, and two (2) personnel on the rescue squad. The current (and recommended) staffing for a station housing the engine, truck, rescue configuration is eight (8), with three (3) personnel on engine and truck, and two (2) personnel on rescue. For every station configured with quint / rescue squad apparatus as opposed to the engine / truck / rescue configuration there is a 25% reduction in recommended staffing. 23

27 In order to retain the availability of a 100 aerial, in some allocation options presented, MAG proposes, in most of the options, equipping one station with a 100 tiller aerial ladder truck (to improve maneuverability over current 100 quints), an engine, and a rescue squad. MAG also is recommending that one of the ambulances replaced by rescue squads be retained in reserve for those rare (estimated at once a year) incidents where it is desirable to transport a victim rather than wait for a delayed contract ambulance. Concerning the City s ISO grade, any of the options offered should maintain, if not improve, the City s ISO grading. Any significant service level improvement option considered viable by MAG, from a performance point of view, would require additional costs in the form of personnel, equipment, and facilities. Options for consideration are presented below on the following pages: 24

28 4.1 Option 1: This option adds an additional fire station (64) in the proximity of Jones Bridge intersection with Hanstedt Terrace. This option equips that station with quint/squad apparatus; increases incident command support; replaces station 61 s 100 quint with a tiller 100 aerial and ambulance 61 with a rescue squad; replaces station 62 s single engine with a quint/squad apparatus; and replaces station 63 s engine, truck, ambulance apparatus with quint/squad apparatus. This option requires the following significant fiscal commitments: Option One: Estimated Costs Item Twenty-eight (28) additional payroll positions & 1.2 FTE overtime costs Purchase of one tiller aerial ladder Truck, three 75 Quint apparatus, and four Rescue squad apparatus. Purchase of property for and design, construction and furnishing of an additional fire station. Purchase of additional necessary communications equipment. Estimated Cost $2,628, (+benefit $90K/ position $5,100,000 $1,360,000 (JCFD 1/20/15 estimate) Undetermined MAG believes there would be substantial benefits from Option #1, including: Initial response times would be significantly improved for large areas of the City, thus improving emergency medical service in those areas of the City. Initial and support firefighting personnel response would be significantly increased, thus enhancing firefighting and rescue capacity in all areas of the City. Incident command support and related administrative functions would be significantly increased, thus enhancing incident management effectiveness and firefighter safety. 25

29 This option would increase staffing and improve equipment capabilities for Station 62, thus improving firefighting and rescue capabilities for the south-east side of the City and for the City as a whole. Provides long ground ladder capability and enlarges equipment storage compartment space for Truck 63, thus improving firefighting and rescue capabilities. Increases aerial ladder truck mobility, thus improving firefighting and rescue capabilities. Increases reserve apparatus fleet, resulting in one reserve Truck, one reserve Rescue Ambulance and two reserve Engines. 26

30 JOHN S CREEK FIRE DEPARTMENT RESOURCE DEPLOYMENT LOG - OPTION 1 STATION APPARATUS DAILY STAFF GPM AERIAL COMMENTS Shift Battalion Chief Pickup 61 Engine Truck (tiller aerial) Rescue squad Reserve Ambulance Quint Rescue squad* Reserve Engine Quint Rescue squad* Reserve Engine Quint Rescue squad* Reserve Truck BC CPT LT,/ FAO/ FF CPT/ FAO /FF SGT/ FF CPT/ FAO/ 2 FF SGT/ FF CPT / FAO / 2 FF SGT / FF CPT / FAO / 2 FF SGT / FF Adds incident command support (Captain) Replaces 100 Quint with more agile tiller aerial. Increases equipment storage capacity Provides long ground ladder capability (50 ) Replaces Rescue Ambulance with Rescue squad Retains replaced Rescue Ambulance 63 for reserve Replaces single Engine with 75 Quint and Squad * Increases staffing by 3 Retains reserve Engine for relief and offroad response Replaces Engine, 100 Quint & Rescue (ambulance) with 75 Quint and Rescue squad Reduces staff by 2 Retains replaced Engine for reserve and off-road response Additional station with 75 Quint & Squad. Retains replaced 100 Quint for reserve Totals Mutual Aid I Command Veh. 3 Quints 1 Engine 1 Truck (tiller aerial) 4 Rescue squad 2 Reserve Engines 1 Reserve Truck 1 Reserve Amb. Minimum Staff Battalion Chief (BC) 5 Captains (CPT) 1 Lieutenant.(LT) 4 Sergeants (SGT) 5 Fire Apparatus Operators (FAO) 12 Firefighters (FF) Engine?? Dispatch and staffing issues make mutual aid response to Station 61 problematic Alpharetta Engine does not often reach the Shark Fin region before JCFD units 27

31 4.2 Option 2: This option (#2) also would include the construction, equipping and staffing of an additional station (#64) in the proximity of Jones Bridge intersection with Hanstedt Terrace, to meet the resource and deployment needs of the City. The staffing levels required would be less than Option #1, and the apparatus/equipment needed would be different, equipping all stations with quint / squads, deleting the 100 aerial ladder at station 61. This option requires additional resources and fiscal commitments, including: Option Two: Estimated Costs Item Twenty-one (21) additional payroll positions &.9 FTE overtime costs Purchase of four 75 Quint apparatus and four (4) Rescue squad apparatus Purchase of property for and design, construction and furnishing of an additional fire station Purchase of additional necessary communications equipment. Estimated Cost $1,971, (+ benefit $90K / position) $4,800,000 $1,360,000 (JCFD 1/20/15 est.) Undetermined MAG believes there would be substantial benefits from this option, including: Significantly Improves initial response time for large areas of the City, thus improving emergency medical service in those areas of the City. Significantly increases firefighting personnel response, thus enhancing firefighting and rescue capacity in all areas of the City. Significantly increases incident command support, thus enhancing incident management effectiveness and firefighter safety. Increases staffing and provides limited truck capabilities for Station 62, thus improving firefighting and rescue capabilities for the south-east side and for the City as a whole. 28

32 Enlarges equipment storage compartment space, thus improving firefighting and rescue capabilities. Increases aerial ladder capability and mobility improving firefighting and rescue capabilities (note that while gaining mobility over current deployment, the Department loses access to a 100 aerial except in reserve status). Increases reserve apparatus fleet, resulting in one reserve Truck one reserve Rescue Ambulance and two reserve Engines. Increases total pumping capacity. 29

33 JOHN S CREEK FIRE DEPARTMENT RESOURCE DEPLOYMENT LOG- Option 2 STATION APPARATUS STAFF GPM AERIAL COMMENTS Shift Battalion Chief Pickup 61 Quint Rescue squad* Reserve Engine Reserve Ambulance 1 BC 1 CPT CPT / FAO / 2 FF SGT/ FF Adds incident command support (Captain) Replaces Engine, 100 Quint & Rescue (ambulance) with 75 Quint and Rescue squad Reduces staff by 2 Retains replaced Engine for reserve and off-road response 62 Quint* Rescue squad* Reserve Engine 63 Quint Rescue squad* 64 Quint* Rescue squad* Reserve Truck Totals I Command Vehicle 4 Quints 4 Rescue squad 2 Reserve Engines 1 Reserve 100 Quint 1 Reserve Ambulance CPT / FAO / 2 FF SGT/ FF CPT / FAO / 2 FF SGT/ FF CPT / FAO / 2 FF SGT/ FF Minimum staff: 26 Retains replaced Rescue Ambulance for reserve Replaces single Engine with 75 Quint and Squad * Increases staffing by 3 Retains reserve Engine for relief and offroad response Replaces Engine, 100 Quint & Rescue (ambulance) with 75 Quint and Rescue squad Reduces staff by 2 Retains replaced Rescue Ambulance for reserve Additional station with 75 Quint and Squad. Retains replaced 100 Quint for reserve Battalion Chief (BC) 5 Captains (CPT) 4 Sergeants (SGT) 4 Fire Apparatus Operators (FAO) 12 Firefighters (FF) Mutual Aid Engine?? Dispatch and staffing issues make mutual aid response to Station 61 district problematic Alpharetta Engine does not often reach the Shark Fin region before JCFD units 30

34 4.3 Option 3: This option (#3) would include the construction and staffing of two (2) additional stations: #64 at the proximity of Jones Bridge intersection with Hanstedt Terrace; and, #65 at Medlock Bridge Road (near City Hall), to meet the long-term resource and deployment needs of the City. The apparatus and equipment needed would be different from other options in that the engine/truck concept is used rather the quint/squad, thereby significantly increasing staffing requirements (but increasing aerial ladder capability). This option requires additional resources and fiscal commitments, including: Option Three: Estimated Costs Item Fifty (50) additional payroll positions & 1.2 FTE overtime costs Purchase of three tiller aerial ladder Trucks, and three (3) Rescue squad apparatus (but of less capacity than with quint / rescue squad concept) Purchase of property for and design, construction and furnishing of two additional fire stations Purchase of additional necessary communications equipment. Estimated Cost $4,608, (+ benefit package) $4,500,000 $2,720,000 (JCFD 1/20/15 est.) Undetermined MAG believes there would be substantial benefits from this option, including: Dramatically Improves initial response time for large areas of the City improving emergency medical service in those areas of the City. Dramatically firefighting personnel response, thus enhancing firefighting and rescue capacity in most areas of the City. Significantly increases incident command support, thus enhancing incident management effectiveness and firefighter safety. 31

35 Increases staffing for Station 62, thus improving initial fire attack and rescue capabilities. Reduces truck company support time for Station 62 Greatly increases long ground ladder capability and enlarges equipment storage compartment space, thus improving firefighting and rescue capabilities. Greatly increases aerial ladder capability and mobility, thus improving firefighting and rescue capabilities. Greatly Increases aerial ladder availability and mobility, thus improving firefighting and rescue capabilities. Increases reserve apparatus fleet, resulting in one reserve Truck, one reserve ambulance and one reserve Engines 32

36 JOHNS CREEK FIRE DEPARTMENT RESOURCE DEPLOYMENT LOG Option 3 STATION APPARATUS STAFF GPM AERIAL COMMENTS Shift Battalion Chief Pickup 61 Engine Truck (tiller aerial) Rescue squad Reserve Ambulance 62 Engine Reserve Engine 63 Engine Truck (tiller aerial) Rescue squad 64 Engine Reserve Engine Reserve Truck BC CPT LT,/ FAO/ FF CPT / FAO / FF SGT/ FF Adds incident command support (Captain) Replaces 100 Quint more agile tiller aerial Increases equipment storage capacity Provides long ground ladder capability (50 ) Replaces Ambulance with Rescue squad Retains replaced Rescue Ambulance for reserve CPT / FAO / 2 FF 1500 * Increases staffing by 1 Retains reserve Engine LT,/ FAO/ FF CPT / FAO / FF SGT/ FF Replaces 100 Quint more agile tiller aerial Increases equipment storage capacity Provides long ground ladder capability (50 ) Replaces Ambulance with Rescue squad. CPT / FAO / 2 FF 2000 Additional station with Engine only. Retain replaced 100 Quint for reserve. 65 Engine Truck (tiller aerial) Rescue Squad LT,/ FAO / FF CPT / FAO / FF SGT/ FF Replaces 100 Quint more agile tiller aerial. Increases equipment storage capacity Provides long ground ladder capability (50 ) Replaces Rescue Ambulance with Rescue Squad 33

37 DEPLOYMENT LOG Option 3 (cont.) Totals I Command Vehicle 2 Quints 2 Engine 1 Truck (tiller aerial) 3 Rescue squad 2 Reserve Engines 1 Reserve Truck 1 Reserve Ambulance Minimum Staff: Battalion Chief (BC) 6 Captains (CPT) 1 3 Lieutenant.(LT) 1 3 Sergeants (SGT) 1 8 Fire Apparatus Operators (FAO) 13 Firefighters (FF) 4 See Appendix for details of 75 Quint and Rescue squad apparatus Mutual Aid Engine?? Dispatch and staffing issues make mutual aid response to Station 61 district problematic Alpharetta Engine does not often reach the Shark Fin region before JCFD units. 34

38 4.4 Option 4: This option (#4) also would include the construction and staffing of two (2) additional stations (#64 and #65) to meet the long-term resource and deployment needs of the City. The staffing levels required would be the same as Option 3 but the apparatus and equipment needed would be different. This option requires additional resources and fiscal commitments, including: Fifty (50) additional payroll positions & 1.2 FTE overtime costs: position Purchase of a tiller aerial ladder Truck, four (4) Quints and five (5) Rescue squad apparatus: $6,300, (MAG estimate) Purchase of property for and design, construction and furnishing of two (2) additional fire stations $2,720, (JCFD 1/20/15 est.) Purchase of additional necessary communications equipment: Undetermined Option Four: Estimated Costs Item Fifty (50) additional payroll positions & 1.2 FTE overtime costs Purchase of a tiller aerial ladder Truck, four (4) Quints and five (5) Rescue squad apparatus Purchase of property for and design, construction and furnishing of two (2) additional fire stations Purchase of additional necessary communications equipment. Estimated Cost position $6,300,000 $2,720,000 Undetermined 35

39 MAG believes there would be substantial benefits from this option, including: Dramatically Improves initial response time for large areas of the City, thus improving emergency medical service in those areas of the City. Dramatically improves firefighting personnel response, thus enhancing firefighting and rescue capacity in most areas of the City. Significantly increases incident command support, thus enhancing incident management effectiveness and firefighter safety. Increases staffing for Station 62, and provides increased truck support thus improving initial fire attack and rescue capabilities. Significantly improves long ground ladder capability and enlarges equipment storage compartment space for Truck 63, thus improving firefighting and rescue capabilities. Dramatically increases aerial ladder capability and mobility, thus improving firefighting and rescue capabilities. Dramatically increases aerial ladder availability, thus improving firefighting and rescue capabilities. Increases pump capacity by 2000 gpm. Increases reserve apparatus fleet, resulting in one reserve Truck, two (2) reserve Ambulances (replaced 61s & 63s) and two (2) reserve Engines (replaced Engines 61 and 62). 36

40 JOHNS CREEK FIRE DEPARTMENT RESOURCE DEPLOYMENT LOG Option 4 STATION APPARATUS STAFF GPM AERIA L COMMENTS Shift Battalion Chief Pickup 61 Engine Truck (tiller aerial) Rescue squad Reserve Ambulance 62 Quint Rescue squad Reserve Engine 63 Quint Rescue squad 64 Quint Rescue squad* Reserve Truck 65 Quint Rescue squad Reserve Engine Totals I Command Vehicle 4 Quints 1 Engine 1 Trucks (tiller 100 aerial) 5 Rescue squad 2 Reserve Engines 1 Reserve Truck 1 Reserve Ambulances BC CPT LT,/ FAO / FF CPT / FAO / FF SGT/ FF CPT / FAO / 2 FF SGT / FF CPT / FAO / 2 FF SGT / FF CPT / FAO / 2 FF SGT / FF CPT / FAO / 2 FF SGT / FF Minimum Staff: 34 Adds Command Assistant (Captain) 1500 Replaces 100 Quint more agile tiller 100 aerial. Increases equipment storage capacity Provides long ground ladder capability (50 ) Replaces Rescue Ambulance with Rescue squad Retains Replaced Rescue Ambulance for Reserve 2000 Replaces Engine with 75 Quint and Rescue squad * Increases staffing by 3 Retains Engine for reserve Replaces Engine, 100 Quint & Rescue (ambulance) with 75 Quint and Rescue squad Reduces staff by Additional station with 75 Quint and Rescue squad. Retain replaced 100 Quint for reserve Additional station with 75 Quint and Rescue squad. Retains Engine for reserve 9, Battalion Chief (BC) 6 Captains (CPT) 1 Lieutenants (LT) 5 Sergeants (SGT) 6 Fire Apparatus Operators (FAO) 15 Firefighters (FF) See Appendix for details of 75 Quint and Rescue squad apparatus 37