Extracted text (via pymupdf)
286276 characters
CENTER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY MANAGEMENT, LLC
475 K STREET NW, STE. 702 • WASHINGTON, DC 20001
WWW.CPSM.US • 716-969-1360
FIRE DEPARTMENT
ANALYSIS REPORT
El Mirage, Arizona
Final Report-February 2022
Exclusive Provider of Public Safety Technical Services for
International City/County Management Association
C
E
N
T
E
R
F
O
R
P
U
B
L
I
C
S
A
F
E
T
Y
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
,
L
L
C
i
THE ASSOCIATION & THE COMPANY
The International City/County Management Association is a 103-year old, nonprofit professional
association of local government administrators and managers, with approximately 13,000
members located in 32 countries.
Since its inception in 1914, ICMA has been dedicated to assisting local governments and their
managers in providing services to its citizens in an efficient and effective manner.
ICMA advances the knowledge of local government best practices with its website
(www.icma.org), publications, research, professional development, and membership. The ICMA
Center for Public Safety Management (ICMA/CPSM) was launched by ICMA to provide support
to local governments in the areas of police, fire, and emergency medical services.
ICMA also represents local governments at the federal level and has been involved in numerous
projects with the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security.
In 2014, as part of a restructuring at ICMA, the Center for Public Safety Management (CPSM)
was spun out as a separate company. It is now the exclusive provider of public safety technical
assistance for ICMA. CPSM provides training and research for the Association’s members and
represents ICMA in its dealings with the federal government and other public safety professional
associations such as CALEA, PERF, IACP, IFCA, IPMA-HR, DOJ, BJA, COPS, NFPA, and others.
The Center for Public Safety Management, LLC, maintains the same team of individuals
performing the same level of service as when it was a component of ICMA. CPSM’s local
government technical assistance experience includes workload and deployment analysis using
our unique methodology and subject matter experts to examine department organizational
structure and culture, identify workload and staffing needs, and align department operations
with industry best practices. We have conducted 341 such studies in 42 states and provinces
and 246 communities ranging in population from 8,000 (Boone, Iowa) to 800,000 (Indianapolis,
Ind.).
ii
CENTER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY MANAGEMENT
PROJECT CONTRIBUTORS
Thomas J. Wieczorek, Director
Leonard A. Matarese, Director, Research & Project Development
Dov Chelst, Ph.D. Director of Quantitative Analysis
Joseph E. Pozzo, Senior Manager
James Mauney, Senior Associate
Xianfeng Li, Data Analyst
Sarah Weadon, GIS Specialist
Dennis Kouba, Senior Editor
iii
CONTENTS
Tables ............................................................................................................................. v
Figures .......................................................................................................................... vii
Section 1. Executive Summary .................................................................................... 1
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 6
Section 2. Agency Review and Characteristics......................................................... 8
Emergency Medical Services ................................................................................................................ 9
Service Area .......................................................................................................................................... 10
EMFD Budget ......................................................................................................................................... 11
Capital Assets ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Facilities .............................................................................................................................................. 14
Fleet .................................................................................................................................................... 16
Training Programs .................................................................................................................................. 17
Community Risk Reduction Programs ................................................................................................ 20
Section 3. All-Hazards Risk Assessment of the Community .................................... 23
Population and Community Growth .................................................................................................. 23
Environmental Factors .......................................................................................................................... 26
Building and Target Hazards ................................................................................................................ 28
Transportation Factors .......................................................................................................................... 29
Fire and Fire-Related Risk ..................................................................................................................... 33
EMS Risk .................................................................................................................................................. 34
Fire and EMS Incident Demand .......................................................................................................... 35
ISO Rating .............................................................................................................................................. 40
Community Loss and Save Information ............................................................................................. 43
Automatic Aid ....................................................................................................................................... 44
Resiliency................................................................................................................................................ 50
Risk Categorization ............................................................................................................................... 54
Section 4. Staffing, Deployment, and Performance ................................................ 62
Primary Public Safety Answering Point Analysis ................................................................................. 62
Staffing and Deployment .................................................................................................................... 65
NFPA 1710 .......................................................................................................................................... 68
Code of Federal Regulations, NFPA 1500, and Two-In/Two-Out ................................................ 69
EMFD Staffing Model ............................................................................................................................ 72
Effective Response Force and Critical Tasking .............................................................................. 72
EMFD Response Times ........................................................................................................................... 77
iv
Assessing The Fire Management Zone ............................................................................................... 82
Specialized Response Capabilities ..................................................................................................... 91
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 92
Section 5. Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 97
Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 97
Aggregate Call Totals and Runs ......................................................................................................... 99
Calls by Type ...................................................................................................................................... 99
Calls by Type and Duration ........................................................................................................... 102
Average Calls by Month and Hour of Day .................................................................................. 104
Units Arriving at Calls (EMFD Only) ................................................................................................ 106
Workload: Runs and Total Time Spent .............................................................................................. 110
Runs and Deployed Time – EMFD Units......................................................................................... 110
Workload by Unit ............................................................................................................................. 115
Analysis of Busiest Hours ..................................................................................................................... 117
Response Time ..................................................................................................................................... 119
Response Time by Type of Call ...................................................................................................... 119
Response Time Distribution By Year ............................................................................................... 126
Comparison of Emergency and Non-emergency Response Times ......................................... 129
Attachment I: EMFD Calls Outside El Mirage ................................................................................... 130
EMFD Calls Outside El Mirage by Type ......................................................................................... 130
EMFD Workload by Location Outside El Mirage .......................................................................... 132
Attachment II: Workload of Aid FD Agency .................................................................................... 133
Calls Responded by Aid FD Agency, by Type............................................................................. 133
Workload by Aid FD Agency ......................................................................................................... 134
Attachment III: Number of Arriving Units, Inside El Mirage, All Agencies ..................................... 135
Attachment IV: Fire Loss ..................................................................................................................... 137
Attachment V: Response of Low Acuity Unit ................................................................................... 139
Attachment VI: Additional Personnel ............................................................................................... 140
Appendices ........................................................................................................................
Appendix A: City of El Mirage Fire Fee Schedule .................................................................................
v
TABLES
TABLE 1-1: 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving EMFD Unit, 2018–2020 ................................ 3
TABLE 2-1: EMFD Budget, FY 2020 through FY 2022 ............................................................................... 11
TABLE 2-2: EMFD Fleet ............................................................................................................................... 16
TABLE 2-3: Community Risk Reduction Office Activity .......................................................................... 22
TABLE 3-1: El Mirage Environmental Hazard Profile ............................................................................... 27
TABLE 3-2: Fire Call Types .......................................................................................................................... 33
TABLE 3-3: EMS Call Types ......................................................................................................................... 34
TABLE 3-4: Content and Property Loss, Structure and Outside Fires, 2018–2020................................ 44
TABLE 3-5: EMFD Responses to Location Outside El Mirage, by Jurisdiction ...................................... 48
TABLE 3-6: Auto Aid by Agency Responses into El Mirage ................................................................... 49
TABLE 3-7: Call Workload by EMFD Unit .................................................................................................. 50
TABLE 3-8: Trend of Frequency of Overlapping Calls ........................................................................... 51
TABLE 3-9: Trend of Frequency Distribution of the Number of Calls .................................................... 51
TABLE 3-10: Station Availability to Respond to Calls ............................................................................. 51
TABLE 3-11: Event Probability ................................................................................................................... 54
TABLE 3-12: Consequence to Community Matrix ................................................................................. 55
TABLE 3-13: Impact on EMFD ................................................................................................................... 56
TABLE 4-1: Call Answering Time,* Tolleson PSAP .................................................................................... 63
TABLE 4-2: Call Transfer Time* from Tolleson to Phoenix ....................................................................... 64
TABLE 4-3: EMFD Shift Matrix ..................................................................................................................... 72
TABLE 4-4: Effective Response Force for Single-Family Dwelling Fire .................................................. 74
TABLE 4-5: EMFD Effective Response Force for Single-Family Dwelling Fire ........................................ 74
TABLE 4-6: Effective Response Force for Open-Air Strip Mall Fire ........................................................ 75
TABLE 4-7: EMFD Effective Response Force for Open-Air Strip Mall/Commercial Fire ...................... 75
TABLE 4-8: Effective Response Force for Apartment Building Fire ....................................................... 76
TABLE 4-9: EMFD Effective Response Force for Apartment Building Fire ............................................ 76
TABLE 4-10: 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type, 2018 ......................... 88
TABLE 4-11: 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type, 2019 ......................... 88
TABLE 4-12: 90th Percentile Response Time First Arriving Unit, by Call Type, 2020 ............................. 89
TABLE 4-13: 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit, Three-Year Comparison by
Fire/EMS Annual Total in Seconds ........................................................................................................... 89
TABLE 5-1: Studied Calls by Location, Responding Agency, and Year .............................................. 98
TABLE 5-2: Calls by Type and Year .......................................................................................................... 99
TABLE 5-3: Calls by Type and Duration in 2019 .................................................................................... 102
TABLE 5-4: Call Duration by Grand Call Type and Year ..................................................................... 103
TABLE 5-5: Calls by Call Type and Number of Arriving EMFD Units in 2019 ....................................... 106
TABLE 5-6: Number of Arriving EMFD Units by Grand Call Type and Year ........................................ 109
TABLE 5-7: Annual EMFD Runs and Deployed Time by Run Type, 2019 ............................................ 110
TABLE 5-8: EMFD Runs and Deployed Time by Run Type and Year .................................................. 112
vi
TABLE 5-9: EMFD Deployed Minutes by Hour of Day, Grand Call Type, and Year .......................... 113
TABLE 5-10: Workload by EMFD Unit, 2019 ............................................................................................ 115
TABLE 5-11: Total Runs by Run Type and EMFD Unit, 2019 .................................................................. 115
TABLE 5-12: Average Deployed Minutes by Run Type and EMFD Unit, 2019 ................................... 115
TABLE 5-13: Workload and Runs by EMFD Unit and Year ................................................................... 116
TABLE 5-14: Frequency Distribution of the Number of Calls, by Year ................................................ 117
TABLE 5-15: Frequency of Overlapping Calls, by Year ....................................................................... 117
TABLE 5-16: EMFD Availability to Respond to Calls, by Year .............................................................. 118
TABLE 5-17: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type, 2019 ................................. 120
TABLE 5-18: 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type, 2019 ....................... 121
TABLE 5-19: Average and 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Hour of Day and
Year .......................................................................................................................................................... 123
TABLE 5-20: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time by Year, First Arriving Unit, EMS ................. 127
TABLE 5-21: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time by Year, First Arriving Unit, Outside and
Structure Fires ........................................................................................................................................... 128
TABLE 5-22: Trend of Average and 90th Percentile Response Times (Minutes) of First Arriving Unit,
for Emergency and Non-emergency Calls ......................................................................................... 129
TABLE 5-23: EMFD Calls Outside El Mirage, by Call Type and Year ................................................... 130
TABLE 5-24: EMFD Workload and Runs Outside El Mirage, by Location and Year .......................... 132
TABLE 5-25: Structure and Outside Fire EMFD Runs Outside El Mirage, by Location and Year ...... 132
TABLE 5-26: Aid Received Workload by Type and Year, Inside El Mirage ........................................ 133
TABLE 5-27: Aid Received by Unit, Agency, and Year ....................................................................... 134
TABLE 5-28: Number of Arriving Units by Grand Call Type and Year, All Agencies ......................... 135
TABLE 5-29: Total Fire Loss Above and Below $25,000, by Year and Response Type ...................... 137
TABLE 5-30: Total Content and Property Loss, by Year, Structure and Outside Fires ....................... 137
TABLE 5-31: Dispatch Protocols and CAD Response Type Descriptions, Outside and Structure Fires
.................................................................................................................................................................. 138
TABLE 5-32: Low Acuity Unit Arrivals, by Number of Arriving Engines and Year ............................... 139
TABLE 5-33: Workload of Administrative Units ...................................................................................... 140
vii
FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1: Response Coverage at 240 Seconds .................................................................................. 4
FIGURE 1-2: Response Coverage at 360 Seconds .................................................................................. 4
FIGURE 1-3: Response Coverage at 480 Seconds .................................................................................. 5
FIGURE 2-1: EMFD Organizational Chart .................................................................................................. 8
FIGURE 2-2: El Mirage Jurisdictional Boundaries .................................................................................... 10
FIGURE 2-3: Automatic Aid Map with the EMFD Station Location ...................................................... 11
FIGURE 2-4: EMFD Expense Breakdown .................................................................................................. 12
FIGURE 3-1: El Mirage Age Comparison (2017 data)............................................................................ 24
FIGURE 3-2: El Mirage Future Land Use Plan........................................................................................... 25
FIGURE 3-3: El Mirage Planned Future Land Use, Southern Area ........................................................ 26
FIGURE 3-4: Valley Metro Bus Route 571 ................................................................................................. 30
FIGURE 3-5: El Mirage Road Network and Transportation Plan ........................................................... 31
FIGURE 3-6: BNSF Rail Line in El Mirage ................................................................................................... 32
FIGURE 3-7: Fire Incident Demand (Structure and Outside Fires), 2018–2020 .................................... 36
FIGURE 3-8: Public Service, Good Intent, Hazard Incident Demand, 2018–2020 .............................. 37
FIGURE 3-9: False Alarm Incident Demand, 2018–2020 ........................................................................ 38
FIGURE 3-10: EMS Incident Demand, 2018–2020 ................................................................................... 39
FIGURE 3-11: PPC Ratings in the United States ...................................................................................... 41
FIGURE 3-12: PPC Ratings in the United States ...................................................................................... 41
FIGURE 3-13: Ladder Company Coverage in El Mirage....................................................................... 42
FIGURE 3-14: El Mirage Automatic Aid Companies Most Likely to Respond ..................................... 45
FIGURE 3-15: Automatic Aid Companies Benchmarked at 240 Seconds.......................................... 46
FIGURE 3-16: Automatic Aid Companies Benchmarked at 360 Seconds.......................................... 47
FIGURE 3-17: Automatic Aid Companies Benchmarked at 480 Seconds.......................................... 48
FIGURE 3-18: Calls by Hour of Day .......................................................................................................... 52
FIGURE 3-19: EMFD Low Acutiy Response Unit ....................................................................................... 53
FIGURE 3-20: Three-Axis Risk Calculation (RC) ....................................................................................... 57
FIGURE 3-21: Low Risk ................................................................................................................................ 58
FIGURE 3-22: Moderate Risk ..................................................................................................................... 59
FIGURE 3-23: High Risk ............................................................................................................................... 60
FIGURE 3-24: Special Risk .......................................................................................................................... 61
FIGURE 4-1: Event Timeline for 911 Call Receipt, Transfer, and Processing ........................................ 64
FIGURE 4-2: Fire Department Staffing Diagram ..................................................................................... 68
FIGURE 4-3: Two-In/Two-Out Interior Firefighting Model* ...................................................................... 71
FIGURE 4-4: Effective Response Force for Single-Family Dwelling Fire ................................................ 73
FIGURE 4-5: Incident Cascade of Events ............................................................................................... 78
FIGURE 4-6: Fire Growth from Inception to Flashover ........................................................................... 80
FIGURE 4-7: Cardiac Arrest Survival Probability by Minute ................................................................... 81
FIGURE 4-8: Cerebrovascular Emergency (Stroke) Chain of Survival ................................................. 81
viii
FIGURE 4-9: Sudden Cardiac Arrest Chain of Survival .......................................................................... 82
FIGURE 4-10: Travel Time of 240 Seconds from EMFD Station and Auto Aid Stations ....................... 84
FIGURE 4-11: ISO-FSRS 1.5-Mile Response Diamond for Engine Companies: EMFD and Auto Aid .. 85
FIGURE 4-12: Travel Time of 360 Seconds from EMFD Station and Auto Aid Stations ....................... 86
FIGURE 4-13: Travel Time of 480 Seconds from EMFD Station and Auto Aid Stations ....................... 87
FIGURE 4-14: Travel Time of 240 Seconds from EMFD Station .............................................................. 91
FIGURE 4-15: 240 Seconds Coverage, Current and Second EMFD Stations ...................................... 94
FIGURE 4-16: Ladder Company Coverage with EMFD Ladder and Auto Aid Ladders .................... 95
FIGURE 5-1: EMS Calls by Type and Year .............................................................................................. 100
FIGURE 5-2: Fire Calls by Type and Year ............................................................................................... 100
FIGURE 5-3: Average Calls by Month and Year .................................................................................. 104
FIGURE 5-4: Calls by Hour of Day and Year ......................................................................................... 105
FIGURE 5-5: 2019 EMS Calls by Number of Arriving EMFD Units .......................................................... 107
FIGURE 5-6: 2019 Fire Calls by Number of Arriving EMFD Units ........................................................... 107
FIGURE 5-7: Average Deployed Minutes by Hour of Day .................................................................. 114
FIGURE 5-8: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type, 2019, EMS Calls ............... 120
FIGURE 5-9: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type, 2019, Fire Calls ................ 121
FIGURE 5-10: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Hour of Day and Year ................... 124
FIGURE 5-11: 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Hour of Day and Year ........ 124
FIGURE 5-12: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time by Year, First Arriving Unit, EMS ............... 126
FIGURE 5-13: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time by Year, First Arriving Unit, Outside and
Structure Fires ........................................................................................................................................... 127
FIGURE 5-14: EMS Calls Outside El Mirage, by Type and Year ........................................................... 131
FIGURE 5-15: Fire Calls Outside El Mirage, by Type and Year ............................................................ 131
1
SECTION 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Center for Public Safety Management LLC (CPSM) was contracted by the City of El Mirage,
Arizona, to complete an independent analysis of the city’s fire department, evaluate its current
operational efficiency, and identify future fire service needs for strategic planning purposes. The
principal focal points of the CPSM analysis as outlined in the city’s Scope of Work include:
■ Evaluate the El Mirage Fire Department (EMFD) as related to its ability to provide service
currently and meet the future needs of the City of El Mirage and its citizens per 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, and
EMFD’s ability to meet the operational guidelines of the Intergovernmental Agreement for the
Regional Metropolitan Phoenix Fire Service Automatic Aid.
■ Evaluate the current primary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)—which is the City of
Tolleson Police Department Dispatch Center—to determine contractual requirements and
current performance in answering incoming E-911 emergency and non-emergency fire
service-related calls, the time taken to receive calls, and the time taken to transfer calls to the
secondary PSAP (Phoenix Fire Department's Regional Dispatch Center) for dispatch of EMFD
units.
■ Review the 2017 Public Protection Classification Report conducted by ISO; compare the
report to current service levels of the EMFD to determine if improvements can be developed
to enhance the city’s ISO rating.
■ Analyze historical data from the past five years from the EMFD record management systems,
Phoenix Fire Department's Regional Dispatch Center, ISO, and other available sources. The Fire
Chief agreed to a three-year analysis of response and unit workload due to data collection
delays and issues.
■ Evaluate operational and administrative staffing, fleet, facilities, service area characteristics,
response to specialized incidents, fire prevention/community risk reduction components,
training and education, emergency deployment capabilities, response time components,
and community risk analysis.
■ Utilize GIS mapping tools to analyze response performance of the department to primary
response areas from its station using existing street and roadway networks.
The EMFD is responsible for providing services that include fire suppression, first response
emergency medical services, community risk reduction, and response to disasters both natural
and man-made. These services are provided from one station located in the north-central area
of the city. Response is currently made through two engine companies and one Battalion Chief.
A low-acuity response unit is planned for re-implementation sometime in early 2022; the unit will
respond to low-acuity medical calls on a limited schedule, that is, during the peak workload
times of the day.
The EMFD is fortunate that it is signatory to a robust automatic aid system. The Regional
Metropolitan Phoenix Fire Service Automatic Aid System is an intergovernmental system of fire
departments in the Phoenix metro area, led by the Phoenix Fire Department, in which there are
essentially no jurisdictional boundaries for deploying fire, medical, technical rescue, hazardous
materials, and other specialty equipment and staffing assets to an emergency. As well, the
system strives for standardization among participating departments of operational policies and
2
procedures, training and education, facilities, dispatching services, and staffing. This system
significantly benefits smaller departments such as the EMFD which do not have technical rescue
and hazardous materials assets, ladder companies, or the capabilities to assemble an Effective
Response Force in accordance with the NFPA 1710 standard.
A significant component of this report is an All-Hazard Risk Assessment of the Community. The All-
Hazard Risk Assessment contemplates many factors that cause, create, facilitate, extend, and
enhance risk in and to a community. The service demands of the community are many for the
EMFD and include EMS first response, fire, and low acuity fire calls. The response district is made
up primarily single-family dwellings, which represent a low hazard; however, there are business,
commercial, multifamily residences, and other target hazards that fall into higher classes.
The All-Hazard Risk Assessment of the Community also contemplates projected growth in the
community (population and building), which will impact the EMFD’s ability in the future to
respond to and mitigate emergencies from its current single station location. In this report CPSM
makes planning recommendations that include alternatives for new services based on the
planned growth of large footprint and other industrial/commercial buildings in the southern area
of the city; these recommendations include the addition of a fully staffed ladder truck and a
second station.
CPSM also evaluated the resiliency of the EMFD, using the Center for Public Safety Excellence’s
Standard of Cover literature. Because of the regional auto aid system, the EMFD’s resiliency is
not stressed when both engine companies are committed to an incident.
In our evaluation of the Tolleson 911-dispatch center, we found that as the Primary Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP) for fire and EMS incidents in El Mirage, the Tolleson 911-dispatch center
does not meet the NFPA 1710 standard regarding call transfer time. This standard stipulates the
call for service once received in Tolleson shall be transferred to the emergency communications
center (Phoenix Fire Department Regional Dispatch Center) in ≤ 30 seconds 95 percent of the
time. The Tolleson 911-dispatch center did not meet this standard during the 2.5 year analysis of
data they made available to CPSM. The three-year average was 70.9-percent achievement of
the benchmark.
The response time and staffing components discussion of this report are designed to examine
the current level of service provided by the EMFD compared to national best practices,
specifically NFPA 1710. NFPA standards are national consensus standards and not mandates or
the law. These standards are based on evolving technology and identified industry needs and
provide strict guidance that has a focus on firefighter and community safety. Many cities and
countries strive to achieve these standards to the extent possible without adversely impacting
the financial health of the community.
A composite profile of EMFD response times for 2018, 2019, and 2020 is featured in the following
table.
Key response time parameters established for dispatch time and the first arriving engine in NFPA
1710 at the 90th percentile are as follows:
■ Event processed and units dispatched less than or equal to 64 seconds 90 percent of the time.
■ Travel time shall be less than or equal to 240 seconds for the first arriving engine company to a
fire suppression incident 90 percent of the time.
■ Travel time for EMS incidents is less than or equal to 240 seconds for the first arriving engine
company with automatic external defibrillator (AED) or higher level capability.
3
TABLE 1-1: 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving EMFD Unit, 2018–2020
Call Type
Dispatch
Turnout
Travel
Total
Response
Time
2018
EMS Total
90 secs.
96 sec.
348 secs.
474 secs.
Fire Total
126 secs.
96 sec.
378 secs.
516 secs.
2019
EMS Total
96 secs.
96 secs.
336 secs.
480 secs.
Fire Total
132 secs.
102 secs.
396 secs.
564 secs.
2020
EMS Total
108 secs.
102 secs.
324 secs.
462 secs.
Fire Total
132 secs.
108 secs.
348 secs.
510 secs.
Key takeaways from the information presented in this table and our analysis are:
■ Dispatch times for EMS incidents over the three-year study period do not meet the NFPA
standard. This aspect of response is out of the control of the EMFD.
■ Dispatch times for fire incidents over the three-year study period do not meet the NFPA
standard. This is due partly to the time it takes to prepare the CAD system with multiple units
from multiple stations, using automatic aid and closest unit response prior to dispatching the
call. This aspect of response is out of the control of the EMFD.
■ Turnout times for EMS incidents over the three-year study period do not meet the NFPA
standard. This aspect of response is within the control of the EMFD and when an issue was
identified in 2020, corrective actions were implemented per AC Richardson.
■ Turnout times for fire incidents over the three-year study period do not meet the NFPA
standard. This aspect of response is within the control of the EMFD and when an issue was
identified in 2020, corrective actions were implemented per AC Richardson.
■ Travel times to EMS incidents over the three-year study period do not meet the NFPA standard.
Travel times are dictated by the road network and accessibility to local streets, time of day
when traffic congestion is heaviest, weather, and station location with respect to the incident.
Other than station location(s), this aspect of response is out of the control of the EMFD.
■ Travel times to fire incidents over the three-year study period do not meet the NFPA standard.
Travel times are dictated by the road network and accessibility to local streets, time of day
when traffic congestion is heaviest, weather, and station location with respect to the incident.
Other than station location(s), this aspect of response is out of the control of the EMFD.
CPSM used GIS mapping to develop an analysis that benchmarks response from the EMFD fire
station against NFPA response time standards. Included in this analysis is response coverage
data of EMFD first-arriving engines in El Mirage, measured against an arrival of 240 seconds; the
arrival of the second fire suppression unit (engine or ladder) at 360 seconds; and the arrival of
the initial alarm assignment (Effective Response Force) at 480 seconds. The results of this analysis
are illustrated in the following figures.
■ Response coverage at 240 seconds (first arriving engine) as benchmarked against the NFPA
1710 standard is contained to the northeast and north central portion of the city. This matters
4
when both EMFD units are committed to calls or delayed in response when out of position.
Auto Aid Stations 301, 308, and 133 also assist in covering gaps that EMFD Station 121 cannot
meet regarding the 240 seconds response time (NFPA standard).
FIGURE 1-1: Response Coverage at 240 Seconds
240 Seconds EMFD Station Only
240 Seconds Auto Aid Stations Only
■ The NFPA 1710 standard for the arrival of the second due fire unit (engine or ladder) to arrive
on scene is 360 seconds. The EMFD deploys two engines from one station. If one EMFD engine
is tied up on a call, automatic aid companies will count towards meeting this standard.
Analysis of this figure shows the majority of the built-upon area of the city is covered at the
360 second benchmark.
FIGURE 1-2: Response Coverage at 360 Seconds
360 Seconds EMFD Station Only
360 Seconds Auto Aid Stations Only
■ The NFPA 1710 standard for assembling the initial first alarm assignment on scene for
low/medium hazards is 480 seconds. This standard links to the incident critical tasking and the
assembly of an Effective Response Force for the incident. The city is covered at the
480 seconds benchmark by the El Mirage fire station and the auto aid stations.
240 second
coverages
from EMFD
Station
Larger Maps
in Report
Larger Maps
in Report
5
FIGURE 1-3: Response Coverage at 480 Seconds
480 Seconds EMFD Station Only
480 Seconds Auto Aid Stations Only
In summation, a comprehensive risk assessment, analysis of deployable assets, and response
times are critical aspects of a fire department’s operation. These analyses will assist the EMFD in
quantifying the risks that it faces, and the EMFD will be better equipped to determine if the
current response resources are sufficiently outfitted and positioned. The factors that drive the
service needs are examined in this report and are linked to discussions regarding the assembling
of an Effective Response Force and contemplating the response capabilities needed to address
existing and future risks, which encompasses the component of critical tasks needed to be
performed on the fireground.
This report contains a series of observations and recommendations provided by CPSM that are
intended to help the EMFD continue to deliver services more efficiently and effectively. Most
importantly is the discussion in the conclusion section of the report in which CPSM contemplates
service delivery in terms of additional assets (ladder company), a second fire station, and
improvements in the community risk reduction function and the primary PSAP provided by the
City of Tolleson.
Recommendations and considerations for continuous improvement of services are presented
next. CPSM recognizes there may be recommendations and considerations offered that first
must be budgeted and/or bargained, or for which processes must be developed prior to
implementation.
§ § §
6
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. CPSM recommends the EMFD establish a formal staffing factor that can be used to assist in
the process for managing current and future staffing vacancies created by scheduled and
unscheduled leave.
2. CPSM recommends the Captain position assigned to the Fire Prevention/Community Risk
Reduction function be titled Fire Marshal to be consistent with regional and industry norms.
This position should also be charged with the responsibility of managing the fire inspection,
plans review, fire investigation, and public education programs. This position should also take
the lead on program design for Community Risk Reduction programs and performance
measures focused on reducing the risk of fire and improving citizen and firefighter safety.
3. CPSM recommends that the city reexamine the agreement with the City of Tolleson for
Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) services, and move to update this agreement to
include:
○ The timely release when requested by the City of El Mirage of 911 call receipt and transfer
data times to the Phoenix Fire Department Regional Dispatch Center;
○ The definition of EMFD as a PSAP customer;
○ Establishment of call transfer times that align with current NFPA 1710, Standard for the
Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical
Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Departments, 2020 Edition,
related to primary PSAP call processing and transfer times to the secondary PSAP
(30 seconds or less 95 percent of the time);
○ CPSM further recommends this agreement be reviewed on an annual basis and updated as
necessary, specifically when the NFPA 1710 standards change regarding primary PSAP call
processing and transfer times to the secondary PSAP.
4. CPSM recommends that the EMFD address the deficiencies in the most recent ISO report as
reviewed in this analysis. The Emergency Communications Center deficiencies should
include discussions with the Tolleson 911 Dispatch Center and its current capabilities, and
how the call transfer method to Phoenix can be improved. CPSM further recommends that
an EMFD representative be present in the Tolleson 911 Dispatch Center and the Phoenix Fire
Department Regional Dispatch Center during the next ISO evaluation for the purpose of
segregating deficiencies in each center to gain a better understanding of what
improvements need to be made and to what center.
5. The city should begin planning now for added fire staffing and ladder company service to
serve known and future planned commercial and industrial building growth in the southern
area of the city and to augment current service delivery in the northern half of the city. This
staffing should be linked to a second fire station in the southern part of the city that should
house an engine company and a ladder company. The city has two alternatives to staff this
station.
○ Alternative A: Move E122 to the second station and implement a ladder company as a new
service. This will include the purchase of a ladder truck and the addition of 12 personnel (3
Captains, 3 engineers, 6 firefighters). In this alternative, E121 stays in service at the current
station and LA121 remains in service as currently planned.
○ Alternative B: Keep Engines 121 and 122 at the current station and implement an engine
company and a ladder company at the second station as new services. This will include the
purchase of an engine apparatus and a ladder truck and the addition of 24 personnel
7
(6 Captains, 6 engineers, 12 firefighters). In this alternative, LA121 stays in service at the
current station as currently planned or the positions are converted to the fill the new engine
company and LA121 is placed out of service.
○ The second fire station should be planned for operational use as described above (engine
and ladder company), and for certain administrative functions to relieve the space needs
at the current fire stations, as identified by staff. Because of the potential close proximity to
City Hall, the second station may include the Fire Chief’s office and his immediate
operational and administrative staff, as well as a large meeting room for city and public use
that can double as a more permanent Emergency Operations Center.
6. As the department continues to expand operationally and administratively, and will in the
future, CPSM identified a space issue at the current EMFD facility. Hampering expansion
efforts is the minimal footprint available to expand the current facility. This said, and if the
city does not move to construct a second fire station, CPSM recommends as a planning
objective (one- to three-year planning period) the city and department retain an
engineering firm/consultant to conduct a comprehensive review of the EMFD facility to
determine the necessity for improvements/facility footprint expansion in the next three to five
years, and what, if any land footprint is available for such an expansion. Included in this plan
should be a budgetary and funding plan that focuses on size/space for crew
accommodations and EMFD operations (programmatic, administrative, training, emergency
management) and apparatus storage.
§ § §
8
SECTION 2. AGENCY REVIEW AND
CHARACTERISTICS
The El Mirage Fire Department (EMFD) is responsible for providing emergency services from two
primary divisions that include Operations (primarily fire suppression, and first response emergency
medical services) and Community Risk Reduction (fire code enforcement, fire prevention and
development plans review, and public education). Other programs administered through these
primary divisions include a department health and safety program, professional development
programs, community education to include CPR and First Aid classes, car-seat installation,
maintenance of Automatic External Defibrillators in city buildings, emergency management,
and hazardous materials and technical rescue initial level response. These services represent
best practices/best program practices for fire service agencies.
The EMFD is led by a Fire Chief. This position (department-head level) serves as a member of the
City Manager’s cabinet. The organizational structure includes senior, middle manager, and
program manager-level positions (Assistant Fire Chief, Battalion Chiefs), first-line supervisors
(Captain level), engineers (apparatus driver-operator), firefighters, and civilian support staff. The
largest contingent of personnel in the organization are company-level officers, engineers, and
firefighters. Figure 2-1 illustrates the EMFD’s organizational as provided by the department.
FIGURE 2-1: EMFD Organizational Chart
9
The EMFD provides emergency services from one station located in the north-central section of
the city. Response is primarily made through two engine companies, one shift command
vehicle, and various other operational support vehicles available as needed. The EMFD operates
with three operational shifts. The operational shift schedule is 48 hours on and 96 hours off. In
early 2022, the EMFD will re-implement a light duty response vehicle to respond to low-acuity
EMS incidents.
The low-acuity response asset is emerging nationally as fire and EMS departments search for
more contemporary methods to meet the evolving changes of the community. Access to care
is a main driver of EMS ground transport use whereby users of the EMS system use the local
hospital emergency department as their primary care physician, thus consuming the time of EMS
ground transport units on lower acuity calls for service. To meet this demand, fire and EMS
departments are implementing mobile integrated health assets to respond to lower acuity calls
for service, some staffed with nurses and/or nurse practitioners and/or mental health providers.
The goal is to keep Advanced Life Support (ALS) EMS ground transport units available for the
higher acuity responses where EMTs and Paramedics are most needed in emergency situations.
This is an emerging national best practice.
In addition to in-city mitigation of fire and emergency service incidents, the EMFD provides and
receives mutual/automatic aid from neighboring/contiguous jurisdictions as a signatory member
of the Regional Metropolitan Phoenix Fire Service Automatic Aid System, a national best
practice. This is codified as well in Chapter 34.31 of the city’s code of ordinances. In addition to
this agreement, the EMFD is also signatory to a staffing agreement with the Arizona Fire and
Medical Authority whereby participating jurisdictions can share available staffing through
assignment by the sharing jurisdiction. Remuneration for staffing services is completed by the
receiving jurisdiction back to the sharing jurisdiction.
The City of El Mirage is structured under the council-manager form of government. The City
Council acts as the legislative and policy-making body of the city and appoints a City Manager
who serves as the administrative head of the city government under the direction of the
Council.1 Chapter 34.20 of the city’s code of ordinances establishes the fire department with
Chapter 34.23 establishing the duties of the Fire Chief. Under the code of ordinances, the Fire
Chief is appointed by the City Manager with the consent of the City Council and serves as the
head of the department. All powers and duties of the fire department are outlined and codified
in Chapter 34 of the city code.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
The EMFD responds to EMS incidents as a first responder agency (Tier 1). EMFD engine
companies have appropriately trained staff (including Paramedic-level) on duty on each
apparatus to render pre-transport emergency care to those requiring such care.
(EMS) ground transportation is provided in El Mirage by a private ambulance service, American
Medical Response (AMR). The current agreement between the city and AMR was implemented
on March 1, 2016, and was for an initial three-year period with three one-year extensions. The
agreement is currently in its last one-year extension, which is set to sunset on February 28, 2022.
The agreement stipulates service and staffing levels, response time parameters (to include
liquidated damages for failure to meet agreed upon response times), alternative care
alternatives, equipment specifications, dispatch and communication center fees, personnel
1. El Mirage Code of Ordinances, Chapter 30.20(E)
10
expectations, and other performance and management aspects typically found in this type of
agreement with a private ground transport entity.
SERVICE AREA
The City of El Mirage is located in Maricopa County, Arizona, and positioned west of the City of
Phoenix. El Mirage is considered to be in the metro Phoenix area of the county. The city
boundaries encompass an area of about 10 square miles. The city is bordered on the east,
southeast, and northeast by the Aqua Fria River. Contiguous jurisdictions by land include the City
of Surprise to the north, northwest, and west; the City of Glendale to the southeast;
unincorporated Maricopa County to the southwest and south; and via bridge (Grand Ave.-US
Route 60) over the Aqua Fria River, Sun City and Youngtown. Luke Air Force Base is southwest of
the city.
The following figure illustrates the municipal boundaries of the city in which the EMFD responds.
FIGURE 2-2: El Mirage Jurisdictional Boundaries
The next figure shows the City of El Mirage and EMFD station location and those jurisdictions most
likely to provide automatic aid to and receive automatic aid from EMFD.
11
FIGURE 2-3: Automatic Aid Map with the EMFD Station Location
EMFD BUDGET
The EMFD operating budget for the current and two most recent fiscal years is outlined in the
following table; the figures shown are general fund budget allocations, as the EMFD is a general
fund (GF) department. Revenues for this fund come from sales tax (approximately 30 percent of
the FY 2022 GF revenues), property taxes, state shared revenues, licenses and permits, fees, and
transfers.2 In FY 2021, personnel services (payroll expenditures to include salary, benefits, and
pension costs) made up 55.2 percent of the general fund budget in El Mirage. This is not
uncommon nationally, since general fund departments and activities are typically service-
oriented departments and costs are heavily weighted by staffing and personnel costs (salary,
benefits, pension costs).3 The FY 2021-22 GF budget for the city is $34.14 million, with public safety
(police and fire operations) making up a significant portion of General Fund expenditures.4
TABLE 2-1: EMFD Budget, FY 2020 through FY 2022
FY 2020 Actual
FY 2021 Budgeted
FY 2022 Budgeted
$3,692,484
$4,506,500
$4,859,500
Traditionally, and like every other career fire department in the nation, the EMFD’s budget is
primarily consumed in personnel costs. This includes salary, benefit, and retirement costs;
overtime; and worker’s compensation. The EMFD personnel services budget area consistently
2. Annual Budget for the Fiscal Year FY 21-22, City of El Mirage, AZ.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
308
12
represents approximately 80-plus percent of the total budget. The next largest budget areas are
supplies and services, which support the operation and maintenance of facilities and
equipment, automotive operational/repair costs and replacement, maintenance and
operations of equipment, professional development, and information technology. The next
figure illustrates a breakdown of the EMFD budget.
FIGURE 2-4: EMFD Expense Breakdown5
The EMFD budget does include certain line items for other expenditures; in the current year
budget these are:
■ Special Projects: $89,500.
■ Capital Equipment Purchase: $17,000.
■ Buildings and Improvements: $136,000.
In addition to funding the fire department through the GF, the city has an aggressive Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) from which the EMFD also receives funding. In El Mirage, a capital
project/expense is generally defined as having a cost greater than $5,000 and a useful life of
more than a year. In the five-year CIP budget, the EMFD has three projects included as follows:
■ Thermal Imaging Camera FY22, $17,000.
■ Parking Structure
FY22, $136,000 (storage of reserve apparatus/ EMFD fleet).
■ Engine Replacement
FY23, $700,000.
The city has received American Rescue Plan Act funds and has apportioned a certain amount
to the EMFD to fund positions through fiscal year 2024 to staff a low acuity response unit as
described above.
5. Annual Budget for the Fiscal Year FY 21-22, City of El Mirage, AZ.
Capital
Outlay
13
In November 2021, when CPSM met with the Fire Chief and staff, the Fire Chief discussed the
current overtime quandary the department is experiencing. The FY 22 budgeted overtime for
firefighters, engineers, and Captains collectively is $240,000. As of January 1, 2022 the
department had spent $227,086 in overtime, and this is projected to accrue to $350,000 by fiscal
year end per the Chief. Overtime is used to maintain minimum staffing of four on each engine
(eight per shift) to meet staffing criteria of the regional automatic aid agreement. Shift staffing
vacancies occur daily due to scheduled and unscheduled leave.
Scheduled and unscheduled leave are governed through Standard Operating Guidline
#100.08, Leave Management. The EMFD operates with a constant staffing model. This means
there are no added personnel assigned to a shift to fill vacancies created by scheduled or
unscheduled leave. This model then, consistently requires overtime to maintain minimum staffing
levels and thus must be budgeted for on an annual basis.
The Fire Chief is developing a proposal to assist in covering scheduled and unscheduled leave
and reducing overtime through the hiring of additional personnel (one firefighter per shift). The
Fire Chief estimates this annualized cost to be $279,750. While this is one method to reduce
overtime, it does have an impact on the budget that is more permanent than overtime. The
addition of personnel also will, over time, increase the amount of on-shift personnel that will be
utilizing scheduled and unscheduled leave. Therefore, barring unforeseen circumstances,
overtime funding will still be needed, but potentially not at the amount projected in the current
budget.
It is not atypical for fire departments to staff shifts with additional personnel to cover scheduled
and unscheduled leave. In some departments this is done on a large scale, such as one
additional firefighter per engine per shift. These personnel are utilized to cover both short- and
longer-term vacancies, thus reducing overtime expenses.
To determine the number of additional personnel needed to cover vacated positions due to
leave, a staffing factor should be established. The following calculations show how this would
apply to the EMFD.
The EMFD employs twenty-four full time staffing positions assigned to one of three platoons to
staff the two engines. Each platoon is scheduled on a 48-hour shift (8 per shift). Each platoon
works approximately five 48-hour shifts per month (10 working days). The standard rotation is 48
hours on and 96 hours off. No additional positions exist to maintain minimum staffing of eight per
shift due to employee absences resulting from scheduled or unscheduled leave. Under this
staffing model, when an employee on a shift is off because of scheduled or unscheduled leave,
the vacant position(s) are filled through overtime. This staffing method is considered “constant
staffing” and requires overtime to staff vacant full-time positions to maintain minimum staffing.
Through the development of a staffing factor, the EMFD can better plan the fiscal impacts of
maintaining minimum staffing through overtime funding or adding additional staff to be utilized
to fill vacancies.
§ § §
14
Staffing factor calculation: staffing factor =
𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞
𝑬
E = P –A
E = the number of effective hours per employee per year or hours scheduled
P = the number of paid hours per employee per year
A = the average number of hours of paid absences per year per employee
The EMFD utilizes twenty-four full-time career positions assigned to shift operations. As reported by
the EMFD, for a one year period (January 1-December 31, 2021) the number of paid hours each
employee was scheduled to work was 2,912 hours (3,003 for payroll purposes). This totals 69,888
hours for the twenty-four employees. During this same period, shift operations personnel assigned
to the two engines aggregately utilized 9,270 hours of leave (personal, vacation, sick, medical,
FMLA, bereavement etc.). Utilizing the staffing factor formula above:6
P = 2,912
A = 386 (average of 9,270/24)
staffing factor =
𝟐𝟗𝟏𝟐
𝟐,𝟓𝟐𝟔 = 1.15
P – A = 2,526
E = 2,526
Therefore, it would take one full-time and 0.15 of a full-time employee to fill each position per
48-hour hour shift, or aggregately 1.20 (0.15 x 8) of a full-time equivalent employee per 48-hour
shift to better manage the financial aspect of minimum staffing of eight per shift (firefighters,
engineers, Captains). To achieve the additional 1.20 aggregate staffing factor per shift, the
department can either add additional staffing each shift with one FTE position or continue to use
overtime budgeted at 1.20 FTE per shift, or a combination of both.
By utilizing a staffing factor formula, the EMFD can better manage how to fund additional
personnel to staff vacant positions created by leave (scheduled and unscheduled) is funded.
Additionally, this can better assist the EMFD in determining a more accurate overtime budget or
developing future budgetary alternatives for additional FTE staffing to fill vacancies caused by
scheduled and unscheduled leave to reduce overtime costs.
CAPITAL ASSETS
Facilities
Fire facilities must be designed and constructed to accommodate both current and forecasted
trends in fire service vehicle type and manufactured dimensions. A facility must have sufficiently-
sized bay doors, circulation space between garaged vehicles, departure and return aprons of
adequate length and turn geometry to ensure safe response, and floor drains and oil separators
to satisfy environmental concerns. Station vehicle bay areas should also consider future tactical
vehicles that may need to be added to the fleet to address forecast response challenges, even
if this consideration merely incorporates civil design that ensures adequate parcel space for
additional bays to be constructed in the future.
Personnel-oriented needs in fire facilities must enable performance of daily duties in support of
response operations. For personnel, fire facilities must have provisions for vehicle maintenance
and repair; storage areas for essential equipment and supplies; space and amenities for
6. Ammons, D., Tools for Decision Making,2nd edition, (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2009), 229-230.
15
administrative work, training, physical fitness, laundering, meal preparation, and personal
hygiene/comfort; and—where a fire department is committed to minimize “turnout time”—
bunking facilities.
A fire department facility may serve as a de facto “safe haven” during local community
emergencies, and serve as a command center for large-scale, protracted, campaign
emergency incidents. Therefore, design details and construction materials and methods should
embrace a goal of having a facility that can perform in an uninterrupted manner despite
prevailing climatic conditions and/or disruption of utilities. Programmatic details, such as the
provision of an emergency generator connected to automatic transfer switching—even going
as far as to provide tertiary redundancy of power supply via a “piggyback” roll-up generator
with manual transfer (should the primary generator fail)—provide effective safeguards that
permit the fire department to function fully during local emergencies when response activity
predictably peaks.
Personnel/occupant safety is a key element of effective station design. This begins with intricate
details such as the quality of finish on bay floors and nonslip treads on stairwell steps to decrease
tripping/fall hazards, or use of hands-free plumbing fixtures and easily disinfected
surfaces/countertops to promote infection control. It continues with installation of specialized
equipment such as an exhaust recovery system to capture and remove cancer-causing by-
products of diesel fuel exhaust emissions. A design should thoughtfully incorporate best practices
for achieving a safe and hygienic work environment.
An ergonomic layout and corresponding space adjacencies in a fire station should seek to limit
the travel distances between occupied crew areas to the apparatus bays. Likewise, facility
design should carefully consider complementary adjacencies, such as lavatories/showers in
proximity of bunk rooms, desired segregations, and break rooms or fitness areas that are remote
from sleeping quarters. Commercial grade furnishings, fixtures, and equipment selection should
provide longevity to the around-the-clock occupancy inherent to fire facilities. Durability is
essential, given the accelerated wear and life cycle of systems and goods in facilities that are
constantly occupied and operational.
National standards such as NFPA 1500, Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety,
Health, and Wellness Program, outlines standards that transfer to facilities such as infection
control, personnel and equipment decontamination, cancer prevention, storage of protective
clothing, and employee fitness. NFPA 1851, Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of
Protective Ensembles for Structural Firefighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, further delineates
laundering standards for protective clothing and station wear. Laundry areas in fire facilities
continue to evolve and are being separated from living areas to reduce contamination. Factors
such as wastewater removal and air flow need to be considered in a facility design.
Sound community fire-rescue protection requires the strategic distribution of fire station facilities
to ensure that effective service area coverage is achieved, that predicted response travel times
satisfy prevailing community goals and national best practices, and that the facilities are
capable of supporting mission-critical personnel and vehicle-oriented requirements and needs.
Additionally, depending on a fire-rescue department’s scope of services, size, and complexity,
other facilities may be necessary to support emergency communications, personnel training,
fleet and essential equipment maintenance and repair, and supply storage and distribution.
The EMFD operates out of one facility located in the north/central area of the city. This station
houses two engine crews and a command officer around-the-clock, 365 days a year; fire
administrative offices; a training room that also serves as the city’s Emergency Operations
Center (EOC); and in the near future a low acuity response unit. The EMFD station, at 14,600
16
square feet, serves as the main operational center for the department (11,300 square feet for fire
operations), and the administration offices and training/EOC room (3,300 square feet total).
The station was constructed in 2012, and, according to staff, one full apparatus bay and other
ancillary, storage, and living spaces were eliminated from initial design. The current station does
not provide adequate spaces for all necessary operations and personnel (hence the request for
an exterior parking structure to provide cover for apparatus in the FY22 CIP budget). Space
needs include climate controlled storage; office space for the fire prevention officer with an
area for plan reviews that will accommodate a large desk/drafting table; expanded training
area; and a more permanent Emergency Operations Center (EOC).
Fleet
The provision of an operationally ready and strategically located fleet of mission-essential fire-
rescue vehicles is fundamental to the ability of a fire-rescue department to deliver reliable and
efficient public safety within a community.
The EMFD currently operates a fleet of operational response apparatus as shown in the following
table.
TABLE 2-2: EMFD Fleet
Apparatus Type
Year In Service
Operational Assignment
Engine: Pierce Velocity
2006
Reserve
Engine: Ferrara Inferno
2008
Front-Line
Engine: Pierce Impel
2016
Front-Line
Brush Truck: Ford F550
2006
Front-Line
Battalion Vehicle: Ford F350
2019
Front-Line
EMS Low Acuity: Dodge 3500
2012
Front-Line
The EMFD also has an assortment of command and staff vehicles.
The procurement, maintenance, and eventual replacement of response vehicles is one of the
largest expenses incurred in sustaining a community’s fire-rescue department. While it is the
personnel of the EMFD who provide emergency services within the community, the
department’s fleet of response vehicles is essential to operational success. Reliable vehicles are
needed to deliver responders and the equipment/materials they employ to the scene of
dispatched emergencies within the city. Maintenance for heavy fire apparatus is currently
contracted out to a regional vendor. The vendor utilizes Emergency Vehicle Technician (EVT)
certified mechanics, which is a best practice.
Replacement of fire-rescue response vehicles is a necessary, albeit expensive, element of fire
department budgeting that should reflect careful planning. A well-planned and documented
emergency vehicle replacement plan ensures ongoing preservation of a safe, dependable,
and operationally capable response fleet. A plan must also include a schedule for future capital
outlay in a manner that is affordable to the community.
NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, serves as a guide to the manufacturers that
build fire apparatus and the fire departments that purchase them. The document is updated
every five years using input from the public/stakeholders through a formal review process. The
committee membership is made up of representatives from the fire service, manufacturers,
17
consultants, and special interest groups. The committee monitors various issues and problems
that occur with fire apparatus and attempts to develop standards that address those issues. A
primary interest of the committee over the past years has been improving firefighter safety and
reducing fire apparatus crashes.
The Annex Material in NFPA 1901 (2016) contains recommendations and work sheets to assist in
decision-making in vehicle purchasing. With respect to recommended vehicle service life, the
following excerpt is noteworthy:
“It is recommended that apparatus greater than 15 years old that have been properly
maintained and that are still in serviceable condition be placed in reserve status and
upgraded in accordance with NFPA 1912, Standard for Fire Apparatus Refurbishing
(2016), to incorporate as many features as possible of the current fire apparatus
standard. This will ensure that, while the apparatus might not totally comply with the
current edition of the automotive fire apparatus standards, many improvements and
upgrades required by the recent versions of the standards are available to the
firefighters who use the apparatus.”
The impetus for these recommended service life thresholds is continual advances in occupant
safety. Despite good stewardship and maintenance of emergency vehicles in sound operating
condition, there are many advances in occupant safety, such as fully enclosed cabs, enhanced
rollover protection and air bags, three-point restraints, antilock brakes, higher visibility, cab noise
abatement/hearing protection, and a host of other improvements as reflected in each revision
of NFPA 1901. These improvements provide safer response vehicles for those providing
emergency services within the community, as well those “sharing the road” with these
responders.
The EMFD follows the NFPA recommendations for apparatus replacement, which are ten years
for front-line service and five years in reserve service. At the fifteen-year mark, the EMFD budgets
in the CIP to replace the apparatus so as not to extend the service life beyond much beyond
fifteen years, a best practice. As noted above, the 2006 engine apparatus is due to be replaced
in the FY 23 CIP budget. Staff vehicles are replaced based on age, mileage, and review of
maintenance costs.
TRAINING PROGRAMS
Training is, without question, one of the most essential functions that a fire department should be
performing on a regular basis. One could even make a credible argument that training is, in
some ways, more important than emergency responses because a department that is not well
trained, prepared, and operationally ready will be unable to fulfill its emergency response
obligations and mission. Education and training are vital at all levels of fire service operations to
ensure that are necessary functions are completed correctly, safely, and effectively. A
comprehensive, diverse, and ongoing training program is critical to the fire department’s level of
success.
An effective fire department training program must cover all the essential elements of that
department’s core missions and responsibilities. The level of training or education required, given
a set of tasks, varies with the jobs to be performed. The program must include an appropriate
combination of technical/didactic training, manipulative or hands-on/practical evolutions, and
training assessment to gauge the effectiveness of these efforts. Most of the training, but
particularly the practical, standardized, hands-on training evolutions should be developed
based upon the department’s own operating procedures and operations while remaining
18
cognizant of widely accepted practices and standards that could be used as a benchmark to
judge the department’s operations for any number of reasons.
Certain Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)7 regulations dictate that
minimum training must be completed on an annual basis, covering assorted topics that include:
■ A review of the respiratory protection standard, self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)
refresher and user competency training, SCBA fit testing (29 CFR 1910.134).
■ Blood Borne Pathogens Training (29 CFR 1910.1030).
■ Hazardous Materials Training (29 CFR 1910.120).
■ Confined Space Training (29 CFR 1910.146).
■ Structural Firefighting Training (29 CFR 1910.156).
In addition, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards contain recommendations for
training on diverse topics such as a requirement for structural firefighting training annually for
each fire department member. As well the ISO-Fire Suppression Rating System (ISO-FSRS) has
certain training requirements for which fire departments receive credit during the ISO-FSRS
review.
Because so much depends upon the ability of the emergency responder to effectively deal with
an emergency, education and training must have a prominent position within an emergency
responder’s schedule of activities when on duty. Education and training programs also help to
create the character of a fire service organization. Agencies that place a real emphasis on their
training tend to be more proficient in performing day-to-day duties. The prioritization of training
also fosters an image of professionalism and instills pride in the organization. Overall, the EMFD
has a robust and comprehensive training program and there exists a dedicated effort focused
on a wide array of training activities.
The EMFD does not have a stand-alone training unit. Incumbent training is developed and
implemented at the Senior Staff, Battalion Chief, and Captain level. For consistency, the
Assistant Chief monitors training for company level staff. The department hires only fire- and EMS-
certified prospective employees. Minimum hiring requirements are Firefighter Level I and II in
accordance with NFPA 1001 training standards, and Emergency Medical Care Technician, or
Paramedic in accordance with Arizona Department of Health Services and state statutes.
The EMFD has an incumbent training program for fire, EMS, and technical responses that
includes, but is certainly not limited to:
■ Firefighter: 192 hours of company training, 18 hours of facility training (multicompany training),
6 hours of Hazardous Material Training.
■ Engineer: 192 hours of company training, 12 hours of driver training, 18 hours of facility training
(multicompany training), 6 hours of Hazardous Material Training.
■ Captain: 192 hours of company training, 12 hours of officer training, 18 hours of facility training
(multicompany training), 6 hours of Hazardous Material Training.
7. The Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health (ADOSH) has adopted federal OSHA standards
and incorporates them by reference into the Arizona State Plan, which covers state and local government
employees.
19
■ Battalion Chiefs are required to attend Battalion Chief/Deputy Chief training held by the
Phoenix Fire Department on a quarterly basis. This training covers a wide variety of pertinent
position training to include incident command and incident command center training, special
operations, leadership topics, regional response operating guidelines, building construction
topics, and fireground safety to name a few.
■ All personnel are required to meet minimum continuing education hours to maintain their EMT
or Paramedic Certification in accordance with Arizona Department of Health Services and
state statutes.
The station officer conducts company-level training either at the station or various locations in
the city, depending on the training topic. Multicompany training (facility training) is conducted
at the Glendale Regional Public Safety Training Center (GRPSTC). Quarterly MCS training is
conducted by Battalion Chiefs. This is a benefit to being a participant in the regional auto aid
agreement.
The EMFD utilizes Vector Solutions (formerly Target Solutions) as a didactic/virtual platform for
department training. Vector Solutions offers a robust course catalog system for fire and EMS
training (among other disciplines in need of continuing education) that can be utilized to meet
all federal, state, and local public safety training mandates. Its inventory is comprised of more
than 450 hours of fire department training, as well as 250 hours of accredited EMS training.8
Training personnel (and really any officer or member so authorized) can post training and
information materials online for personnel to reference. The training schedule is posted
prominently on Vector Solutions and accessible to all personnel. Vector Solutions also provides
the platform for managing all training records and reports. The use of this program helps to
ensure that there is a reliable and accurate database for tracking and retrieval of all
department-level training and for recording and tracking the status of certifications for all
personnel. The EMFD is one of more than 7,000 public agencies utilizing Vector Solutions.9
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) #6.1 addresses the training requirements for members of
the department (primarily those assigned to fire operations). This policy is a robust and well-laid-
out policy that guides the ongoing training of the EMFD. Captains (company officers) are
responsible to ensure staff assigned to their company/shift receive the required training as
outlined in the policy. This policy includes:
■ A requirement of 20 hours of fire suppression training per month (two hours per shift).
■ Multicompany drills: four per year (two night/two day), three hours per drill.
■ Single company drills: four per year, three hours per drill.
■ Minimum Company Standards (MCS).
○ Each shift Captain will be responsible for the ongoing management of MCS for their
respective shifts.
○ A Chief Officer will annually evaluate crews. Any Company performing below standards will
be given a date On which they will be retested.
■ Annual and required OSHA training.
■ Driver and Operator: Three half-day sessions per year in accordance with NFPA 1002.
8. Online Fire Department Training & Performance Solutions (vectorsolutions.com)
9. Ibid.
20
■ Pre-Fire Planning Inspections: The EMFD includes pre-fire planning inspections in its training
regimens, a best practice and ISO-FSRS grading component. Each company/shift is required
to visit/inspect each commercial, industrial, institutional, and similar type buildings (which are
target hazards) twice each year. The EMFD allows a portion of the time required to perform
pre-fire inspection to be considered.
■ Hazardous Materials Training: All operational personnel (emergency responders) must
complete four hours per year.
■ Probationary Employee Training (Firefighter, Engineer, Captain): Employees on probation must
complete ten hours of training in their respective rank as outlined in the training SOP.
■ EMS Training: EMTs–24-hours of continuing education over a 24-month period;
Paramedics–60 hours of continuing education over a 24-month period.
Professional development for fire department personnel, especially officers, is also an important
part of overall training. There are numerous excellent opportunities for firefighters and officers to
attend training on a wide range of topics outside of the Phoenix metro area, including those
offered at various state firefighting academies, and at the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg,
Maryland. Beyond the practical benefits to be gained from personnel participating in outside
training, encouraging professional development increases the positive professional perception
of the organization and can help to demonstrate a commitment to continued excellence. The
city and EMFD supports professional development beyond the metro area as described and,
per the Chief, the department participates in these opportunities, which is a best practice.
COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION PROGRAMS
Community Risk Reduction activities are important undertakings of a modern-day fire
department. A comprehensive fire protection system in every jurisdiction should include, at a
minimum, the key functions of fire prevention, code enforcement, inspections, and public
education. Preventing fires before they occur, and limiting the impact of those that do, should
be priority objectives of every fire department. Fire investigation is a mission-important function
of fire departments, as this function serves to determine how a fire started and why the fire
behaved the way it did, providing information that plays a significant role in fire prevention
efforts. Educating the public about fire safety and teaching them appropriate behaviors on how
to react should they be confronted with a fire is also an important life safety responsibility of the
fire department.
Fire suppression and response, although necessary to protect property, have minor impacts on
preventing fires. Rather, it is public fire education, fire prevention, and built-in fire protection
systems that are essential elements in protecting citizens from death and injury due to fire, smoke
inhalation, and carbon monoxide poisoning. The fire prevention mission is of utmost importance,
as it is the only area of service delivery that dedicates 100 percent of its effort to the reduction of
the incidence of fire.
Fire prevention is a key responsibility of every member of the fire department, and fire prevention
activities should include all personnel. On-duty personnel can be assigned the responsibility for
“in-service” inspections to identify and mitigate fire hazards in buildings, to familiarize firefighters
with the layout of buildings, identify risks that may be encountered during firefighting operations,
and to develop pre-fire plans; the EMFD does this currently. On-duty personnel in many
departments are also assigned responsibility for permit inspections and public fire safety
education activities.
21
Fire prevention should be approached in a truly systematic manner, and many community
stakeholders have a personal stake and/or responsibility in these endeavors. A significant
percent of all the requirements found in building/construction and related codes are related in
some way to fire protection and safety. Various activities such as plan reviews, permits, and
inspections are often spread among different departments in the municipal government and
are often not coordinated as effectively as they should be. Every effort should be made to
ensure these activities are managed effectively between departments.
The Community Risk Reduction function in the EMFD is provided by a Captain on special
assignment. In addition to the Captain, the office is staffed with a fire prevention officer
(firefighter level). Together these two positions administer the fire code inspection, fire
investigation, development plan reviews, and public education mission of the department. The
Community Risk Reduction office works closely with the city’s Development Services Office
concerning matters of new development plan reviews and fire code enforcement when
building code issues are identified.
At the time of this analysis the City of El Mirage and EMFD were utilizing the following fire and
building codes:
■ The International Fire Code, 2012 edition.
■ The International Building Code, 2012 edition.
The city also utilizes the following building-related codes:
■ The International Residential Code.
■ International Fuel Gas Code.
■ International Energy Conservation Code.
■ The International Existing Building Code.
■ International Green Construction Code (voluntary).
■ International Mechanical Code.
■ The International Property Maintenance Code.
■ National Electric Code.
■ International Plumbing Code.
■ International Mechanical Code.
There are many reasons why existing buildings should be inspected for fire code compliance.
The obvious purpose is to ensure that occupants of the building are living, working, or occupying
a building that is safe for them to do so. Some buildings are required to have specific inspections
conducted based on the type of occupancy and the use of the buildings such as but not
limited to healthcare facilities (hospitals, nursing homes, etc.), schools, restaurants, and places of
assembly. These inspections are mandated by various statutes, ordinances, and codes.
Fire inspections can also identify violations and lead to follow-up inspections to ensure that
violations are addressed and that the fire code is enforced. In fire prevention, the term
"enforcement" is most often associated with inspectors performing walk-throughs of entire
facilities, looking for any hazards or violations of applicable codes. Educating the owner to the
requirements, as well as the spirit and intent, of the code can also attain positive benefits for fire
and life safety. This, of course, improves community and business relationships.
22
The EMFD has an active public fire education program, which is a vital component of an overall
Community Risk Reduction program, particularly in the residential areas of the city. This effort is
very commendable and results in time and resources well spent. A significant percentage of all
fires, fire deaths, and injuries occur in the home, an area where code enforcement and
inspection programs have little to no jurisdiction.
Public education is the area where the fire service will make impacts on preventing fires and
subsequently reducing the accompanying loss of life, injuries, and property damage through
adjusting people’s attitudes and behaviors regarding fires and fire safety. EMFD public
education includes community CPR training, Reading Across America program, coffee with a
firefighter, infant car seat installations, station tours, and in-school fire education programs.
The investigation of the cause and origin of fires is also an important part of a comprehensive fire
prevention system. Determining the cause of fires can help with future prevention efforts. EMFD
Battalion Chiefs and Captains initiate the fire origin and cause determination process. When
possible, they can make those determinations. When needed, particularly when the fire involves
a significant loss, injury, or fatality, the Captain assigned to Community Risk Reduction responds
to perform an in-depth investigation.
The Fire Marshal’s Office completed the following work in 2019 and 2020.
TABLE 2-3: Community Risk Reduction Office Activity
Year
Fire/Compliance
Inspections
Plan Review
Fire
Investigations
Pub Ed
2019
408
0
18
107
2020
513
0
6
59
Prior to 2021, the EMFD did not participate in the fire protection function of plans review. This
function was completed by the Building Safety Official. The current Fire Chief has implemented
this program at the fire department level (in partnership with the Building Safety Department),
which is plan review of fire protection systems and certain construction elements, water flow
requirements, ingress for fire apparatus, fire lanes, and other applicable fire building safety
codes. This is a best practice.
The city has an approved permit and fee schedule that includes inspection and permitting fees,
as well as certain operational fees for the Fire Prevention/Community Risk Reduction function of
the EMFD. Fees for these activities are not uncommon in municipal fire departments across the
country. Operational permit fees include the issuance of a permit and premises inspection of
processes, storage, and production of products that are flammable, combustible, or otherwise
hazardous and/or create life safety and building safety hazards. Permit fees also apply to
operations of, and equipment involved in, the conduct of certain businesses either stationary or
mobile. Inspection fees include those for businesses and group homes.
The fee schedule also includes a fee/charge for service for repeat premise fire alarm activations
where the EMFD responds. This fee is triggered/escalated after the second, fifth, and ninth alarm
activations, and is meant to hold the occupant accountable to ensure the system is always
functioning properly, reduce manual/false activations, and encourage compliance with known
system malfunctions and false manual activations. This is a best practice.
Lastly, there are several miscellaneous fees to include EMS standby for events, fire watch
standby (links to fire alarm system malfunction issues), and report fees to name a few.
23
SECTION 3. ALL-HAZARDS RISK ASSESSMENT
OF THE COMMUNITY
POPULATION AND COMMUNITY GROWTH
The 2020 decennial census indicated the population of El Mirage is 35,805 (U.S. Census Bureau).
This is a 12.6 percent increase from the 2010 decennial population of 31,797. As the area of the
city is about 10 square miles, the population density based on the Census Bureau population
data is approximately 3,171/square mile.10
In terms of fire and EMS risk, the age and socio-economic profiles of the population can have an
impact on the number of requests for fire and EMS services. Evaluation of the number of seniors
and children by fire management zones can provide insight into trends in service delivery and
quantitate the probability of future service requests. In a 2018 National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) report on residential fires, the following key findings were identified for the
period 2011–2015:11
■ Males were more likely to be killed or injured in home fires than females and accounted for
larger percentages of victims (57 percent of the deaths and 54 percent of the injuries).
■ The largest number of deaths (19 percent) in a single age group was among people ages 55
to 64.
■ Half (50 percent) of the victims of fatal home fires were between the ages of 25 and 64, as
were three of every five (62 percent) of the non-fatally injured.
■ One-third (33 percent) of the fatalities were age 65 or older; only 15 percent of the non-fatally
injured were in that age group.
■ Children under the age of 15 accounted for 12 percent of the home fire fatalities and
10 percent of the injuries. Children under the age of 5 accounted for 6 percent of the deaths
and 4 percent of the injuries.
■ Adults of all ages had higher rates of non-fatal fire injuries than children.
■ While smoking materials were the leading cause of home fire deaths overall, this was true only
for people in the 45 to 84 age group.
■ For adults 85 and older, fire from cooking was the leading cause of fire death.
In El Mirage the following age and socioeconomic factors are considered when assessing and
determining risk for fire and EMS preparedness and response:12
■ Children under the age of five represent 8.1 percent of the population.
■ Persons under the age of 18 represent 30.9 percent of the population.
■ Persons over the age of 65 represent 9.1 percent of the population.
10. U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts, El Mirage, Arizona
11. M. Ahrens, “Home Fire Victims by Age and Gender”, Quincy, MA: NFPA, 2018.
12. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/elmiragecityarizona
24
■ Female persons represent 49.5 percent of the population.
■ There are 3.35 persons per household in El Mirage.
■ The median household income in 2019 dollars is $58,216.
■ Persons living in poverty make up 15.3 percent of the population.
■ Black or African-American alone represents the 9.6 percent of the population. The remaining
percentage of population by race includes White alone at 74.8 percent, American Indian or
Alaska Native alone at 1.1 percent, Asian alone at 1.7 percent, two or more races at 4.2
percent, and Hispanic or Latino at 47.2 percent.
It is estimated he city’s population will increase to 38,200 in 2040 and 41,800 in 2050. The April
2020 decennial census numbers exceeded previously projected 2020 population growth.13
The next figure illustrates population by age for the city, as outlined in the city’s 2020 General
Plan.
FIGURE 3-1: El Mirage Age Comparison (2017 data)
El Mirage is poised for extensive industrial growth in the southern area of the city. This growth is
planned to be large footprint commercial/industrial buildings utilized for manufacturing and
warehousing/distribution of goods. Further residential growth will be limited to in-fill in the area
zoned for ranchettes in the west central area of the city and on the remaining acreage zoned
residential in the central and northern areas of the city.
Manufacturing and warehousing growth in the southern portion of the city will pose additional
fire and EMS risks to the EMFD due to the footprint size of the buildings, the height of some
rooflines (fire extension potential), and an around-the-clock workforce. According to city
officials, there is a potential for more than 20 million square feet of building footprint and a total
new workforce of 10,000 employees (1,500 to 2,000 on a shift at one time) in less than ten years.
13. 2020 El Mirage General Plan
25
The next two figures illustrate the projected growth in El Mirage.
FIGURE 3-2: El Mirage Future Land Use Plan
§ § §
El Mirage and Automatic Aid
Fire Stations
26
FIGURE 3-3: El Mirage Planned Future Land Use, Southern Area
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
The City of El Mirage is prone to and will continue to be exposed to certain environmental
hazards that may impact the community. The most common natural hazards prevelant to the
region, according to the Maricopa County Emergency Management Department, are:14
■ Dust storms or haboobs, produced from thunderstorms, straight winds, or tornadoes. These
storms are unpredictable and create visibility and health issues.
■ Extreme heat.
■ Localized flooding from heavy rains over a short period of time.
■ Flash flooding from local or distant mountainous areas, with flood waters moving quickly
through normally dry washes and riverbeds.
■ Monsoon storms, which bring heavy rains, lightning, intense winds, and flooding.
■ Wildfires in the wildland/urban interface areas.
■ Drought.
■ Earth fissures and landslides created by the removal or depletion of groundwater and the
excessive use of surface water.
■ Earthquakes. Although rare, since 1850 Arizona has experienced 20 earthquakes with
magnitudes of 5.0 or higher.
El Mirage has exposure and community risk to the environmental risks identified above.
14. Maricopa County Emergency Management
27
In addition to the county’s environmental risk assessment, the EMFD has conducted a hazard
and vulnerability study utilizing historical data of events that have occurred in the city. The EMFD
utilized the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Threat Hazard Identification and
Risk Assessment (THIRA) model to complete this assessment. This modeling uses the following
components, which when scored against known risks provide an environmental profile for a
community. The components include: probability and magnitude of the event; expected
warning time before event, expected duration of the event, and calculated risk priority index
(CPRI). The scoring then determines the level of environmental risk as either Low, Medium, or
High, which are further defined as:
High - High probability of occurrence; at least 50 percent or more of population at risk from
hazard; significant to catastrophic physical impacts to buildings and infrastructure; major loss or
potential loss of functionality to all essential facilities (hospital, police, fire, EOC, and shelters).
Moderate - Less than 50 percent of population at risk from hazard; moderate physical impacts to
buildings and infrastructure; moderate potential for loss of functionality to essential facilities.
Low - Low probability of occurrence or low threat to population; minor physical impacts.
The following table illustrates the environmental Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
the EMFD has completed for the city.
TABLE 3-1: El Mirage Environmental Hazard Profile
Hazard Profile Summary for Emergency Operations Plan
Hazard
Probability Magnitude Warning
Time
Duration CPRI15
Planning
Significance
Dam Failure
2
2
4
2
2.3
Moderate
Earthquake
1
1
1
1
1
Low
Fire
4
3
4
3
3.6
High
Extreme Heat
4
3
1
4
3.25
High
Flooding/Flash
Flooding/Tropical Storm
4
3
1
3
3.15
High
Thunderstorm/High Wind
4
3
1
4
3.25
High
Tornado
1
2
1
1
1.3
Low
Power Outage
3
3
4
2
3.05
High
Wildfire
2
2
3
1
2.05
Moderate
Subsidence
2
2
1
1
1.75
Low
Drought
4
3
1
4
3.25
High
Hazardous Materials
Incident (HAZMAT)
3
2
4
2
2.75
Moderate
Fissure
1
1
1
2
1.1
Low
Landslide/Mudslide
1
1
1
1
1
Low
Pandemic Event
2
3
3
3
2.55
Moderate
Levee Failure/Breach
1
1
1
1
1
Low
15. Calculated Risk Priority Index, Arizona Department of Emergency Management
28
BUILDING AND TARGET HAZARDS
A community risk and vulnerability assessment will evaluate the community, and regarding
buildings, it will review all buildings and the risks associated with each property and then
classifying the property as either a high-, medium-, or low-hazard depending on factors such as
the life and building content hazard, and the potential fire flow and staffing required to mitigate
an emergency in the specific property. According to the NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, these
hazards are defined as:
High-hazard occupancies: Schools, hospitals, nursing homes, explosives plants, refineries, high-
rise buildings, and other high life-hazard (vulnerable population) or large fire-potential
occupancies.
Medium-hazard occupancies: Apartments, offices, and mercantile and industrial occupancies
not normally requiring extensive rescue by firefighting forces.
Low-hazard occupancies: One-, two-, or three-family dwellings and scattered small business and
industrial occupancies.16
The predominant building type/building risk in El Mirage is single-family detached dwellings (a
low-hazard occupancy). The primary construction type for residential structures in El Mirage is
Type V-B, which does not require a fire resistance rating for any of the building elements
(typically wood frame).
Multifamily buildings and apartments also exist in El Mirage. Typical construction includes non-fire
resistive, wood frame with one-hour fire rating, and protected combustible. Some apartment
complexes include a multibuilding footprint. The city does have an assortment of manufactured
homes as well, which are typically made of light metal/wood construction with various exterior
coverings.
The strip mall inventory consists of non-fire resistive, fire resistive (one-hour fire rating), and
protected combustible construction (one-hour fire rating). The commercial/industrial structure
building inventory is ordinary (block/brick) construction, wood frame with composite siding, and
masonry non-combustible.
El Mirage has the following building types:
■ Single-family homes, 3,162 total (highest total building count).
■ Multifamily homes (seven total with two mulitstory under construction).
■ Manufactured homes (included in single-family total).
■ Apartment buildings (three total with two 2-story and one 3-story).
■ Professional business (more than 300 business/office occupancies in single or shared buildings).
■ Commercial and industrial buildings.
■ Strip malls (nine, none over one floor level).
■ Assisted living/long-term care buildings/homes (multiple facilities and homes in the city).
16. Cote, Grant, Hall & Solomon, eds., Fire Protection Handbook (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection
Association, 2008), 12.
29
■ Public education structures (4-elementary schools, 1-middle school, 1-high school).
■ Public government buildings (more than one floor level and single floor level buildings).
In terms of identifying target hazards, consideration must be given to the activities that take
place (public assembly, life safety vulnerability, manufacturing, processing, etc.), the number
and types of occupants (elderly, youth, handicapped etc.), and other specific aspects related
to the construction of the structure.
El Mirage has a variety of target hazards that include:
■ Educational/school/public assembly target hazards (life safety).
■ Mercantile/business/industrial (life safety, hazardous storage and or processes).
■ Long-term and assisted care target hazards (life safety, vulnerable population).
■ Government business target hazards (life safety, continuity of operations).
■ Private business target hazards (life safety).
The city has a mix of low- and medium-risk structures that make up much of the target hazard
risk. High-hazard building risks are noted in this section as well. These include assisted/long-term
care facilities, residential structures housing a vulnerable population, public assembly structures
when occupied, and those that have hazardous materials used in processes or that are stored in
copious quantities.
Larger footprint buildings, as are projected to be constructed in the city, will pose additional
building risks to the EMFD in terms of a large footprint; mass storage of commodities; and
waterflow requirements based on the size and commodities stored and mercantile processes
being conducted in the buildings. These buildings are typically built of fire resistive structural
members and are sprinklered, but contain internally combustible accessories, storage,
processes, and internal structures. While the life-safety hazard normally will not require extensive
rescue by firefighting forces (in terms of the number of people on premises at one time to be
rescued), the scope and complications of the larger footprint to be covered by initial attack
lines and in a search and rescue undertaking may raise these types of structures to a higher
hazard.
TRANSPORTATION FACTORS
The road network in EL Mirage is typical of cities in the region and across the country. In El Mirage
this includes arterial streets, which carry high volumes of traffic (the city’s 2020 General Plan also
classifies these street types as major thoroughfares, Grand Ave. for example); major/minor
arterials that move traffic from one end of the city to the other such as El Mirage Road; collector
streets, which provide connection to arterial roads and local street networks as well as residential
and commercial land uses; and local streets, which provide a direct road network to property
and move traffic through neighborhoods and business communities. According to the city’s
2020 General Plan, the city has 125 miles of streets.
Valley Metro (Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority) operates a fixed bus route
in the city along Thunderbird Road. This route has two stops on Thunderbird Road and provides
service in the city Monday through Friday. Both inbound (A.M. service) and outbound (P.M.
service) traverse a route along Thunderbird Road and Dysart Road in the city. One stop at
30
Thunderbird Road and 129th St. (Walmart) includes a park-and-ride lot. Bus accidents during
rider-populated rides pose a mass casualty response risk if multiple riders are injured.
The road network described herein poses risks for a vehicular accident, some at medium to
greater than medium speeds, as well as vehicular-versus-pedestrian risks. There are additional
transportation risks since tractor-trailer and other commercial vehicles traverse the roadways of
El Mirage to deliver mixed commodities to business locations. Fires involving these products can
produce smoke and other products of combustion risks that may be hazardous to health.
The city also makes available to the public pathways for bicycle traffic. These include
designated bike lanes, sidewalks, and shared lanes. Any bike facility that shares a portion of the
road or that intersects with a road poses a risk for accident.
FIGURE 3-4: Valley Metro Bus Route 571
§ § §
El Mirage Stops
31
The next figures illustrate the road network and transit plan for the city.
FIGURE 3-5: El Mirage Road Network and Transportation Plan
Map Source: El Mirage 2020 General Plan
32
Active railroad lines are also present in the city. Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) operates the
primary active rail line. Currently the main commodity that travels through El Mirage is
automobiles on car carriers, which poses minimum commodity risk. There is an active rail yard in
the northeast portion of the city that is used as freight car switching and storage (BNSF
Automotive Facility).
Because a BNSF main line runs into and through El Mirage, other freight passes through the city
on this line en route to and from Phoenix. This includes intermodal freight cars carrying various
freight commodities including containerized consumer goods. While not all these commodities
may be considered hazardous materials, fires involving these commodities can produce smoke
and other products of combustion risks that may be hazardous to health. Hazardous materials
themselves present hazards to health risks if being transported and involved in a rail accident.
At-grade crossings are limited in the city, but they do exist, posing transportation accident risks.
The next figures illustrate the BNSF automotive and intermodal track maps.
FIGURE 3-6: BNSF Rail Line in El Mirage
Automotive Carriers
Intermodal Freight Carriers
§ § §
33
FIRE AND FIRE-RELATED RISK
An indication of the community’s fire risk is the type and number of fire-related incidents to
which fire department responds. CPSM conducted a data analysis for this project that analyzed
EMFD incident responses and workload. The following table details the call types and call type
totals for these types of fire-related risks.
TABLE 3-2: Fire Call Types
Call Type
Number of Calls
Calls per Day
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
False alarm
85
102
85
0.2
0.3
0.2
Good intent
12
19
21
0.0
0.1
0.1
Hazard
29
16
26
0.1
0.0
0.1
Outside fire
46
47
72
0.1
0.1
0.2
Public service
112
84
77
0.3
0.2
0.2
Structure fire
39
34
27
0.1
0.1
0.1
Fire Total
323
302
308
0.9
0.8
0.8
Key takeaways from the data in this table are:
■ Fire calls for 2018 totaled 323. This was 8 percent of all calls, which also included EMS,
canceled, and auto aid given. Fire calls averaged 0.9 calls per day.
■ Fire calls for 2019 totaled 302. This was 8 percent of all calls, which also included EMS,
canceled, and auto aid given. Fire calls averaged 0.8 calls per day.
■ Fire calls for 2020 totaled 308. This was 7 percent of all calls, which also included EMS,
canceled, and auto aid given. Fire calls averaged 0.8 calls per day.
■ Fire calls decreased 7 percent from 323 in 2018 to 302 in 2019 and then remained at about the
same level in 2020.
■ The number of outside fire calls was nearly identical in 2018 and 2019 and then increased
53 percent from 2019 (to 72) in 2020.
■ Structure fire calls decreased 13 percent from 39 in 2018 to 34 in 2019 and then decreased
another 21 percent from 34 in 2019 to 27 in 2020.
§ § §
34
EMS RISK
As with fire risks, an indication of the community’s pre-hospital emergency medical risk is the
type and number of EMS calls to which the fire department responds. The following table
outlines the call types and call type totals for these types of EMS risks over the three-year study
period.
TABLE 3-3: EMS Call Types
Call Type
Number of Calls
Calls per Day
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
Breathing difficulty
210
255
323
0.6
0.7
0.9
Cardiac and stroke
235
244
268
0.6
0.7
0.7
Fall and injury
555
463
601
1.5
1.3
1.6
Illness and other
671
718
876
1.8
2.0
2.4
MVA
154
112
143
0.4
0.3
0.4
OD
72
76
84
0.2
0.2
0.2
Seizure and UNC
271
291
297
0.7
0.8
0.8
EMS Total
2,168
2,159
2,592
5.9
5.9
7.1
Key takeaways from the data in this table are:
■ EMS calls for 2018 totaled 2,168. This was 55 percent of all calls, which also included fire,
canceled, and auto aid given. EMS calls averaged 5.9 calls per day.
■ EMS calls for 2019 totaled 2,159. This was again 55 percent of all calls, which also included fire,
canceled, and auto aid given. EMS calls averaged 5.9 calls per day.
■ EMS calls for 2020 totaled 2,592. This was 57 percent of all calls, which included fire, canceled,
and auto aid given. EMS calls averaged 7.1 calls per day.
■ The number of EMS calls in 2018 and 2019 was about the same and then increased 20 percent
from 2,159 in 2019 to 2,592 in 2020.
■ Illness and other calls increased 7 percent from 671 in 2018 to 718 in 2019 and 22 percent from
718 in 2019 to 876 in 2020.
Aggregately (fire, EMS, canceled calls, and auto aid) the department received:
■ 3,933 calls for service in 2018, which included 1,353 auto aid responses.
○ An average of 10.8 calls per day.
■ 3,902 calls for service in 2019, which included 1,331 auto aid responses.
○ An average of 10.7 calls per day.
■ 4,550 calls for service in 2020, which included 1,514 auto aid responses.
○ An average of 12.4 calls per day.
35
FIRE AND EMS INCIDENT DEMAND
The fire and EMS risk in terms of numbers and types of incidents is important when analyzing a
community’s risk, as outlined above. Analyzing where the fire and EMS incidents occur, and the
demand density of fire and EMS incidents, helps to determine adequate fire management zone
resource assignment and deployment. For the EMFD, the entire city serves as the fire
management zone as there is but one fire station.
The following figures illustrate fire and EMS demand in the EMFD fire management zone. These
include fire incidents (structural and outside fires); other types of fire-related incidents such as
good intent and public service calls, which are calls for service such as smoke scares (no fire),
wires down, lock outs, water leaks, etc., false alarms (typically fire alarms); and EMS incident
demand that includes all EMS incidents, breathing difficulty and cardiac related, and motor
vehicle accidents. All demand maps are the aggregate of all calls in 2018 through 2020, which is
the data analysis study period.
The demand maps (with current fire station location shown) tell us that:
■ Structure/outside fire-related incidents are concentrated to the north of West Cactus Rd., with
the highest concentration north, east, and northeast of the fire station.
■ Public Service, Good Intent and Hazard (non-fire) incidents follow the same general demand
pattern as structure and outside fires, which is a concentration to the north of West Cactus
Rd., with the highest concentration north, and northeast of the fire station.
▪ Fire/false alarm incidents are concentrated to the west of El Mirage Road between West
Cactus and Greenway Roads.
▪ EMS incident demand is most concentrated between West Catus Rd. north to North Grand
Ave., with the highest concentration along West Thunderbird Rd. and El Mirage Rd. There is
also a high concentration of incidents on W. Cinnabar Ave. and El Mirage Rd.
▪ Motor Vehicle Accidents have a high concentration at several intersections in the south,
central, and north areas of the city as illustrated in the demand map. The highest
concentration is at the following intersections:
○ West Thunderbird Rd. and NW Grand Ave.
○ West Thunderbird Rd. and Dysart Rd.
○ El Mirage Rd. and West Cactus Rd.
○ N. Dysart Rd. and Olive Ave.
○ N. Dysart Rd. and West Northern Ave.
○ El Mirage Rd. and West Northern Ave.
36
FIGURE 3-7: Fire Incident Demand (Structure and Outside Fires), 2018–2020
37
FIGURE 3-8: Public Service, Good Intent, Hazard Incident Demand, 2018–2020
38
FIGURE 3-9: False Alarm Incident Demand, 2018–2020
39
FIGURE 3-10: EMS Incident Demand, 2018–2020
Motor Vehicle Accidents
Cardiac and Breathing Difficulty
All EMS Calls
40
ISO RATING
The ISO is a national, not-for-profit organization that collects and evaluates information from
communities across the United States regarding their capabilities to combat building fires. ISO
conducts field evaluations in an effort to rate communities and their relative ability to provide
fire protection and mitigate fire risk. This evaluation allows ISO to determine and publish the
Public Protection Classification (PPC). The data collected from a community is analyzed and
applied to ISO’s Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS) from which a Public Protection
Classification (PPC™) grade is assigned to a community (1 to 10).
A Class 1 (highest classification/lowest numerical score) represents an exemplary community fire
suppression program that includes all of the components outlined below. A Class 10 indicates
that the community’s fire suppression program does not meet ISO's minimum criteria. It is
important to understand the PPC is not just a fire department classification, but a compilation of
community services that include the fire department, the emergency communications center,
and the community’s potable water supply system operator.17
The lower number indicates a more favorable rating which potentially translates into lower
insurance premiums for the business owner and homeowner. Such a classification makes the
community more attractive from an insurance risk perspective. How the PPC for each
community affects business and homeowners can be complicated because each insurance
underwriter is free to utilize the information as they deem appropriate. Overall, many factors
feed into the determination of an insurance premium, not just the PPC.
A community's PPC grade depends on:
■ Needed Fire Flows (building locations used to determine the theoretical amount of water
necessary for fire suppression purposes).
■ Emergency Communications (10 percent of the evaluation).
■ Fire Department (50 percent of the evaluation).
■ Water Supply (40 percent of the evaluation).
The City of El Mirage has an ISO rating of Class 02/2X, the second highest rating achievable. This
rating became effective in June 2018. The final rating included the following credit by category:
■ Emergency Communications: 7.01 earned credit points/10.00 credit points available.
■ Fire Department: 37.47 earned credit points/50.00 credit points available.
■ Water Supply: 35.85 earned credit points/40.00 credit points available.
■ Community Risk Reduction (Fire Prevention/Inspection, Public Education, and Fire Investigation
activities): 4.68 earned credit points/5.50 credit points available.
Overall, the community PPC rating yielded 82.07 earned credit points/105.50 credit points
available. There was a 2.94 point diversion reduction assessed as well, which is automatically
calculated based on the relative difference between the fire department and water supply
scores. 80.00 points or more qualify a community for a rating of 2.
17. El Mirage ISO PPC report; November 2019.
41
The following figures illustrate the dispersion of PPC ratings across the United States and in
Arizona.
FIGURE 3-11: PPC Ratings in the United States18
FIGURE 3-12: PPC Ratings in the United States19
18. https://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/program-works/facts-and-figures-about-ppc-codes-around-the-
country/
19. Ibid.
42
Areas of scoring that should be reviewed further by the city and the EMFD include:
■ Emergency Communications
○ Credit for Emergency Reporting: 1.50/3.0.
• This section contemplates the technology present in the PSAP to identify caller location
[Automatic Location Identification (ALI)] when the caller is utilizing wireless and voice over
internet (VoIP) communication, the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system
management system and interoperability features, and if the CAD has a fully integrated
CAD/GIS management system with automatic vehicle location (AVL) integrated with a
CAD system providing dispatch assignments.
■ Fire Department
○ Credit of Ladder Service: 1.53/4.0
• The ISO review recognizes one ladder company in service for the city (provided by
automatic aid). According to the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS), ladder
companies are needed to provide fire suppression services to areas to meet NFPA 1710
criteria or within 2.5 miles of the number of buildings with a Needed Fire Flow over 3,500
gpm or 3 stories or more in height, or the method of operation. Automatic Aid is credited
in this section. The next figure illustrates the ladder company 2.5-mile radius and response
coverage in El Mirage.
FIGURE 3-13: Ladder Company Coverage in El Mirage
43
○ Credit for Deployment Analysis: 5.03/10.0
• This section contemplates the deployment of engine and ladder companies against the
percentage of built-upon area within 1.5 miles of a first-due engine company and within
2.5 miles of a first-due ladder-service company.
○ Credit for Company Personnel: 10.63/15
• This section contemplates the average number of on-duty personnel available to respond
to fire calls, and links to deployment of companies for the built-upon areas of the city
(1.5 miles for engines and 2.5 miles for ladders). Automatic Aid is credited in this section.
The FSRS recognizes 17.00 on-duty personnel.
■ Water Supply
○ 5.40/7.0
• This item contemplates fire hydrant inspection frequency in the city, and the
completeness of the inspections, to include documentation.
COMMUNITY LOSS AND SAVE INFORMATION
Fire loss is an estimation of the total loss from a fire to the structure and contents in terms of
replacement. Fire loss includes contents damaged by fire, smoke, water, and overhaul. Fire loss
does not include indirect loss, such as business interruption.
In a 2019 report published by the National Fire Protection Association on trends and patterns of
U.S. fire losses, it was determined that home fires still cause the majority of all civilian fire deaths,
civilian injuries, and property loss due to fire. Key findings from this report include:20
■ Public fire departments responded to 1,318,500 fires in 2018, virtually the same as the previous
year.
■ Every 24 seconds, a fire department in the United States responds to a fire somewhere in the
nation. A fire occurs in a structure at the rate of one every 63 seconds, and a home fire occurs
every 87 seconds.
■ Seventy-four percent of all fire deaths occurred in the home.
■ Home fires were responsible for 11,200 civilian injuries, or 74 percent of all civilian injuries, in
2018.
■ An estimated $25.6 billion in property damage occurred as a result of fire in 2018, a significant
increase, as this number includes a $12 billion loss in wildfires in Northern California.
■ An estimated 25,500 structure fires were intentionally set in 2018, an increase of 13 percent
over the year before.
For the three-year period of 2018 to 2020, the EMFD reported the community loss information in
the following table as recorded from incidents to which department responded. The three-year
trend of property loss and content loss is broken out by EMFD response protocols, namely single
engine response, and three engines/one ladder response, which are the typical responses for
20. https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Data-research-and-tools/US-Fire-Problem/Fire-loss-in-the-
United-States
44
structural fires per the regional auto aid guidelines. Overall, the losses are shown in the table are
moderate.
TABLE 3-4: Content and Property Loss, Structure and Outside Fires, 2018–2020
Response
Type
Call Type
Property Loss
Content Loss
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
1 Engine
Outside fire
$54,500
$11,000
$54,088
$2,000
$1,700
$5,000
Structure fire
0
$500
0
0
0
0
3-1 Assignment Outside fire
$94,000
0
8,000
$70,500
0
1,000
Structure fire
$372,125
$128,795
$435,638
$33,850
$103,700
$222,766
Other
Outside fire
0
0
0
0
0
0
Structure fire
0
$610,000
0
$100
$77,000
0
Total
$520,625
$750,295
$497,726
$106,450
$182,400
$228,766
AUTOMATIC AID
The EMFD is a member of the robust Regional Metropolitan Phoenix Fire Service Automatic Aid
System. In this system, the Phoenix Fire Department Regional Dispatch Center provides fire and
emergency medical dispatching services for twenty-six agencies covering 2,000 square miles of
service area.21 The Phoenix Fire Department is the lead agency in this system and develops
operational and staffing guidelines with member agency input.
An example of automatic aid in El Mirage would include engines and ladder companies and a
Battalion Chief from surrounding jurisdictions to fill out the response matrix for a structural fire in a
single-family dwelling is as follows:
■ Initial dispatch 3-1 assignment.
○ Three engines.
• El Mirage has two engines in service; one engine from neighboring jurisdiction will
respond.
○ One ladder truck.
• El Mirage has no ladder truck; one ladder from neighboring jurisdiction will respond.
○ Two Battalion Chiefs.
○ El Mirage has one Battalion Chief in service; one Battalion Chief from neighboring jurisdiction
will respond.
Note: The EMFD Battalion Chief is not staffed on a consistent basis due to daily staffing.
Additionally, the EMFD Battalion Chief is not dispatched as a standalone Incident
Commander on fire calls due to the absence of a responding Safety Officer. This affects
the number of units dispatched as the EMFD Battalion Chief unit is not counted in the overall
response by the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system.
The next figure illustrates stations and units most likely to respond into El Mirage on an
automatic aid assignment.
21. Fire Regional Dispatch Center (phoenix.gov)
45
FIGURE 3-14: El Mirage Automatic Aid Companies Most Likely to Respond
The next figure illustrates 240 seconds response capability of automatic aid units responding into
El Mirage as a first arriving engine company (NFPA 1710 Standard). Coverage as benchmarked
against the NFPA 1710 standard is contained to the northeast and northeast portion of the city.
This matters if both EMFD units are committed to calls or are delayed in response. Stations 301,
308, and 133 also assist in covering gaps that EMFD Station 121 cannot meet regarding the
240 seconds response time (NFPA standard).
Figure 3-16 illustrates automatic aid coverage at the 360 second benchmark. This benchmark is
the stated time in NFPA 1710 for the second due fire unit (engine or ladder) to arrive on scene.
The EMFD deploys two engines from one station. If one EMFD engine is committed on a call,
automatic aid companies will count towards this standard. Analysis of this figure shows the
majority of the built-upon area of the city is covered at the 360 second benchmark.
§ § §
46
FIGURE 3-15: Automatic Aid Companies Benchmarked at 240 Seconds
EMFD Station
240 Second Coverage
47
FIGURE 3-16: Automatic Aid Companies Benchmarked at 360 Seconds
EMFD Station
360 Second Coverage
48
The next figure illustrates automatic aid coverage at the 480 second benchmark. This
benchmark is the stated time in NFPA 1710 for the deployment of a first alarm assignment at a
fire incident (low/medium hazards). Analysis of this figure shows the city is covered by EMFD and
automatic aid stations at the 480 second benchmark.
FIGURE 3-17: Automatic Aid Companies Benchmarked at 480 Seconds
The next two tables show the total responses that EL Mirage provided to auto aid communities
and the total responses of auto aid communities into El Mirage.
TABLE 3-5: EMFD Responses to Location Outside El Mirage, by Jurisdiction
Location
Total Annual Calls
Total Annual Hours
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
Surprise
693
680
764
284.1
319.3
399.6
Sun City
382
384
405
125.4
142.2
128.9
Youngtown
207
195
241
87.3
89.3
95.1
Peoria
29
34
39
8.4
7.9
16.5
Glendale
20
13
25
10.0
9.4
19.4
Other
22
25
40
20.0
17.6
55.8
Total
1,353
1,331
1,514
535.2
585.7
715.3
49
TABLE 3-6: Auto Aid by Agency Responses into El Mirage
Agency
Unit
Unit Type
Total Runs
Total Hours
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
SUR
BC301
BC
39
33
37
13.2
20.2
16.8
E301
Engine
359
297
273
136.2
108.2
116.4
E305
Engine
23
11
2
7.7
4.7
0.8
L305
Aerial truck
35
44
26
4.3
6.9
3.4
LT305
Ladder tender
68
72
55
25.4
29.2
20.0
Other
Other
130
135
66
72.8
94.3
50.6
Total
654
592
477
259.7
263.4
216.3
SUN
BC131
BC
9
5
9
4.6
5.6
1.4
E131
Engine
6
6
NA
1.4
5.8
NA
E132
Engine
55
30
17
19.5
12.6
7.8
E133
Engine
328
329
186
122.2
121.9
69.3
L131
Aerial truck
7
12
17
1.5
7.4
4.6
LT131
Ladder tender
10
7
11
3.3
0.8
1.5
Other
Other
1
3
4
0.7
2.7
0.7
Total
416
392
244
153.2
156.7
85.2
GLN
BC152
BC
6
2
7
1.6
0.3
3.5
E158
Engine
0
2
1
0.0
0.5
0.0
Other
Other
41
55
30
27.2
42.5
19.2
Total
47
59
38
28.8
43.4
22.7
PEO
BC191
BC
7
5
4
1.5
2.6
2.3
E191
Engine
1
5
1
0.3
2.5
0.3
E194
Engine
36
33
22
13.3
16.7
10.5
L191
Aerial truck
7
6
4
2.8
1.1
1.4
LT191
Ladder tender
7
7
4
0.7
1.3
0.0
Other
Other
16
16
12
3.5
12.1
4.3
Total
74
72
47
22.2
36.3
18.8
NCO
Total
65
62
71
14.4
32.7
25.9
LAB
Total
73
101
68
18.5
23.1
23.0
PHX
Total
29
32
35
4.9
10.3
11.9
AVO
Total
14
13
15
5.1
3.2
4.2
GDY
Total
8
3
7
2.9
2.4
3.6
RMF
Total
7
4
9
5.7
2.0
2.3
Total
1,387
1,330
1,011
515.2
573.5
413.9
Key takeaways from the auto aid response data tells us:
■ In 2018 and 2019, the EMFD gave and received about the same amount of aid. In 2020 the
EMFD responded outside of the city 503 times more than it received aid.
■ Surpirise and Sun City received the most aid from EMFD and they provided the most aid to
El Mirage.
■ Surprise, Sun City, and Peoria provided ladder company service to El Mirage.
50
RESILIENCY
Resiliency as defined by the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) in the Fire and
Emergency Service Self-Assessment Manual (FESSAM), 9th edition, is: “an organization’s ability to
quickly recover from an incident or events, or to adjust easily to changing needs or
requirements.” Greater resiliency can be achieved by constant review and analysis of the
response system and focuses on three key components:
■ Resistance: The ability to deploy only resources necessary to control an incident and bring it to
termination, which is achieved through the development and implementation of critical
tasking and its application to the establishment of an effective response force for all types of
incidents safely and effectively.
■ Absorption: The ability of the agency to quickly add or duplicate resources necessary to
maintain service levels during heavy call volume or incidents of high resource demand.
■ Restoration: The agency’s ability to quickly return to a state of normalcy.
Resistance is controlled by the EMFD through staffing and response protocol, and with EMFD
resources dependent on the level of staffing and units available at the time of the alarm.
Absorption is accomplished through initial responding units available to respond by the EMFD
and through regional auto aid resources.
Restoration is managed by EMFD unit availability as simultaneous calls occur, the availability of
regional auto aid resources, recall of staff to staff fire units during campaign events when
warranted, and efficient work on incidents for a quick return to service.
The following tables and figure analyze EMFD resiliency. In this analysis, CPSM included all 13,663
calls that occurred inside and outside El Mirage in the three-year period. We did this because
EMFD is part of the regional auto aid system, so responses outside of the city impact resiliency of
the department to respond to calls inside of the city.
For the total calls in the three-year analysis, there is significant variability in the number of calls
from hour to hour. We tabulated the data for each of the 8,760 hours in 2018 and 2019 and 8,784
hours in 2020 (leap year).
TABLE 3-7: Call Workload by EMFD Unit
Unit
Unit Type
Total Hours
Total Runs
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
BC121
BC
153.9
144.8
123.6
364
251
237
BR121
Brush Truck
23.1
21.7
73.9
21
22
95
E121
Engine
1,251.8
1,357.0
1,242.8
3,191
2,924
2,601
E122
Engine
5.3
246.7
836.7
18
542
1,776
LA121
Low acuity
373.1
263.0
169.7
860
537
269
Other
Other
14.4
29.3
45.4
26
26
31
Total
1,821.7
2,062.4
2,492.1
4,480
4,302
5,009
51
TABLE 3-8: Trend of Frequency of Overlapping Calls
Scenario
Number of Calls
Percent of All Calls
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
No overlap
3,372
3,064
3,297
76.9
70.1
67.2
Overlap with one call
878
1,049
1,340
20.0
24.0
27.3
Overlap with two calls
125
220
248
2.8
5.0
5.1
Overlap with three calls
9
39
18
0.2
0.9
0.4
Overlap with four calls
2
1
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
TABLE 3-9: Trend of Frequency Distribution of the Number of Calls
Calls in
an Hour
2018
2019
2020
Frequency
Percentage
Frequency
Percentage
Frequency
Percentage
0
5,373
61.3
5,423
61.9
5,143
58.5
1
2,569
29.3
2,475
28.3
2,613
29.7
2
660
7.5
721
8.2
828
9.4
3
135
1.5
114
1.3
168
1.9
4+
23
0.3
27
0.3
32
0.4
Total
8,760
100.0
8,760
100.0
8,784
100.0
TABLE 3-10: Station Availability to Respond to Calls
Year
Calls in
District
EMFD
Responded
Percent
Responded
EMFD
Arrived
Percent
Arrived
EMFD
First
Percent
First
2018
2,968
2,527
85.1
2,511
84.6
2,405
81.0
2019
2,957
2,508
84.8
2,491
84.2
2,229
75.4
2020
3,316
2,975
89.7
2,966
89.4
2,843
85.7
3-Year
Average
9,241
8,010
86.7
7,968
86.2
7,447
80.9
§ § §
52
FIGURE 3-18: Calls by Hour of Day
Regarding the EMFD’s resiliency to respond to calls, analysis of these tables and figure tells us:
■ The peak call time is consistently between 8:00 am and 9:00 p.m./10:00 p.m.
■ In 2018, during 23 hours (0.3 percent of all hours), four or more calls occurred; in other words,
along with auto aid departments, EMFD responded to four or more calls in an hour roughly
once every 16 days.
The highest number of calls to occur in an hour was four, which happened 23 times.
■ In 2019, during 27 hours (0.3 percent of all hours), four or more calls occurred; in other words,
along with auto aid departments, EMFD responded to four or more calls in an hour roughly
once every 14 days.
The highest number of calls to occur in an hour was six, which happened once.
■ In 2020, during 32 hours (0.4 percent of all hours), four or more calls occurred; in other words,
along with auto aid departments, EMFD responded to four or more calls in an hour roughly
once every 11 days.
The highest number of calls to occur in an hour was five, which happened 3 times.
■ During the three-year period, the availability of EMFD to respond to calls in its fire district was
highest in 2020, and lowest in 2019.
○ In 2020, the percent EMFD was available to respond to calls in the city was 89.7 percent; it
arrived in the city on a call 89.4 percent of the time and arrived first to calls in the city 85.7
percent of the time.
○ In 2019, the percent EMFD was available to respond to calls in the city was 84.8 percent; it
arrived in the city on a call 84.2 percent of the time and arrived first to calls in the city 75.4
percent of the time.
53
○ In 2018, the percent EMFD was available to respond to calls in the city was 85.1 percent; it
arrived in the city on a call 84.6 percent of the time and arrived first to calls in the city 81
percent of the time.
Over the three-year incident analysis period, 41 percent of the time there are overlapping calls
for service in the city. On average, 87 percent of the time, a first due EMFD unit was available to
respond to a call in its first due fire management zone and arrived first 81 percent of the time.
Because the EMFD participates in a regional auto aid agreement and should continue to do so
because of the resources available to the city through this agreement, there are cases where
auto aid companies may arrive first, depending on the location of these resources to the call,
and the location of the EMFD units. There are cases also where a single EMFD engine is on a call
and the second EMFD engine is available to respond and does. There are also cases where one
or more EMFD engines are out of the city on auto aid calls and another call comes in for El
Mirage, and an auto aid unit or units respond. This is the advantage of the Phoenix Regional
Automatic Aid System, which is a national best practice.
Another resiliency element the EMFD
has built in is the implementation of a
Low Acuity Response Unit (LA121). This
unit (Figure 3-19) responds to low acuity
EMS calls for service, which account for
a sizable percentage of EMS calls to
which the EMFD responds in the city.
EMFD’s low acuity unit LA121
responded to 860 calls in 2018, 537 calls
in 2019, and 269 calls in 2020. LA121
responded with one EMFD engine on
149 of 860 calls in 2018, 75 of 537 calls in
2019, and 30 of 269 calls in 2020. LA121
did respond to fire incidents as well,
when available, as added staffing to
assist in the assembling of an Effective
Response Force.
LA121 was staffed with one Paramedic and one EMT when in service in 2018, 2019, and 2020. In
2019, the EMFD placed Engine 122 in service, creating the dual engine response metric now in
place. When Engine 122 went into service, LA121 was taken out of service on a full-time basis
and the full-time staffing was transferred to Engine 122. LA121 was then staffed only when Engine
122 staffing dropped below the required four persons. This action can be seen in Table 3-7 with
the decreasing number of calls LA121 responded to in 2019 (537) and 2020 (269) as compared
to 2018 (860). Going forward in 2022, the city is dedicating American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
funds to staff the unit on a part-time basis.
Unit LA121 made the second most runs and had the second-highest total annual deployed
hours in 2018, the third most runs and the second-highest total annual deployed hours in 2019,
and then the third most runs and the third-highest total annual deployed hours in 2020.
The EMFD has resiliency in its deployment model largely due to the robust regional automatic aid
system it takes part in and with LA121 (when in service) to reduce workload on engine
companies, which keeps these units available to respond to fire-related incidents within the city.
FIGURE 3-19: EMFD Low Acutiy Response Unit
54
RISK CATEGORIZATION
A comprehensive risk assessment is a critical aspect of creating A Standards of Cover and can
assist the EMFD in quantifying the risks that it faces. Once those risks are known, the department
is better equipped to determine if the current response resources are sufficiently staffed,
equipped, trained, and positioned. In this component, the factors that drive service needs are
examined and then link directly to discussions regarding the assembling of an effective response
force (ERF) and when contemplating the response capabilities needed to adequately address
the existing risks, which encompasses the component of critical tasking.
The risks that the department faces can be natural or man-made and may be affected by the
changing demographics of the community served. With the information available from the
CPSM data analysis, the EMFD, the city, and public research, CPSM and the EMFD can begin an
analysis of the city’s risks and can begin working towards recommendations and strategies to
mitigate and minimize their effects. This section contains an analysis of the various risks
considered within the EMFD’s service area.
Risk is often categorized in three ways: consequence of the event on the community, the
probability the event will occur in the community, and the impact on the fire department. The
following three tables look at the probability of the event occurring (Table3-11) which ranges
from unlikely to frequent; consequence to the community (Table 3-12), which is categorized as
ranging from insignificant to catastrophic; and the impact to the organization (Table 3-13),
which ranges from insignificant to catastrophic.
TABLE 3-11: Event Probability
Probability
Chance of
Occurrence
Description
Risk
Score
Unlikely
2%-25%
Event may occur only in exceptional
circumstances.
2
Possible
26%-50%
Event could occur at some time and/or no
recorded incidents. Little opportunity, reason, or
means to occur.
4
Probable
51%-75%
Event should occur at some time and/or few,
infrequent, random recorded incidents, or little
anecdotal evidence. Some opportunity, reason, or
means to occur; may occur.
6
Highly
Probable
76%-90%
Event will probably occur and/or regular recorded
incidents and strong anecdotal evidence.
Considerable opportunity, means, reason to
occur.
8
Frequent
90%-100%
Event is expected to occur. High level of recorded
incidents and/or very strong anecdotal evidence.
10
55
TABLE 3-12: Consequence to Community Matrix
Impact
Impact
Categories
Description
Risk
Score
Insignificant
Life Safety
1 or 2 people affected, minor injuries, minor property
damage, and no environmental impact.
2
Minor
Life Safety
Economic and
Infrastructure
Environmental
Small number of people affected, no fatalities, and
small number of minor injuries with first aid treatment.
Minor displacement of people for <6 hours and minor
personal support required.
Minor localized disruption to community services or
infrastructure for <6 hours. Minor impact on
environment with no lasting effects.
4
Moderate
Life Safety
Economic and
Infrastructure
Environmental
Limited number of people affected (11 to 25), no
fatalities, but some hospitalization and medical
treatment required. Localized displacement of small
number of people for 6 to 24 hours. Personal support
satisfied through local arrangements. Localized
damage is rectified by routine arrangements.
Normal community functioning with some
inconvenience. Some impact on environment with
short-term effects or small impact on environment
with long-term effects.
6
Significant
Life Safety
Economic and
Infrastructure
Environmental
Significant number of people (>25) in affected area
impacted with multiple fatalities, multiple serious or
extensive injuries, and significant hospitalization.
Large number of people displaced for 6 to 24 hours or
possibly beyond. External resources required for
personal support. Significant damage that requires
external resources. Community only partially
functioning, some services unavailable. Significant
impact on environment with medium- to long-term
effects.
8
Catastrophic
Life Safety
Economic and
Infrastructure
Environmental
Very large number of people in affected area(s)
impacted with significant numbers of fatalities, large
number of people requiring hospitalization; serious
injuries with long-term effects. General and wide-
spread displacement for prolonged duration;
extensive personal support required. Extensive
damage to properties in affected area requiring
major demolition.
Serious damage to infrastructure. Significant disruption
to, or loss of, key services for prolonged period.
Community unable to function without significant
support.
Significant long-term impact on environment and/or
permanent damage.
10
56
TABLE 3-13: Impact on EMFD
Impact
Impact
Categories
Description
Risk
Score
Insignificant
Personnel and
Resources
One apparatus out of service for period not to
exceed one hour.
2
Minor
Personnel and
Resources
More than one but not more than two apparatus
out of service for a period not to exceed one hour.
4
Moderate
Personnel and
Resources
More than 50 percent of available resources
committed to incident for over 30 minutes.
6
Significant
Personnel and
Resources
More than 75 percent of available resources
committed to an incident for over 30 minutes.
8
Catastrophic
Personnel,
Resources,
and Facilities
More than 90 percent of available resources
committed to incident for more than two hours or
event which limits the ability of resources to respond.
10
§ § §
57
This section also contains an analysis of the various risks considered in the city. In this analysis,
information presented and reviewed in this section (All-Hazards Risk Assessment of the
Community) have been considered. Risk is categorized as Low, Moderate, High, or Special.
Prior risk analysis has only attempted to evaluate two factors of risk: probability and
consequence. Contemporary risk analysis considers the impact of each risk to the organization,
thus creating a three-axis approach to evaluating risk as depicted in the following figure.
A contemporary risk analysis now includes probability, consequences to the community, and
impact on the organization, in this case the EMFD.
FIGURE 3-20: Three-Axis Risk Calculation (RC)
The following factors/hazards were identified and considered:
■ Demographic factors such as age, socio-economic, vulnerability.
■ Natural hazards such as flooding, snow and ice events, wind events, wild land fires.
■ Man-made hazards such as rail lines, roads and intersections, target hazards.
■ Structural/building risks.
■ Fire and EMS incident numbers and density.
The assessment of each factor and hazard as listed below took into consideration the likelihood
of the event, the impact on the city itself, and the impact on EMFD’s ability to deliver
emergency services, which includes automatic aid capabilities as well. The list is not all inclusive
but includes categories most common or that may present to the city and the EMFD.
Magnitude of the Risk
Greater the surface area,
the greater the risk
10
8
6
4
2
58
Low Risk
■ Automatic fire/false alarms.
■ Low acuity BLS EMS Incidents.
■ Low-risk environmental event.
■ Motor vehicle accident (MVA).
■ Good intent/hazard/public service fire incidents with no life-safety exposure.
■ Outside fires such as grass, rubbish, dumpster, vehicle with no structural/life-safety exposure.
FIGURE 3-21: Low Risk
§ § §
0
2
4
6
8
10
P
C
I
Low Risk
59
Moderate Risk
■ Fire incident in a single-family dwelling where fire and smoke or smoke is visible, indicating a
working fire.
■ Suspicious substance investigation involving multiple fire companies and law enforcement
agencies.
■ ALS EMS incident.
■ MVA with entrapment of passengers.
■ Grass/brush fire with structural endangerment/exposure.
■ Low angle rescue involving ropes and rope rescue equipment and resources.
■ Surface water rescue.
■ Good intent/hazard/public service fire incidents with life-safety exposure.
■ Rail event with no release of product or fire, and no threat to life safety
FIGURE 3-22: Moderate Risk
§ § §
0
2
4
6
8
10
P
C
I
Moderate Risk
60
High Risk
■ Working fire in a target hazard.
■ Cardiac arrest.
■ Mass casualty incident of more than 10 patients but fewer than 25 patients.
■ Confined space rescue.
■ Structural collapse involving life-safety exposure.
■ High-angle rescue involving ropes and rope rescue equipment.
■ Trench rescue.
■ Suspicious substance incident with multiple injuries.
■ Industrial leak of hazardous materials that causes exposure to persons or threatens life safety.
■ Weather event that creates widespread flooding, heavy snow, heavy winds, building
damage, and/or life-safety exposure.
FIGURE 3-23: High Risk
§ § §
0
2
4
6
8
10
P
C
I
High Risk
61
Special Risk
■ Working fire in a structure of more than three floors.
■ Fire at an industrial building or complex with hazardous materials.
■ Fire in an occupied targeted hazard with special life-safety risks such as age, medical
condition, or other identified vulnerabilities.
■ Mass casualty incident of more than 25 patients.
■ Rail or transportation incident that causes life-safety exposure or threatens life safety through
the release of hazardous smoke or materials and evacuation of residential and business
occupancies.
■ Explosion in a building that causes exposure to persons or threatens life safety or outside of a
building that creates exposure to occupied buildings or threatens life safety.
■ Massive river/estuary flooding, fire in a correctional or medical institution, high-impact
environmental event, pandemic.
■ Mass gathering with threat of fire and threat to life safety or other civil unrest, weapons of mass
destruction release.
FIGURE 3-24: Special Risk
§ § §
0
2
4
6
8
10
P
C
I
Special Risk
62
SECTION 4. STAFFING, DEPLOYMENT, AND
PERFORMANCE
PRIMARY PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINT ANALYSIS
The City of El Mirage uses the Tolleson Police 911-Dispatch Center as its primary Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP) for fire and EMS calls for service. As the primary PSAP, the Tolleson 911-
Dispact Center identifies the nature of the caller’s situation (fire or EMS) and then transfers the
caller by phone to the secondary PSAP, which is the Phoenix Fire Department Regional Dispatch
Center (PFDRDC). The PFDRDC also serves as the Fire and EMS Emergency Communications
Center for the EMFD.
At the PFDRDC, the call-taker receives the call by phone from Tolleson and processes the call
further as a fire or EMS incident, gathers pertinent caller information such as address, nature of
complaint or the nature of the emergency, then generates a case and sends it to a fire/EMS
dispatcher (if not that position when receiving the call) for dispatching of the incident to the
proper unit(s). The PFDRDC supplies continuous updates to the responding units about caller
updated information, or information provided in the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) records
management system.
Receiving an event from a primary PSAP through a telephone or CAD-to-CAD system is not
uncommon. Transfers (PSAP-to-PSAP by telephone) do, however, have an impact on event
processing times as these transfers add time to the initial reporting of the incident.
From a fire and EMS perspective, the communications center is measured on three critical points
in the overall cascade of events linking the event to the incident response force. These are how
the call is routed through the public safety network and its capabilities (wireline phone, wireless
phone, E911capabilities, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), mobile satellite services, telematics,
and Text Telephone Devices (TTYs)), time to answer (the time it takes to answer an incoming and
call on the emergency phone line), and alarm processing time (the time it takes to process and
create the event and then notify the emergency response unit(s)). Because the PFDRDC is a
secondary PSAP, the event is received by phone a second time, adding time to the overall
incident time measurements, and this runs the risk of a transfer/connection mishap and dropped
call.
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1710, Standard for Organization and
Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special
Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, 2020 edition, includes national consensus
standards for emergency communication PSAPS and dispatch centers. For the EMFD, this
includes a primary PSAP (Tolleson) and secondary PSAP (Phoenix), which also serves as the
communications center. Section 4.1.2.3 of this standard outlines several benchmarks for
communications center operations for fire and EMS events. Included in the benchmarks are the
following components:
Call answering time: The call arrives at the secondary PSAP and communications center
(PFDRDC) by phone and is processed as outlined in the standard as follows:
■ Ninety percent of events received on emergency lines shall be answered within 15 seconds,
95 percent of alarms shall be answered in 20 seconds, and no more than 40 seconds 99
percent of the time.
63
Alarm processing time: Event processing times at the PFDRDC shall be completed in 64 seconds
90 percent of the time and not more than 106 seconds 95 percent of the time.
Alarm processing time for the following call types shall be completed within 90 seconds
90 percent of the time and within 120 seconds 99 percent of the time:
■ Calls requiring Emergency Medical Dispatch.
■ Calls requiring language translation.
■ Calls requiring TTY/TTD receipt of events.
■ Calls of criminal activity that require information vital to emergency responder safety prior to
dispatching units.
■ Haz-Mat incidents.
■ Technical rescue incidents.
■ Incomplete location.
■ Calls received by text message to the communications center.
NFPA 1710 identifies call arrival at the primary PSAP (Tolleson) call transfer time as well. The
standard for the Tolleson dispatch center is:
■ NFPA 1710 (4.1.2.3.1) for call answering time is ≤ 15 seconds 95 percent of the time and
≤ 40 seconds 99 percent of the time.
■ NFPA 1710 Standard (4.1.2.3.2) for transferring a call from a Primary PSAP (Tolleson) to a
secondary PSAP (Phoenix) is ≤ 30 seconds 95 percent of the time.
CPSM made numerous requests for transfer time data from Tolleson. CPSM requested data from
Tolleson for 2018, 2019, and 2021 and received PSAP data for the period of July 11, 2019, through
December 31, 2021. The next set of tables describes answering time and call transfer time for this
period.
TABLE 4-1: Call Answering Time* Tolleson PSAP
Year
Percent at
≤ 15 Seconds
Percent at
≤ 40 Seconds
Call
Count
2019
98.2
100.0
1,307
2020
98.9
99.9
3,475
2021
99.0
99.9
3,683
Total
98.8
99.9
8,465
Note: *Standard is ≤ 15 seconds 95 percent of the time and ≤ 40 seconds 99 percent of the time.
64
TABLE 4-2: Call Transfer Time* from Tolleson to Phoenix
Year
Percent at
≤ 30 Seconds
Call
Count
2019
66.4
1,307
2020
71.7
3,475
2021
71.8
3,683
Total
70.9
8,465
Note: *Standard is ≤ 30 seconds 95 percent of the time.
Based on review of the data provided and described above, it can be seen that Tolleson 911
Dispatch meets the call answering time standard but does not meet the standard benchmark
for call transfer time.
The next figure illustrates the event timeline when the primary PSAP such as Tolleson-911 Dispatch
is other than the communications center, which is PFDRDC.
FIGURE 4-1: Event Timeline for 911 Call Receipt, Transfer, and Processing
Emergency
Event
Occurs
Emergeny
Call
Initiated
Call Routed
Through
Public Safety
Network
≤ 4 secs.
Call Arrival
Tolleson
Primary
PSAP
Call
Transfered
to Phoenix
Center
Call
Answered
at Phoenix
Center
Event
Created in
CAD
Fire/EMS
Notified
NFPA 1710 Standard
Transfer Occurs
≤ 30- Seconds 95% of the time
NFPA 1710 Standard
Call Answered
≤ 15- Seconds 95% of the time
≤ 40- Seconds 99% of the time
NFPA 1710 Standard
Event Processed and Units Dispatched
≤ 64- Seconds 90% of the time
≤ 106 seconds 95% of the time
Special Call Types
≤ 90 seconds 90% of the time
≤ 120 seconds 99 percent of the time
65
The City of El Mirage and the City of Tolleson implemented an intergovernmental agreement in
July 2016 for Tolleson to provide E-911 and non-emergency call answering services, dispatch the
El Mirage Police Department (EMPD), and host and provide administration of the police records
management system for the EMPD. The agreement had a one-year initial term with automatic
ten-year renewals. While the agreement allows access by the EMPD to the RMS, the agreement
does not have a provision where the Tolleson 911 Dispatch Center is bound to share 911 call
processing times with the EMFD. Lastly, the EMFD is not listed in the agreement as a user agency
to the E-911 and non-emergency call answering services.
STAFFING AND DEPLOYMENT
When exploring staffing and deployment of fire departments it is prudent to design an
operational strategy around the actual circumstances that exist in the community and the fire
and risk problems that are identified. The strategic and tactical challenges presented by the
widely varied hazards that a department protects against need to be identified and planned for
through a community risk analysis planning and management process as completed in this
report. It is ultimately the responsibility of elected officials to decide the level of risk that is
acceptable to their community. Once the acceptable level of risk has been decided, then
operational service goals can be established. Whether looking at acceptable risk, or level of
service goals, it would be imprudent, and probably very costly, to build a deployment strategy
that is based solely on response times and emotion.
The staffing of fire and EMS companies is a never-ending focus of attention among fire service
and governmental leadership. While NFPA 1710 and OSHA provide guidelines (and to some
extent the law, specifically OSHA in OSHA states) as to the level of staffing and response of
personnel, the adoption of these documents varies from state to state and department to
department. NFPA 1710 addresses the recommended staffing in terms of specific types of
occupancies and risks. The needed staffing to conduct the critical tasks for each specific
occupancy and risk are determined to be the Effective Response Force (ERF). The ERF for each
of these occupancies is detailed in NFPA 1710 (2020 edition), section 5.2.4, Deployment.
One of the factors that has helped the fire service in terms of staffing is technology. The fire
service continues to benefit from technological advances that help firefighters extinguish fires
more effectively. More advanced equipment in terms of nozzles, personal protective gear,
thermal imaging systems, advancements in self-contained breathing apparatus, incident
command strategies, drones with infrared cameras, and devices used to track personnel air
supply are some of the technologies and techniques that help firefighters extinguish fires faster
and manage the fireground more effectively and safely. While some of these technologies do
not reduce the staffing or workforce needed, they can have an impact on firefighter safety,
property loss, and crew fatigue.
Even with the many advances in technology and equipment, the fireground is an unforgiving
and dynamic environment where firefighters must complete critical tasks simultaneously.
Lightweight wood construction, truss roofs, dwellings and buildings with basements, increased
setbacks making accessibility to the building difficult, and large footprint commercial buildings
and estate homes are examples of the challenges that firefighting forces are met with when
mitigating structural fires. Newly constructed homes are larger than many of the older home
stock a community. These homes tend to incorporate open floor plans, with large spaces that
contribute to rapid fire spread. The challenge of rapid fire spread is exacerbated by the use of
lightweight roof trusses, vinyl siding, and combustible sheathing. The result is that more personnel
are required to mitigate the incidents safely and effectively in these structures. Providing
66
adequate staffing through an Effective Response Force for these environments depends on
many factors.
While staffing and deployment of fire services is not an exact science, CPSM has developed
metrics it follows and recommends that communities consider when making recommendations
about staffing and deployment of fire resources. While there are many benchmarks that
communities and management use in justifying certain staffing levels, there are certain
considerations that are data driven and presented through national consensus that serve this
purpose as well.
In addition to metrics, fire and EMS staffing is also linked to station location, what type of
apparatus is responding, that is, the combination of engine, ladder, ambulance, or specialty
apparatus. These joint factors help to determine what level of fire and EMS service is going to be
delivered in terms of labor, response time, and resources.
Linked to these components of staffing and deployment are 11 critical factors that drive various
levels and models from which fire and EMS departments staff and deploy. These factors are:
All-Hazard Risk Assessment of the Community: A fire department collects and organizes risk
evaluation information about community risk (population and demographics; environmental;
transportation; fire and EMS call demand and call types), and individual property types. The all-
hazard community risk and community assessment is used to evaluate the community. With
regard to individual property types, the assessment is used to measure all property and the risk
associated with that property and then segregate the property as either a high-, medium-, or
low-hazard risk depending on factors such as the life and building content hazard, the potential
fire flow, and the staffing and apparatus types required to mitigate an emergency in the specific
property. Factors such as fire protection systems are considered in each building evaluation.
Included in this assessment should be both a structural and nonstructural (weather, wildland-
urban interface, transportation routes, etc.) analysis. All factors are then analyzed and the
probability of an event occurring, the impact on the fire department, and the consequences on
the community are measured and scored.
Population, Demographics, and Socioeconomics of a Community: Population and population
density drives calls for local government service, particularly public safety. The risk from fire is not
the same for everyone, with studies telling us age, gender, race, socio-economic factors, and
what region in the country one might live in contribute to the risk of death from fire. Studies also
tell us these same factors affect demand for EMS, such as the increased use of hospital
emergency departments by uninsured or underinsured patients, who rely on emergency services
for their primary and emergency care and utilize pre-hospital EMS transport systems as their entry
point.
Call Demand: Demand is made up of the types of calls to which units are responding and the
location of the calls. This drives workload and station staffing and apparatus considerations.
Higher population centers with increased demand and risk require greater resources.
Workload of Units: This factor involves the types of calls to which units are responding and the
workload of each unit in the deployment model. This defines what resources are needed and
where; it links to demand and station location, or in a dynamic deployed system, the area(s) in
which to post units.
Travel Times from Fire Stations: Analyzes the ability to cover the fire management zone/response
district in a reasonable and acceptable travel time when measured against national
benchmarks such as NFPA 1710, 1720, and the ISO-FSRS engine and ladder company grading
parameters. This metric links to demand, risk assessment, unit workload, and resiliency.
67
NFPA Standards, ISO, OSHA, State OSH requirements (and other national benchmarking).
EMS Demand: Community demand; demand on available units and crews; hospital off-load
wait times; demand on non-EMS transport units responding to calls for service (fire/police units);
availability of crews in departments that utilize cross-trained EMS staff to perform fire suppression.
Critical Tasking: On-scene capabilities to control and mitigate emergencies is determined by
staffing and deployment of certain resources for low, medium, and high-risk responses. Critical
tasking is the individual or team level task that is required to be performed by on-scene
personnel based on the type of incident the firefighting and EMS force is responding to. Critical
tasks are to the greatest extent performed simultaneously for a more effective operation aimed
at increased firefighter and the public’s safety. Those risks/incidents that require more critical
tasks to be performed simultaneously drive a larger response force. An example of simultaneous
critical tasking is a search and rescue crew and a ventilation crew operating while a crew or
crews are advancing attack lines.
Effective Response Force: The ability of the jurisdiction to assemble the necessary personnel on
the scene to perform the critical tasks necessary in rapid sequence to mitigate the emergency.
The speed, efficiency, and safety of on-scene operations are dependent upon the number of
firefighters performing the tasks. If fewer firefighters are available to complete critical on-scene
tasks, those tasks will require more time to complete and impact overall operations and the
safety of firefighters and the public, and in some cases intensify the spread of fire.
Innovations in Staffing and Deployable Apparatus: The fire department’s ability and willingness to
develop and deploy innovative apparatus (combining two apparatus functions into one to
maximize available staffing, as an example). Deploying quick response vehicles (light vehicles
equipped with medical equipment and some light fire suppression capabilities) on those lower
acuity calls (typically the largest percentage) that do not require heavy fire apparatus.
Community Expectations: The gathering of input and feedback from the community, then
measuring, understanding, and developing goals and objectives to meet community
expectations.
Ability to Fund: The community’s understanding of, and its ability and willingness to fund fire and
EMS services, while considering how budgetary revenues are divided up to meet all
community’s expectations.
These factors are further illustrated in the following figure.
68
FIGURE 4-2: Fire Department Staffing Diagram
While each component presents its own metrics of data, consensus opinion, and/or discussion
points, aggregately they form the foundation for informed decision-making that is geared
toward the implementation of sustainable, data- and theory-supported, effective fire and EMS
staffing and deployment models that fit the community’s profile, risk, and expectations.
NFPA 1710
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards are consensus standards and not
mandated nor are they the law. Many cites and countries strive to achieve these standards to
the extent possible without an adverse fiscal impact to the community. Cities and communities
must decide on the level of service they can deliver based on several factors as discussed
herein, including budgetary considerations. Questions of legal responsibilities are often discussed
in terms of compliance with NFPA Standards. Again, these are national consensus standards,
representing best practices and applied science and research.
NFPA 1710 outlines organization and deployment of operations by career, and primarily career
fire and rescue organizations.22 It serves as a benchmark to measure staffing and deployment of
resources to certain structures and emergencies.
NFPA 1710 was the first organized approach to defining levels of service, deployment
capabilities, and staffing levels for substantially career departments. Research work and
empirical studies in North America were used by NFPA committees as the basis for developing
response times and resource capabilities for those services as identified by the fire department.23
22. NFPA 1710 is a nationally recognized standard, but it has not been adopted as a mandatory regulation
by the federal government or the State of Arizona. It is a valuable resource for establishing and measuring
performance objectives for the City of El Mirage but should not be the only determining factor when
making local decisions about the city’s fire services.
23. NFPA, Origin and Development of the NFPA 1710, 1710-1
69
According to NFPA 1710, fire departments should base their capabilities on a formal all-hazards
community risk assessment, as discussed earlier in this report, and taking into consideration:24
■ Life hazard to the population protected.
■ Provisions for safe and effective firefighting performance conditions for the firefighters.
■ Potential property loss.
■ Nature, configuration, hazards, and internal protection of the properties involved.
■ Types of fireground tactics and evolutions employed as standard procedure, type of
apparatus used, and results expected to be obtained at the fire scene.
According to NFPA 1710, if a community follows this standard, engine and ladder companies
shall be staffed with a minimum of four on-duty members.25 Additional staffing parameters in this
standard for engine and ladder companies is based on geographical isolation and tactical
hazards, and increases each to five or six as a minimum.26 This staffing configuration is designed
to ensure a fire department can complete the critical tasking necessary on building fires and
other emergency incidents simultaneously rather that consecutively, and can efficiently
assemble an effective response force for each risk the department may encounter. NFPA 1710
permits fire departments to use established automatic aid and mutual aid agreements to comply
with the assembling of on-scene personnel to complete critical tasks as outlined in the standard.
Code of Federal Regulations, NFPA 1500, and Two-In/Two-Out
Another consideration, and one that links to critical tasking and assembling an Effective
Response Force, is that of two-in/two-out regulations. Essentially, prior to starting any fire attack in
an immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH) environment [with no confirmed rescue in
progress], the initial two-person entry team shall ensure that there are sufficient resources on-
scene to establish a two-person initial rapid intervention team (IRIT) located outside of the
building.
This critical tasking model has its genesis with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, specifically 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(4). The Arizona Division of Occupational Safety
and Health (ADOSH) State Plan applies to state and local government employers. Federal OSHA
covers the issues not covered by the Arizona State Plan. The federal rule (29 CFR 1910.134(g)(4))
applies to the EMFD.
The EMFD responds to structural fires with eight on-duty fire staff and a command officer
(Battalion Chief). Also dispatched are an additional eight fire staff and command officer
(Battalion Chief) through automatic aid. Under this response model, the EMFD provides the
minimum number of firefighters on the initial response in order to comply with CFR 1910.134(g)(4),
regarding two-in/two-out rules and an initial rapid intervention team (IRIT).
CFR 1910.134: Procedures for interior structural firefighting. The employer shall ensure that:
(i) At least two employees enter the IDLH atmosphere and remain in visual or voice contact with
one another at all times;
24. NFPA 1710, 5.2.1.1, 5.2.2.2
25. NFPA 1710, 5.2.3.1.1; 5.2.3.2.1
26. NFPA 1710, 5.2.3.1.2, 5.2.3.1.2.1.,5.2.3.2.2.,5.3.2.3.2.2.1
70
(ii) At least two employees are located outside the IDLH atmosphere; and
(iii) All employees engaged in interior structural firefighting use SCBAs.27
According to the standard, one of the two individuals located outside the IDLH atmosphere may
be assigned to an additional role, such as incident commander in charge of the emergency or
safety officer, so long as this individual is able to perform assistance or rescue activities without
jeopardizing the safety or health of any firefighter working at the incident.
NFPA 1500, Standard on Fire Department Occupational Health, Safety, and Wellness, 2018
Edition, has similar language as CFR 1910.134(g)(4) to address the issue of two-in/two-out, stating
the initial stages of the incident where only one crew is operating in the hazardous area of a
working structural fire, a minimum of four individuals shall be required consisting of two members
working as a crew in the hazardous area and two standby members present outside this hazard
area available for assistance or rescue at emergency operations where entry into the danger
area is required.28
NFPA 1500 also speaks to the utilization of the two-out personnel in the context of the health and
safety of the firefighters working at the incident. The assignment of any personnel including the
incident commander, the safety officer, or operations of fire apparatus, shall not be permitted
as standby personnel if by abandoning their critical task(s) to assist, or if necessary, perform
rescue, this clearly jeopardizes the safety and health of any firefighter working at the incident.29
In order to meet CFR 1910.134(g)(4), and NFPA 1500, the EMFD must utilize two personnel to
commit to interior fire attack while two firefighters remain out of the hazardous area or
immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH) area to form the Initial Rapid Intervention Team
(IRIT), while attack lines are charged, and a continuous water supply is established.
However, NFPA 1500 allows for fewer than four personnel under specific circumstances. It states,
Initial attack operations shall be organized to ensure that if on arrival at the emergency scene,
initial attack personnel find an imminent life-threatening situation where immediate action could
prevent the loss of life or serious injury, such action shall be permitted with fewer than four
personnel.30
CFR 1910.134(g)(4) also states that nothing in section (g) is meant to preclude firefighters from
performing emergency rescue activities before an entire team has assembled.31
It is also important to note that the OSHA standard (and NFPA 1710) specifically references
“interior firefighting.” Firefighting activities that are performed from the exterior of the building
are not regulated by this portion of the OSHA standard. However, in the end, the ability to
assemble adequate personnel, along with appropriate apparatus, on the scene of a structure
fire, is critical to operational success and firefighter safety.
27. CFR 1910.134 (g) 4
28. NFPA 1500, 2018, 8.8.2.
29. NFPA 1500, 2018, 8.8.2.5.
30. NFPA 1500, 2018 8.8.2.10.
31. CFR 190.134, (g).
71
FIGURE 4-3: Two-In/Two-Out Interior Firefighting Model*
§ § §
72
EMFD STAFFING MODEL
The EMFD has three operational shifts, A, B, and C. Each of the shifts is staffed with four
firefighters, two engineers, two captains (company officer), and one Battalion Chief (shift
commander), for an on-duty operational response force of nine personnel.
The following table details the positions for each shift.
TABLE 4-3: EMFD Shift Matrix
A Shift (48 on 96 off)
B Shift (48 on 96 off)
C Shift (48 on 96 off)
■ E121: 1 Captain
■ 1 Engineer
■ 2 Firefighters
■ E121: 1 Captain
■ 1 Engineer
■ 2 Firefighters
■ E121: 1 Captain
■ 1 Engineer
■ 2 Firefighters
■ E122: 1 Captain
■ 1 Engineer
■ 2 Firefighters
■ E122: 1 Captain
■ 1 Engineer
■ 2 Firefighters
■ E122: 1 Captain
■ 1 Engineer
■ 2 Firefighters
■ LA121: 1 Paramedic/FF
■ 1 EMT/FF
■ Early 2022 using ARPA Funding
4 days/week-10 hours/day
■ LA121: 1 Paramedic/FF
■ 1 EMT/FF
■ Early 2022 using ARPA Funding
4 days/week-10 hours/day
■ LA121: 1 Paramedic/FF
■ 1 EMT/FF
■ Early 2022 using ARPA Funding
4 days/week-10 hours/day
■ BC121: 1 Battalion Chief
■ BC121: 1 Battalion Chief
■ BC121: 1 Battalion Chief
The table above depicts minimum staffing levels for the department. As discussed above, the
EMFD does not have extra personnel to fill in for scheduled and unscheduled leave. The EMFD,
like many fire departments across the country, staffs through the constant-staffing level model,
meaning that on each shift there is minimum number of staffed positions to be filled. In the case
of the EMFD that number is nine each shift, or eleven (five days a week) with the addition of the
Low Acuity Unit in early 2022. When a position is vacated by scheduled or unscheduled leave,
and because it represents minimum staffing, the position is backfilled by overtime staffing.
As discussed above, and as will be discussed further in the next sections, the EMFD relies heavily
on regional automatic aid for emergency responses requiring more than two engines and one
command officer in the city, and when both EMFD engines are tied up on a call either in or out of
the city, for responses in El Mirage.
Effective Response Force and Critical Tasking
Critical tasks are those activities that must be conducted on time by responders at emergency
incidents to control the situation and stop loss. Critical tasking for fire operations is the minimum
number of personnel needed to perform the tasks needed to effectively control and mitigate a
fire or other emergency. To be effective, critical tasking must assign enough personnel so that all
identified functions can be performed simultaneously. However, it is important to note that initial
response personnel may manage secondary support functions once they have completed their
primary assignment. Thus, while an incident may end up requiring a greater commitment of
resources or a specialized response, a properly executed critical tasking assignment will provide
adequate resources to immediately begin bringing the incident under control.
73
The specific number of people required to perform all the critical tasks associated with an
identified risk or incident type is referred to as an Effective Response Force (ERF). The goal is to
deliver an ERF within a prescribed period. NFPA 1710 provides the benchmarks for effective
response forces.
The following discussion and tables will outline how critical tasking and assembling an effective
response force is first measured in NFPA 1710, and how the EMFD is benchmarked against this
standard for the building types existing in El Mirage. This discussion will cover single-family
dwelling buildings, open-air strip mall buildings, and apartment buildings as outlined in the NFPA
standard. As mentioned already in this report, the EMFD relies on automatic aid to assemble an
Effective Response Force.
Single-Family Dwelling: NFPA 1710, 5.2.4.1
The initial full alarm assignment (ERF) to a structural fire in a typical 2,000 square-foot, two-story,
single-family dwelling without a basement and with no exposures must provide for a minimum of
16 members (17 if an aerial device is used). The following figure illustrates this, and the
subsequent table outlines the critical task matrix.
FIGURE 4-4: Effective Response Force for Single-Family Dwelling Fire
§ § §
74
TABLE 4-4: Effective Response Force for Single-Family Dwelling Fire
Critical Tasks
Personnel
Incident Command
1
Continuous Water Supply
1
Fire Attack via Two Handlines
4
Hydrant Hook Up - Forcible Entry - Utilities
2
Primary Search and Rescue
2
Ground Ladders and Ventilation
2
Aerial Operator if Aerial is Used
1
Establishment of IRIC (Initial Rapid Intervention Crew)
4
Total Effective Response Force
16
(17 If aerial is used)
The following table outlines how the EMFD assembles staffing and deployable resources as
measured against NFPA 1710 benchmarking for an effective response force for a single-family
dwelling fire. EMFD units are highlighted.
TABLE 4-5: EMFD Effective Response Force for Single-Family Dwelling Fire
Apparatus
Personnel
EMFD Battalion Chief
1
Auto Aid Battalion Chief
1
EMFD Engine
4
EMFD Engine
4
Auto Aid Engine
4
Auto Aid Ladder
4
Total EMFD ERF
18
As a single responding agency, EMFD does not meet the minimum benchmarks of NFPA 1710 for
an Effective Response Force for single-family dwelling fires. With regional automatic aid, the
EMFD does meet this benchmark. NFPA 1710 permits fire departments to use established
automatic aid and mutual aid agreements to comply with section 5.2 of this standard.32
Open-Air Strip Mall, NFPA 5.4.2
The initial full alarm assignment (ERF) to a structural fire in a typical open-air strip center ranging
from 13,000 square feet to 196,000 square feet in size must provide for a minimum of 27 members
(28 if an aerial device is used). The following table outlines the critical tasking matrix for this type
of fire. This can also be typed as a commercial building fire response.
32. NFPA 1710. 5.2.1.3
75
TABLE 4-6: Effective Response Force for Open-Air Strip Mall Fire
Critical Tasks
Personnel
Incident Command
2
Continuous Water Supply
2
Fire Attack via Two Handlines
6
Hydrant Hook Up - Forcible Entry - Utilities
3
Primary Search and Rescue
4
Ground Ladders and Ventilation
4
Aerial Operator if Aerial is Used
1
Establishment of IRIC (Initial Rapid Intervention Crew)
4
Medical Care Team
2
Total Effective Response Force
27
(28 If aerial is used)
The following table outlines how the EMFD assembles staffing and deployable resources as
measured against NFPA 1710 benchmarking for an effective response force for an open-air strip
mall and commercial building fires. EMFD units are highlighted.
TABLE 4-7: EMFD Effective Response Force for Open-Air Strip Mall/Commercial
Fire
Apparatus
Personnel
EMFD Battalion Chief
1
Auto Aid Battalion Chief
1
EMFD Engine
4
EMFD Engine
4
Auto Aid Engine
4
Auto Aid Engine
4
Auto Aid Engine
4
Auto Aid Engine
4
Auto Aid Ladder
4
Auto Aid Ladder
4
Total EMFD ERF
34
As a single responding agency, EMFD does not meet the minimum benchmarks of NFPA 1710 for
an Effective Response Force for an open-air strip mall fire. With regional automatic aid, the EMFD
does meet this benchmark. NFPA 1710 permits fire departments to use established automatic aid
and mutual aid agreements to comply with section 5.2 of this standard.33
Apartment Building
The initial full alarm assignment (ERF) to a structural fire in a typical 1,200 square-foot apartment
within a three-story, garden-style apartment building must provide for a minimum of 27 members
(28 if an aerial device is used). The following table outlines the critical tasking matrix for this type
of building fire.
33. NFPA 1710. 5.2.1.3
76
TABLE 4-8: Effective Response Force for Apartment Building Fire
Critical Tasks
Personnel
Incident Command
2
Continuous Water Supply
2
Fire Attack via Two Handlines
6
Hydrant Hook Up - Forcible Entry - Utilities
3
Primary Search and Rescue
4
Ground Ladders and Ventilation
4
Aerial Operator if Aerial is Used
1
Establishment of IRIC (Initial Rapid Intervention Crew
4
Medical Care Team
2
Total Effective Response Force
27
(28 If aerial is used)
The following table outlines how the EMFD assembles staffing and deployable resources as
measured against NFPA 1710 benchmarking for an effective response force for an apartment
building or other multi-unit housing type building fire. EMFD units are highlighted.
TABLE 4-9: EMFD Effective Response Force for Apartment Building Fire
Apparatus
Personnel
EMFD Battalion Chief
1
Auto Aid Battalion Chief
1
EMFD Engine
4
EMFD Engine
4
Auto Aid Engine
4
Auto Aid Engine
4
Auto Aid Engine
4
Auto Aid Engine
4
Auto Aid Ladder
4
Auto Aid Ladder
4
Total EMFD ERF
34
As a single responding agency, EMFD does not meet the minimum benchmarks of NFPA 1710 for
an Effective Response Force for an apartment building fire. With regional automatic aid, the
EMFD does meet this benchmark. NFPA 1710 permits fire departments to use established
automatic aid and mutual aid agreements to comply with section 5.2 of this standard.34
High-Rise, NFPA 1710 5.2.4.4
The initial full alarm assignment to a fire in a building where the highest floor is greater than 75
feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access must provide for a minimum of
42 members (43 if the building is equipped with a fire pump). El Mirage does not have a building
where the highest floor is greater than 75 feet above the lowest level, therefore this part of the
34. NFPA 1710. 5.2.1.3
77
standard is not examined here; however, through auto aid the number of personnel can be
assembled.
Overall, the EMFD cannot, as a single fire department, meet the NFPA 1710 standards regarding
the assembling of an ERF for a fire in a single-family dwelling, open-air strip mall/commercial
building, or apartment building. The EMFD can and does meet the standard as a signatory
agency to the Phoenix Regional Automatic Aid System agreement, and the regular automatic
aid received in the city as described herein.
EMFD RESPONSE TIMES
Response times are typically the primary measurement for evaluating fire and EMS services.
Response times are used as a benchmark to determine how well a fire department is currently
performing, to help identify response trends, and to predict future operational needs. Achieving
the quickest and safest response times possible should be a fundamental goal of every fire
department.
However, the actual impact of a speedy response time is limited to very few incidents. For
example, in a full cardiac arrest, analysis shows that successful outcomes are rarely achieved if
basic life support (CPR) is not initiated within four to six minutes of the onset. Moreover, cardiac
arrests occur very infrequently; on average they are 1 percent to 1.5 percent of all EMS
incidents.35 There are also other EMS incidents that are truly life-threatening, and the time of
response can clearly impact the outcome. These involve certain cardiac and respiratory
emergencies, full drownings, high-risk obstetrical emergencies, allergic reactions, electrocutions,
and severe trauma (often caused by gunshot wounds, stabbings, and severe motor vehicle
accidents, etc.). Again, the frequency of these types of calls is limited.
A crucial factor in the whole response time question is what we term “detection time.” This is the
time it takes to detect a fire or a medical situation and notify 911 to initiate the response. In
many instances, particularly at night or when automatic detection systems (fire sprinklers and
smoke detectors) are not present or inoperable, the fire detection process can be extended.
The same holds true for EMS incidents. Many medical emergencies are often thought to be
something minor by the patient, treated with home remedies, and the true emergency goes
undetected until signs and symptoms are more severe. When the fire-EMS department responds,
they often find these patients in acute states. Fires that go undetected and are allowed to
expand in size become more destructive, are difficult to extinguish, and require more resources
for longer periods of time.
For the purpose of this analysis, response time is a product of three components: dispatch time,
turnout time, and travel time.
Dispatch time (alarm processing time) is the difference between the time a call is received and
the time a unit is dispatched. Dispatch time includes call processing time, which is the time
required to determine the nature of the emergency and types of resources to dispatch. Turnout
time is when the emergency response units are notified of the incident and ends when travel
time begins. Travel Time is the difference between the time the unit is en route and arrival on
scene. Response time is the total time elapsed between receiving a call to arriving on scene.
35. Myers, Slovis, Eckstein, Goodloe et al. (2007).” Evidence-based Performance Measures for Emergency
Medical Services System: A Model for Expanded EMS Benchmarking.” Pre-hospital Emergency Care.
78
For this study, and unless otherwise indicated, response times and travel times measure the first
arriving unit only. The primary focus of this section is the dispatch and response time of the first
arriving units for calls responded to with lights and sirens.
Dispatch time (alarm answering time, transfer time from Tolleson to Phoenix, and Phoenix call
processing time) has been discussed at length in a preceding section.
The next segment of response time is turnout time, an aspect of response which is controlled by
the responding fire department. NFPA 1710 states that turnout time should be less than or equal
to 80 seconds (1.33 minutes) for fire and special operations 90 percent of the time and 60
seconds (1.0 minute) for EMS responses. Again, turnout time is the segment of total response time
that the fire department has the most ability to control through employee behavior and station
layout (time to travel by foot from day/night areas to apparatus) primarily.
Travel time shall be less than or equal to 240 seconds for the first arriving engine company to a
fire suppression incident 90 percent of the time and for the second due engine less than or
equal to 360 seconds 90 percent of the time. The standard further states the initial first alarm
assignment should be assembled on scene in 480 seconds, 90 percent of the time for
low/medium hazards, and 610 seconds for high-rise or high hazards. For EMS incidents the
standard (NFPA 1710) is less than or equal to 240 seconds for the first arriving engine company
with automatic external defibrillator (AED) or higher level capability, and 480 seconds or less
travel time of an Advanced Life Support (ALS) unit at an EMS incident where the service is
provided by the fire department provided a first responder with an AED or basic life support unit
arrived in 240 seconds or less travel time.
The following figure provides an overview of the fire department incident cascade of events.
FIGURE 4-5: Incident Cascade of Events
Regarding response times for fire incidents, the criterion is linked to the concept of “flashover.”
This is the state at which super-heated gasses from a fire are released rapidly, causing the fire to
burn freely, and become so volatile that the fire reaches an explosive state (simultaneous
Fire Department-NFPA 1710
Incident Terminates
Alarm Handling Time-NFPA 1710
Incident Begins
State of
Normalcy
Event
Initiation
Discovery of
Event
Alarm
Transfer
Time
Alarm
Answering
Time
Alarm
Processing
Time
Turnout Time
Travel Time
Initiate On-
Scene
Action
Intervention
Time
Control and
Mitigate
Event
Recovery
State of
Normalcy
Total Response Time
79
ignition of all the combustible materials in a room). In this situation, usually after an extended
period (often eight to twelve minutes after ignition but at times as quickly as five to seven
minutes), and a combination of the right conditions (fuel and oxygen), the fire expands rapidly
and is much more difficult to contain. When the fire does reach this extremely hazardous state,
initial firefighting forces are often overwhelmed, larger and more destructive fire occurs, the fire
escapes the room and possibly even the building of origin, and significantly more resources are
required to affect fire control and extinguishment.
Flashover occurs more quickly and more frequently today and is caused at least in part by the
introduction of significant quantities of plastic- and foam-based products into homes and
businesses (e.g., furnishings, mattresses, bedding, plumbing and electrical components, home
and business electronics, decorative materials, insulation, and structural components). These
materials ignite and burn quickly and produce extreme heat and toxic smoke.
NFPA 1710’s travel times are established for two primary reasons: (1) the fire propagation curve,
where flashover occurs (property loss, firefighter and public life safety), and (2) sudden cardiac
arrest, where brain damage and permanent brain death occurs in four to six minutes.
According to fire service educator Clinton Smoke, the fire propagation curve establishes that
temperature rise and time within in a room on fire corresponds with property destruction and
potential loss of life if present.36 At approximately the eight- to ten-minute mark of fire
progression, the fire flashes over (due to superheating of room contents and other combustibles)
and extends beyond the room of origin, thus increasing proportionately the destruction to
property and potential endangerment of life. The ability to quickly deploy adequate fire staff
prior to flashover thus limits the fire’s extension beyond the room or area of origin.
Regarding the risk of flashover, the authors of an IAFF report conclude:
An early aggressive and offensive initial interior attack on a working structural fire results in
greatly reduced loss of life and property damage. Consequently, given that the progression of a
structural fire to the point of "flashover" (the very rapid spreading of the fire due to super-heating
of room contents and other combustibles) generally occurs in less than ten minutes, two of the
most important elements in limiting fire spread are the quick arrival of sufficient numbers of
personnel and equipment to attack and extinguish the fire as close to the point of its origin as
possible.37
The following figure illustrates the time progression of a fire from inception through flashover and
full involvement of the structure if the fire is left unchecked. Flashover occurs at eight to ten
minutes (or less depending on fuel), allowing the fire to extend beyond the room of origin.
Typically, if firefighting crews arrive, set up, and begin fire extinguishment prior to flashover, the
fire is contained to the room of origin.
36. Clinton Smoke, Company Officer, 2nd ed. (Clifton Park, NY: Delmar, 2005).
37. Safe Fire Fighter Staffing: Critical Considerations, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: International Association of
Fire Fighters), 5.
80
FIGURE 4-6: Fire Growth from Inception to Flashover38
EMS response times are measured differently than fire service response times. Where the fire
service uses NFPA 1710 as a response time benchmarking document, the focus for EMS is and
should be directed to the evidence-based research relationship between clinical outcomes and
response times. Much of the current research suggests response times have reduced impact on
clinical outcomes outside of a small segment of call types. These include cerebrovascular
accidents (stroke); injury or illness compromising the respiratory system; injury or illness
compromising the cardiovascular system to include S-T segment elevation emergencies, high
acuity medical and pediatric emergencies; cardiac and respiratory arrest; and certain high-risk
obstetrical emergencies to name a few. Each requires rapid response times, rapid on-scene
treatment and packaging for transport, and rapid transport to the hospital.
Paragraph 4.1.2.1(7) of NFPA 1710 recommends that for EMS incidents a fire unit with first
responder or higher-level trained personnel and equipped with an AED should arrive on scene
within four minutes of travel time at the 90th percentile. An advanced life support (ALS) unit
should arrive on scene within eight minutes travel time at the 90th percentile, provided the fire
department responded first with first responder or higher-level trained personnel and equipped
with an AED. According the NFPA 1710, “This requirement is based on experience, expert
consensus, and science. Many studies note the role of time and the delivery of early defibrillation
in patient survival due to heart attacks and cardiac arrest, which are the most time-critical,
resource-intensive medical emergency events to which fire departments respond.”
38. Source: https://www.slideserve.com/tavon/the-international-society-of-fire-service-instructors
81
The next figure illustrates the chance of survival from the onset of cardiac arrest, largely due to
ventricular fibrillation in terms of minutes without emergency defibrillation delivered by the public
or emergency responders. The chance of survival has not changed over time since this graphic
was published by the American Heart Association in 2000.
FIGURE 4-7: Cardiac Arrest Survival Probability by Minute
Typically, a low percentage of 911 patients have time-sensitive and advanced life support (ALS)
needs. But, for those patients that do, time can be a critical issue. For the remainder of those
calling 911 for a medical emergency, though they may not have a medical necessity, they still
expect rapid customer service. Response times for patients and their families are often the most
important measurement of the EMS department. Regardless of the service delivery model,
appropriate response times are more than a clinical issue; they are also a customer service issue
and should not be ignored.
In addition, a true emergency is when an illness or injury places a person’s health or life in serious
jeopardy and treatment cannot be delayed. Examples include severe trauma with
cardiovascular system compromise, difficulty breathing, chest pain with S-T segment elevation
(STEMI), a head injury, stroke, or ingestion of a toxic substance.39 The next figure illustrates the out-
of-hospital chain of survival for a stroke emergency, which is a series of actions that, when put in
motion, reduce the mortality of a stroke emergency.
FIGURE 4-8: Cerebrovascular Emergency (Stroke) Chain of Survival
Source: https://nhcps.com/lesson/acls-acute-stroke-care/
39. Mills-Peninsula Health Blog, Bruce Wapen, MD.
82
If a person is experiencing severe pain, that is also an indicator of an emergency. Again, the
frequencies of these types of calls are infrequent as compared to the routine, low-priority EMS
incident responses. In some cases, these dire emergencies often make up a low percent of all
EMS calls.40 Cardiac arrest is one emergency for which EMS response times were initially built
around. The science tells us that the brain begins to die without oxygenated blood flow at the
four- to six-minute mark. Without immediate cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and rapid
defibrillation, the chances of survival diminish rapidly at the cessation of breathing and heart
pumping activity. Further, only 10 percent of victims who suffer cardiac arrest outside of the
hospital survive.41
The following figure illustrates the out-of-hospital chain of survival, which is a series of actions that,
when put in motion, reduce the mortality of sudden cardiac arrest. Adequate EMS response
times coupled with community and public access defibrillator programs potentially can impact
the survival rate of sudden cardiac arrest victims by deploying early CPR, early defibrillation, and
early advanced life support care provided in the prehospital setting.
FIGURE 4-9: Sudden Cardiac Arrest Chain of Survival
From: “Out of Hospital Chain of Survival,”
https://cpr.heart.org/en/resources/cpr-facts-and-stats/out-of-hospital-chain-of-survival
ASSESSING THE FIRE MANAGEMENT ZONE
Travel time is key to understanding how fire and EMS station location influences a community’s
aggregate response time performance. Travel time can be mapped when existing and
proposed station locations are known. The location of responding units is one key factor in
response time; reducing response times, which is typically a key performance measure in
determining the efficiency of department operations, often depends on this factor. The goal of
placement of a single fire station or creating a network of responding fire stations in a single
community is to optimize coverage with short travel distances, when possible, while giving
special attention to natural and manmade barriers, and response routes that can create
response-time problems.42 This goal is generally budget-driven and based on demand intensity
of fire and EMS incidents, response times, and identified risks.
As already discussed, the EMFD responds from one station and receives automatic aid from
surrounding jurisdictions, most of which are contiguous. This section expands on the earlier
discussion on travel times and depicts how travel times of 240, 360, and 480 seconds look when
40. www.firehouse.com/apparatus/article/10545016/operations-back-to-basics-true-emergency-and-due-
regard
41. American Heart Association. Latest Statistics on Cardiac Arrest Reveal Little Progress. 2019
42. NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency
Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Departments, 2020 Edition.
83
mapped from the current fire station locations. Illustrating response time is important when
considering the location from which assets should be deployed. When historic demand is
coupled with risk analysis, a more informed decision can be made.
The following figures use GIS mapping to illustrate travel time bleeds of 240 seconds, 360
seconds, and 480 seconds using the existing street network from the current EMFD station. CPSM
also mapped the travel time projections from that primary auto aid stations that may respond
into El Mirage either first due when both El Mirage engines are tied up, or on an initial fire
response and by proximity to the call may arrive first.
The GIS data for streets includes speed limits for each street segment and allows for “U-turns” for
dead-end streets and intersections, as well as other travel obstacles.
It is, however, important to note that while GIS-drawn, theoretical travel times do reflect
favorably on the adequacy of station facilities and their corresponding locations within the city
to support efficient fire and EMS response to the current built-upon areas. Keep in mind, the
benefits of favorable travel time findings are only meaningfully realized when apparatus can be
predictably staffed for response and have aggressive turnout times.
It is important to understand that measuring and analyzing response times and response time
coverage are measurements of performance. When we discussed community risk above, we
identified that the EMFD like most other fire departments in the nation is an all-hazards response
agency. While different regions of the country respond to different environmental risks, the
remaining hazards that fire departments confront remain the same. Linking response data to
community risks lays the foundation for future fire department planning in terms of fire station
location, the need for additional fire stations, and staffing levels whether supplied by the fire
department or a combination of a city’s fire department and automatic aid. Managing fire
department response capabilities to the identified community’s risk focuses on three
components which are:
■ Having a full understanding of the total risk in the community and how each risk impacts the
fire department in terms of resiliency, what the consequences are to the community and fire
department should a specific risk or combination of two or more occur and preparing for and
understanding the probability that the risk may occur.
■ Linking risk to the deployment of resources to effectively manage every incident. This includes
assembling an Effective Response Force for the response risk in measurable times
benchmarked against NFPA standards, deploying the appropriate apparatus (engines,
ladders, heavy rescues, ambulances), and having a trained response force trained to combat
a specific risk.
■ Understanding that each element of response times plays a role in the management of
community risk. Low response times of the initial arriving engine and low time to assemble an
Effective Response Time on fire and other incidents is associated with positive outcomes.
The following figure looks at the travel time projection at 240 seconds from the EMFD station and
the primary auto aid stations that respond into El Mirage. From this mapped projection we can
see that the EMFD station can cover the central portion of the fire management zone but lacks
coverage in the remainder of the zone (which in this case is the City of El Mirage). However,
within the projected 240 seconds of travel time, auto aid stations cover the south central and
southeast built-upon areas and the northeast area of the zone above the BNSF rail yard.
84
FIGURE 4-10: Travel Time of 240 Seconds from EMFD Station and Auto Aid Stations
240 Seconds EMFD Station Only
240 Seconds Auto Aid Stations Only
The next figure illustrates the 1.5-mile ISO-FSRS coverage diamonds for engine company response to built-upon areas of the city. In this
figure the blue shade is the 1.5-mile ISO-FSRS grading criterion. The orange border represents 1.97 miles and is equivalent to 240
seconds of travel time. Coverage is similar to the previous figure but expands using the diamonds. This is because the 1.5-mile
diamonds are overlays and the response bleeds follow actual road patterns. The important aspect of the previous figure and the next
figure is the similarity between actual road bleeds and the ISO-FSRS diamond overlay. As well, it is important to understand that
although the city does not have coverage within 240 seconds to all of the fire management zone, the 240 seconds benchmark is at
the 90th percentile, not the 100th percentile. Actual travel times for the EMFD are discussed later in this section.
240 seconds
coverage
from EMFD
Station
85
FIGURE 4-11: ISO-FSRS 1.5-Mile Response Diamond for Engine Companies: EMFD and Auto Aid
1.5-Mile Diamond EMFD Station Only
1.5-Mile Diamond Auto Aid Stations Only
The next figure shows travel time projections at 360 seconds, which in the NFPA 1710 standard is the time benchmark for the second
due engine to arrive on the scene in less than or equal to 360 seconds 90 percent of the time. This standard links to the two in-two out
regulation from OSHA and NFPA 1500 standards, as well as the initial critical tasking and the early assembly of an Effective Response
Force for the incident. This figure compares the 360-seconds response from the EMFD station and as well from the primary auto aid
stations that respond into El Mirage. Keep in my that the El Mirage station has two engine companies that, if in the station at the same
time, would satisfy this response time component of the NFPA 1710 standard.
This figure shows that almost all of the central and northern areas of the of the city are covered from the El Mirage fire station. The
auto aid stations fill in the remaining sections of the city at the standard benchmark of the 90th percentile.
1.97 Miles is equivalent to 240 seconds.
86
FIGURE 4-12: Travel Time of 360 Seconds from EMFD Station and Auto Aid Stations
360 Seconds EMFD Station Only
360 Seconds Auto Aid Stations Only
The next figure looks at the travel time bleeds of 480 seconds, which in the NFPA 1710 standard is the time benchmark for the
assembly of the initial first alarm assignment on scene in 480 seconds or less 90-percent of the time for low/medium hazards. This
standard links to the incident critical tasking and the assembly of an Effective Response Force for the incident. This figure shows the
480 seconds response bleed from the EMFD station and the primary auto aid stations that respond into El Mirage.
This figure shows us that the fire management zone (City of El Mirage) is covered with the El Mirage fire station and the auto aid
stations at the standard benchmark of the 90th percentile.
87
FIGURE 4-13: Travel Time of 480 Seconds from EMFD Station and Auto Aid Stations
480 Seconds EMFD Station Only
480 Seconds Auto Aid Stations Only
The next set of tables analyzes the EMFD’s turnout, travel, and total response times for 2018, 2019, and 2020. Also included are the
Phoenix Fire Department Regional Dispatch Center’s call processing times (dispatch time). In this analysis, calls with response mode
“Code 3” (lights and sirens) and final call category “ALS” were identified as emergencies. We included all calls within the City of El
Mirage to which at least one non-administrative unit responded. These responses only include EMFD units. The response time analysis
also focused on units that had complete time stamps, that is, units with all components recorded, so that we could calculate each
segment of response time. Response times are analyzed here at the 90th percentile and benchmarked against the NFPA 1710
standard. Measuring first-due arriving fire units and secondary response units (for the total Effective Response Force, 360 seconds, and
480 seconds) to a fire incident provides constructive information for resource allocation decisions such as fire station location, type of
apparatus deployed, and crew staffing levels.
88
TABLE 4-10: 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type, 2018
Call Type
Minutes
Number of
Calls
Dispatch
Turnout
Travel
Total
Breathing difficulty
1.1
1.7
5.9
8.2
195
Cardiac and stroke
1.2
1.7
5.6
7.6
220
Fall and injury
1.6
1.4
5.8
7.8
492
Illness and other
1.6
1.5
5.7
7.9
595
MVA
1.4
1.4
6.6
7.9
122
Overdose and psychiatric
1.7
1.6
5.2
7.4
60
Seizure and unconsciousness
1.6
1.7
5.6
7.8
255
EMS Total
1.5
1.6
5.8
7.9
1,939
False alarm
2.3
1.8
6.3
9.1
81
Good intent
1.4
1.1
4.6
6.9
4
Hazard
1.8
2.2
5.7
7.2
14
Outside fire
1.8
1.6
5.6
8.1
42
Public service
1.9
1.4
7.0
9.6
15
Structure fire
1.5
1.4
4.6
6.6
32
Fire Total
2.1
1.6
6.3
8.6
188
Total
1.6
1.6
5.8
8.0
2,127
TABLE 4-11: 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type, 2019
Call Type
Minutes
Number of
Calls
Dispatch
Turnout
Travel
Total
Breathing difficulty
1.3
1.8
5.8
7.7
190
Cardiac and stroke
1.6
1.6
5.3
7.1
188
Fall and injury
1.6
1.6
5.6
8.0
408
Illness and other
1.9
1.6
5.8
8.3
569
MVA
1.2
1.5
6.4
8.1
93
Overdose and psychiatric
1.4
1.6
4.9
6.9
62
Seizure and unconsciousness
1.4
1.5
5.4
7.3
239
EMS Total
1.6
1.6
5.6
8.0
1,749
False alarm
2.2
1.8
6.7
9.6
100
Good intent
1.8
1.5
5.3
8.4
6
Hazard
1.5
1.0
5.5
7.3
6
Outside fire
2.1
1.6
6.8
9.2
43
Public service
2.0
1.1
4.4
8.8
12
Structure fire
2.5
1.5
6.2
8.4
27
Fire Total
2.2
1.7
6.6
9.4
194
Total
1.7
1.6
5.7
8.1
1,943
89
TABLE 4-12: 90th Percentile Response Time First Arriving Unit, by Call Type, 2020
Call Type
Minutes
Number of
Calls
Dispatch
Turnout
Travel
Total
Breathing difficulty
1.8
1.8
5.2
7.6
307
Cardiac and stroke
1.6
1.7
5.0
7.1
238
Fall and injury
1.6
1.7
5.7
8.0
551
Illness and other
2.0
1.7
5.4
8.0
743
MVA
1.6
1.6
5.8
7.6
114
Overdose and psychiatric
1.9
1.8
4.6
7.2
77
Seizure and unconsciousness
1.5
1.6
5.2
7.4
275
EMS Total
1.8
1.7
5.4
7.7
2,305
False alarm
1.9
1.8
6.5
8.9
82
Good intent
1.2
1.0
3.8
5.6
2
Hazard
4.3
1.8
5.2
8.8
15
Outside fire
2.4
1.8
5.4
8.4
67
Public service
3.9
1.8
5.0
9.2
9
Structure fire
1.5
1.6
4.5
7.0
25
Fire Total
2.2
1.8
5.8
8.5
200
Total
1.8
1.7
5.4
7.8
2,505
TABLE 4-13: 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit, Three-Year
Comparison by Fire/EMS Annual Total in Seconds
Call Type
Dispatch
Turnout
Travel
Total
Response
Time
2018
EMS Total
90 secs.
96 sec.
348 secs.
474 secs.
Fire Total
126 secs.
96 sec.
378 secs.
516 secs.
2019
EMS Total
96 secs.
96 secs.
336 secs.
480 secs.
Fire Total
132 secs.
102 secs.
396 secs.
564 secs.
2020
EMS Total
108 secs.
102 secs.
324 secs.
462 secs.
Fire Total
132 secs.
108 secs.
348 secs.
510 secs.
90
To summarize, the key response time parameters established for dispatch time and first arriving
engine in NFPA 1710 at the 90th percentile are:
■ Event processed and units dispatched less than or equal to 64 Seconds 90 percent of the time
■ Turnout time shall be less than or equal to 60 seconds for EMS incidents.
■ Turnout time for shall be less than or equal to 80 seconds for fire or specialized response
incidents.
■ Travel time shall be less than or equal to 240 seconds for the first arriving engine company to a
fire suppression incident 90 percent of the time.
■ Travel time for EMS incidents is less than or equal to 240 seconds for the first arriving engine
company equipped with an automatic external defibrillator (AED) or higher level capability.
In summary, the performance of the EMFD first arriving unit at the 90th percentile response times
are:
■ Dispatch times for EMS incidents over the three-year study period did not meet the NFPA
standard. This aspect of response is out of the control of the EMFD.
■ Dispatch times for fire incidents over the three-year study period did not meet the NFPA
standard. This is due partly to the time it takes to prepare the CAD system with multiple units
from multiple stations, using automatic aid and closest unit response prior to dispatching the
call. This aspect of response is out of the control of the EMFD.
■ Turnout times for EMS incidents over the three-year study period did not meet the NFPA
standard. This aspect of response is in the control of the EMFD and when an issue was
identified in 2020, corrective actions were implemented per AC Richardson.
■ Turnout times for fire incidents over the three-year study period did not meet the NFPA
standard. This aspect of response is in the control of the EMFD and when an issue was
identified in 2020, corrective actions were implemented per AC Richardson.
■ Travel times to EMS incidents over the three-year study period did not meet the NFPA
standard. Travel times are dictated by the road network and accessibility to local streets, time
of day when traffic congestion is heaviest, weather, and station location with respect to the
incident. Other than station location(s), this aspect of response is out of the control of the
EMFD.
■ Travel times to fire incidents over the three-year study period did not meet the NFPA standard.
Travel times are dictated by the road network and accessibility to local streets, time of day
when traffic congestion is heaviest, weather, and station location with respect to the incident.
Other than station location(s), this aspect of response is out of the control of the EMFD.
91
FIGURE 4-14: Travel Time of 240 Seconds from EMFD Station
SPECIALIZED RESPONSE CAPABILITIES
Specialized response capabilities include hazardous materials (Haz-Mat), high angle rope
rescue, trench collapse, building collapse, complicated heavy auto extrication, elevated rescue
with an aerial platform, and confined space rescue. The EMFD, although trained to certain
specialized levels, does not have the response assets and capabilities to mitigate a complex
specialized or technical rescue incident. This requires a properly trained and equipped response
force. When needed, these assets are obtained through partnerships and agreements with
surrounding automatic aid departments that have these resources already in place.
There is nothing in NFPA 1710, ISO-FSRS, or other national benchmarks that requires a fire
department to deliver all of these services. What is included in the NFPA standard is an
organizational statement that that sets forth the criteria for the various types of special
operations response and mitigation activities to which the fire department is required to
respond. As a signatory agency to the Regional Metropolitan Phoenix Fire Service Automatic Aid
System agreement, the City of El Mirage and the EMFD have a declared organizational
statement in the agreement as outlined in the NFPA 1710 standard, as such:
It is agreed that the scope of this Agreement includes automatic assistance in
responding to fires, medical emergencies, medical emergencies, hazardous materials
incidents, rescue and extrication situations, and other types of emergency incidents
that are within the standard scope of services provided by the fire departments/districts
in the Automatic Aid System.
Large municipal fire departments build these assets into their day-to-day staffing and
deployable resources. In some cases, separate companies are created and staffed to manage
the Haz-Mat and technical rescue service deliverables. Some jurisdictions assign these functions
to ladder companies to include auto extrication. In some communities, such as El Mirage where
there is one station, the engine companies carry auto extrication equipment for light to medium
extrication incidents and are trained in certain aspects of Haz-Mat and technical rescue
incidents, albeit more as supportive assets in large-scale incidents.
240 seconds coverage is central
to the current EMFD station—
North of West Cactus Road to NW
Grand Avenue.
The GIS data for streets includes
speed limits for each street
segment. Response reach was
then calculated using reduced
speed limits to account for traffic,
intersections, and other obstacles.
In addition, U-turns were allowed
at intersections and dead-ends.
In cases of reduced speed limits
(local roads at 20 mph or less)
there is no reduction in speed
92
CONCLUSION
The EMFD is entrusted with community emergency response responsibilities and assets, and the
city recognizes the intrinsic services the department provides. This is evidenced by the city’s
forethought to have this analysis completed. On a day-to-day basis the EMFD responds to
emergency and non-emergency calls for service in and outside of the city as a part of the vast
automatic aid system in which it participates. The department has a relatively new Fire Chief
who is enhancing services in the Community Risk Reduction function by leading the EMFD
initiative to take part in new construction plans/review in coordination with the city’s Building
Safety Division. The Fire Chief is also re-implementing the Low-Acuity Response Unit to reduce the
workload of the two primary engine companies, keeping these assets available for the higher
acuity calls such as building fires, motor vehicle accidents, and emergency EMS calls. These
initiatives are best practices.
This report is comprised of a comprehensive analysis of the administrative and operational
components of the EMFD and includes an all-hazards community risk analysis, benchmarking
EMFD response against the NFPA 1710 standard and ISO-FSRS grading schedule; GIS mapping
that illustrates call demand in the city, the extent of response time and coverage of the city; and
a comprehensive data analysis of three years (2018, 2019, 2020) of fire and EMS call types, unit
workload, department resiliency, and response times.
CPSM found the EMFD to be a well-managed, prepared, and capable department that delivers
effective services to the extent of their current capabilities. The Fire Chief and his immediate staff
were highly responsive to our requests for information and assisted in collecting data from
outside sources given the circumstances.
Based on our analysis, CPSM did determine areas where improvements and/or enhancements
to service can be made. These recommendations are as follows:
Recommendations:
7. CPSM recommends the EMFD establish a formal staffing factor that can be used to assist in
the process for managing current and future staffing vacancies created by scheduled and
unscheduled leave.
8. CPSM recommends the Captain position assigned to the Fire Prevention/Community Risk
Reduction function be titled Fire Marshal to be consistent with regional and industry norms.
This position should also be charged with the responsibility of managing the fire inspection,
plans review, fire investigation, and public education programs. This position should also take
the lead on program design for Community Risk Reduction programs and performance
measures focused on reducing the risk of fire and improving citizen and firefighter safety.
9. CPSM recommends that the city reexamine the agreement with the City of Tolleson for
Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) services, and move to update this agreement to
include:
○ The timely release when requested by the City of El Mirage of 911 call receipt and transfer
data times to the Phoenix Fire Department Regional Dispatch Center;
○ The definition of EMFD as a PSAP customer;
○ Establishment of call transfer times that align with current NFPA 1710, Standard for the
Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical
Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Departments, 2020 Edition,
93
related to primary PSAP call processing and transfer times to the secondary PSAP
(30 seconds or less 95 percent of the time);
○ CPSM further recommends this agreement be reviewed on an annual basis and updated as
necessary, specifically when the NFPA 1710 standards change regarding primary PSAP call
processing and transfer times to the secondary PSAP.
10. CPSM recommends that the EMFD address the deficiencies in the most recent ISO report as
reviewed in this analysis. The Emergency Communications Center deficiencies should
include discussions with the Tolleson 911 Dispatch Center and its current capabilities, and
how the call transfer method to Phoenix can be improved. CPSM further recommends that
an EMFD representative be present in the Tolleson 911 Dispatch Center and the Phoenix Fire
Department Regional Dispatch Center during the next ISO evaluation for the purpose of
segregating deficiencies in each center to gain a better understanding of what
improvements need to be made and to what center.
After our analysis, CPSM also concludes:
Current operational staffing meets NFPA 1710 standards because of the EMFD’s participation in
the Regional Metropolitan Phoenix Fire Service Automatic Aid System. Removed from this system,
the EMFD would not meet NFPA 1710 standards as the department does not deploy sufficient
staffing resources to assemble an Effective Response Force (ERF) for low-, medium-, or high-
hazard fire responses.
The city and the department do have to look to the future regarding staffing. Although the
northern half of the city is mostly built upon, with some added growth planned, the southern half
of the city is a prime area for commercial and industrial growth. This growth will drive call
demand in a separate way with large footprint buildings that, depending on occupancy type,
storage, and processes performed inside the building, will call for an Effective Response Force to
at a minimum that of a medium hazard of 27 responders, 28 if an aerial is utilized. Although
response would be augmented by auto aid companies, the southern area of the city is not as
proximate to auto aid companies as is the northern area of the city.
Considering the planned growth in the southern part of the city and the type of commercial and
industrial growth that likely will occur there, the current building risk found in the community, and
the placement of auto aid ladder companies in relation to all parts of the city, the city and the
EMFD need to plan for a staffed ladder truck/company. While this ladder company make-up is
up to the Fire Chief, the city, and what is affordable, our view is that the optimum arrangement is
a ladder truck capable of a minimum water flow of 1,000 gallons per minute from the tip of the
ladder, and one that meets all NFPA 1901 safety and equipment standards. The ladder truck
should be staffed appropriately to meet the Regional Metropolitan Phoenix Fire Service
Automatic Aid agreement, that is, an officer, an engineer, and two firefighters. This
recommendation would require adding twelve front-line positions and is something the city
should begin to plan for.
As was analyzed and discussed in the report, the current response time capabilities of the EMFD
from the current station covers just the northern half of the city at the 240 second benchmark.
Although the response times are not a serious gap in service at present, there is a gap south and
east of the current fire station that is not covered by the EMFD station or auto aid stations. There
is also a gap in service related to ladder company coverage, as discussed above.
One alternative to solve this gap in service is the construction of a second fire station in the
southern area of the city and to deploy an engine and a ladder out of this station (this could be
two new apparatus or a relocation of E122 and the implementation of a new ladder company;
94
Station 121 would then deploy E121 and LA121). For planning purposes, CPSM chose a site near
the City Hall complex and conducted a GIS analysis of ladder company coverage from this
location and expansion of the 240 second first arriving engine company coverage. The next set
of figures illustrate how the second station would close the NFPA 1710 standard for first arriving
engine company coverage at 240 seconds, and what the addition of a ladder company will
look like when added in with auto aid companies using the ISO-FSRS 2.5 mile diamond coverage
for ladder companies. Areas perceived to be covered are not due to road access.
FIGURE 4-15: 240 Seconds Coverage, Current and Second EMFD Stations
240 Seconds Coverage: One EMFD Station
240 Seconds Coverage: Two EMFD Stations
With addition of second
station, ISO-FSRS Engine
Company coverage is
significantly enhanced.
95
FIGURE 4-16: Ladder Company Coverage with EMFD Ladder and Auto Aid
Ladders
Current Auto Aid Ladder Company Coverage
Auto Aid and EMFD Ladder Coverage
Since the EMFD is signatory to the Regional Metropolitan Phoenix Fire Service Automatic Aid
agreement, current assets, and any additional resources the city implements are and will be
considered in the planned service expansion by neighboring communities. This, however, is the
trade-off for the current and future assets that neighboring communities have and may place in
service and that will respond into El Mirage. An example of the is the new Surprise Station 308.
The addition of this station that houses an engine enhances the 240 seconds response standard
for the first arriving engine company in the central-west part of El Mirage. In addition, this station
houses Haz-Mat response assets, which are available to El Mirage promptly when needed.
In addition to recommendations already made in this report, CPSM recommends the following as
planning recommendations to close current service gaps, enhance service for current fire and
EMS demand, meet the NFPA 1710 standard, improve ISO-FSRS credits and potentially obtain a
rating increase, and for future planned commercial and industrial growth in the southern part of
the city.
11. The city should begin planning now for added fire staffing and ladder company service to
serve known and future planned commercial and industrial building growth in the southern
area of the city and to augment current service delivery in the northern half of the city. This
staffing should be linked to a second fire station in the southern part of the city that should
house an engine company and a ladder company. The city has two alternatives to staff this
station.
The addition of a ladder company closes the current ISO-FSRS ladder
company gap in the city and covers the future industrial and commercial
building growth in the southern area of the city.
96
○ Alternative A: Move E122 to the second station and implement a ladder company as a new
service. This will include the purchase of a ladder truck and the addition of 12 personnel (3
Captains, 3 engineers, 6 firefighters). In this alternative, E121 stays in service at the current
station and LA121 remains in service as currently planned.
○ Alternative B: Keep Engines 121 and 122 at the current station and implement an engine
company and a ladder company at the second station as new services. This will include the
purchase of an engine apparatus and a ladder truck and the addition of 24 personnel
(6 Captains, 6 engineers, 12 firefighters). In this alternative, LA121 stays in service at the
current station as currently planned or the positions are converted to the fill the new engine
company and LA121 is placed out of service.
○ The second fire station should be planned for operational use as described above (engine
and ladder company), and for certain administrative functions to relieve the space needs
at the current fire stations, as identified by staff. Because of the potential close proximity to
City Hall, the second station may include the Fire Chief’s office and his immediate
operational and administrative staff, as well as a large meeting room for city and public use
that can double as a more permanent Emergency Operations Center.
12. As the department continues to expand operationally and administratively, and will in the
future, CPSM identified a space issue at the current EMFD facility. Hampering expansion
efforts is the minimal footprint available to expand the current facility. This said, and if the
city does not move to construct a second fire station, CPSM recommends as a planning
objective (one- to three-year planning period) the city and department retain an
engineering firm/consultant to conduct a comprehensive review of the EMFD facility to
determine the necessity for improvements/facility footprint expansion in the next three to five
years, and what, if any land footprint is available for such an expansion. Included in this plan
should be a budgetary and funding plan that focuses on size/space for crew
accommodations and EMFD operations (programmatic, administrative, training, emergency
management) and apparatus storage.
END
97
SECTION 5. DATA ANALYSIS
This data analysis conducted for the El Mirage Fire Department examines all calls for service
between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020, as recorded in the Phoenix Fire Regional
Dispatch Center’s computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system, along with National Fire Incident
Reporting System (NFIRS) data obtained from multiple sources. The analysis results are primarily
presented for 2019. The results of 2018 and 2020 are presented along with the corresponding
2019 results for comparison.
For this study CPSM intended to collect data for the five-year period of 2016 through 2020. In
conversations with EMFD management, we determined that dispatch operations had changed
over the last five years. In addition, NFIRS record keeping was upgraded during this period. For
these reasons, it was mutually agreed that the most recent three years of data were more
accurate and would form a sufficient basis for the study and for future planning.
This analysis is made up of four parts. The first part focuses on call types and dispatches. The
second part explores the time spent and the workload of individual units. The third part presents
an analysis of the busiest hours in the year studied. The fourth part provides a response time
analysis of the studied agency’s units.
The El Mirage Fire Department is a multiservice fire department and a member of the Phoenix
Regional Automatic Aid Consortium (PRAAC). It provides fire, rescue, and first responder
emergency medical services to the City of El Mirage and surrounding communities. The EMFD
operates out of Fire Station 121 and utilizes three Type 1 engines (two frontline engines and one
reserve engine), one brush truck, one low acuity unit, one command unit (Battalion Chief), and
six staff vehicles.
In 2018, EMFD responded to 3,933 calls, of which 55 percent were EMS calls. The total combined
workload (deployed time) for EMFD units was 1,821.7 hours. The average response time was
5.8 minutes. The 90th percentile response time was 8.0 minutes.
In 2019, EMFD responded to 3,902 calls, of which 55 percent were EMS calls. The total combined
workload (deployed time) for EMFD units was 2,062.4 hours. The average response time was
5.8 minutes. The 90th percentile response time was 8.1 minutes.
In 2020, EMFD responded to 4,550 calls, of which 57 percent were EMS calls. The total combined
workload (deployed time) for EMFD units was 2,492.1 hours. The average response time was
5.8 minutes. The 90th percentile response time was 7.8 minutes.
METHODOLOGY
In this analysis, CPSM examines calls and runs. A call is an emergency service request or incident.
A run is a dispatch of a unit (i.e., a unit responding to a call). Thus, a call may include multiple
runs.
We linked the CAD and NFIRS data sets. Then, we classified the calls in a series of steps. We first
used the NFIRS incident type to identify canceled calls and to assign EMS, motor vehicle
accident (MVA), and fire category call types. EMS calls were then assigned detailed categories
based on their detailed CAD incident call types.
98
The analysis was focused on all calls within the City of El Mirage and calls that EMFD responded
to in the surrounding communities. We received records for 14,917 total calls that were made in
2018, 2019, and 2020. These recorded calls included 1,246 calls where only the ambulance
provider AMR responded (and occurred beyond the city limits), which we removed. In addition,
8 calls involving only administrative units were not included in the analysis. However, the work
associated with these calls is included in the analysis of additional personnel in Attachment VI.
The number of calls included in this analysis, distinguishing calls within El Mirage and by
responding agencies, is summarized in the following table. From 2018 through 2020, EMFD
responded to 66 percent of calls within the City of El Mirage.
TABLE 5-1: Studied Calls by Location, Responding Agency, and Year
Location
Responding Agency
2018
2019
2020
Total
Inside
El Mirage
EMFD only
2,153
2,206
2,796
7,155
EMFD and FD agencies
427
365
240
1,032
EMFD Total
2,580
2,571
3,036
8,187
Other FD agencies only
453
471
354
1,278
Total
3,033
3,042
3,390
9,465
Outside
El Mirage
EMFD responded
1,353
1,331
1,514
4,198
Total
4,386
4,373
4,904
13,663
Observations:
■ Of all calls involving EMFD, 34 percent were outside El Mirage in 2018 and 2019,
while 33 percent were outside El Mirage in 2020.
■ Of all calls within El Mirage, outside agencies responded independently to 15 percent of calls
in 2018 and 2019 and 10 percent of calls in 2020.
The primary analysis in the following sections focuses on the 12,385 calls where EMFD responded
and excludes the 1,278 calls within El Mirage where other FD agencies responded exclusively. All
calls outside El Mirage’s Fire District were identified as aid given. The detailed call types of these
aid given calls are presented in Attachment I. During the three year study period, other fire
agencies provided automatic aid to EMFD for incidents that occurred inside El Mirage. They
responded to 1,032 calls together with EMFD and 1,278 calls without a responding EMFD unit,
respectively. Attachment II details the workload of other fire agencies.
99
AGGREGATE CALL TOTALS AND RUNS
From 2018 to 2020, EMFD responded to 12,385 non-administrative calls, of which, 8,187 occurred
inside and 4,198 occurred outside the El Mirage Fire District, respectively. During the three years,
there were 100 structure fire calls and 165 outside fire calls that occurred within the El Mirage Fire
District.
Calls by Type
The following table shows the number of calls that EMFD responded to by call type, average
calls per day, and the percentage of calls that fall into each call type category for the three
years studied. The next two figures show the percentage of calls that fall into each EMS and fire
type category for each year.
TABLE 5-2: Calls by Type and Year
Call Type
Number of Calls
Calls per Day
Call Percentage
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
Breathing difficulty
210
255
323
0.6
0.7
0.9
5.3
6.5
7.1
Cardiac and stroke
235
244
268
0.6
0.7
0.7
6.0
6.3
5.9
Fall and injury
555
463
601
1.5
1.3
1.6
14.1
11.9
13.2
Illness and other
671
718
876
1.8
2.0
2.4
17.1
18.4
19.3
MVA
154
112
143
0.4
0.3
0.4
3.9
2.9
3.1
OD
72
76
84
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.8
1.9
1.8
Seizure and UNC
271
291
297
0.7
0.8
0.8
6.9
7.5
6.5
EMS Total
2,168
2,159
2,592
5.9
5.9
7.1
55.1
55.3
57.0
False alarm
85
102
85
0.2
0.3
0.2
2.2
2.6
1.9
Good intent
12
19
21
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.5
Hazard
29
16
26
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.4
0.6
Outside fire
46
47
72
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.2
1.2
1.6
Public service
112
84
77
0.3
0.2
0.2
2.8
2.2
1.7
Structure fire
39
34
27
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.0
0.9
0.6
Fire Total
323
302
308
0.9
0.8
0.8
8.2
7.7
6.8
Canceled
89
110
136
0.2
0.3
0.4
2.3
2.8
3.0
Aid given
1,353
1,331
1,514
3.7
3.6
4.1
34.4
34.1
33.3
Total
3,933
3,902
4,550
10.8
10.7
12.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
Note: OD= Overdose and psychiatric; UNC= unconsciousness. This table does not include calls where no
EMFD unit responded. In other words, when compared with Table 5-1, 453 calls are excluded in 2018, 471
calls are excluded in 2019, and 354 calls are excluded in 2020.
100
FIGURE 5-1: EMS Calls by Type and Year
FIGURE 5-2: Fire Calls by Type and Year
101
Observations:
EMS
■ EMS calls for 2018 totaled 2,168 (55 percent of all calls), an average of 5.9 calls per day.
■ EMS calls for 2019 totaled 2,159 (55 percent of all calls), an average of 5.9 calls per day.
■ EMS calls for 2020 totaled 2,592 (57 percent of all calls), an average of 7.1 calls per day.
■ Total EMS calls in 2018 and 2019 were similar and then increased 20 percent from 2,159 in 2019
to 2,592 in 2020.
■ Illness and other calls increased 7 percent from 671 in 2018 to 718 in 2019 and again by
22 percent to 876 in 2020.
Fire
■ Fire calls for 2018 totaled 323 (8 percent of all calls), an average of 0.9 calls per day.
■ Fire calls for 2019 totaled 302 (8 percent of all calls), an average of 0.8 calls per day.
■ Fire calls for 2020 totaled 308 (7 percent of all calls), an average of 0.8 calls per day.
■ Fire calls decreased 7 percent from 323 in 2018 to 302 in 2019 and then increased 2 percent to
308 in 2020.
■ Outside fire calls increased 2 percent from 46 in 2018 to 47 in 2019 and then increased
53 percent from 47 in 2019 to 72 in 2020.
■ Structure fire calls decreased 13 percent from 39 in 2018 to 34 in 2019 and then decreased
21 percent to 27 in 2020.
102
Calls by Type and Duration
For 2019 calls, the following table shows the duration of calls by type using four duration
categories: less than 30 minutes, 30 minutes to one hour, one to two hours, and more than two
hours. The 3-year trend of call duration by type is examined in the subsequent table.
TABLE 5-3: Calls by Type and Duration in 2019
Call Type
Less than
30 Minutes
30 Minutes
to One Hour
One to
Two Hours
More Than
Two Hours
Total
Breathing difficulty
75
70
88
22
255
Cardiac and stroke
57
77
95
15
244
Fall and injury
227
94
120
22
463
Illness and other
215
210
228
65
718
MVA
56
28
23
5
112
Overdose and psychiatric
14
18
41
3
76
Seizure and unconsciousness
61
94
113
23
291
EMS Total
705
591
708
155
2,159
False alarm
93
8
1
0
102
Good intent
14
5
0
0
19
Hazard
9
4
2
1
16
Outside fire
31
8
7
1
47
Public service
70
8
5
1
84
Structure fire
12
7
7
8
34
Fire Total
229
40
22
11
302
Canceled
105
4
0
1
110
Aid given
965
263
92
11
1,331
Total
2,004
898
822
178
3,902
Observations:
EMS
■ On average, there were 2.4 EMS calls per day that lasted more than one hour.
■ A total of 1,296 EMS calls (60 percent) lasted less than one hour, 708 EMS calls (33 percent)
lasted one to two hours, and 155 EMS calls (7 percent) lasted two or more hours.
Fire
■ On average, there were 0.1 fire calls per day that lasted more than one hour.
■ A total of 269 fire calls (89 percent) lasted less than one hour, 22 fire calls (7 percent) lasted
one to two hours, and 11 fire calls (4 percent) lasted two or more hours.
■ A total of 39 outside fire calls (83 percent) lasted less than one hour, 7 outside fire calls (15
percent) lasted one to two hours, and 1 outside fire call (2 percent) lasted two or more hours.
■ A total of 19 structure fire calls (56 percent) lasted less than one hour, 7 structure fire calls (21
percent) lasted one to two hours, and 8 structure fire calls (24 percent) lasted two or more
hours.
103
TABLE 5-4: Call Duration by Grand Call Type and Year
Year
Grand
Call Type
Less than
30 Minutes
30 Minutes
to One Hour
One to
Two Hours
More Than
Two Hours
Total
2018
EMS
764
1,139
221
44
2,168
Fire
241
50
24
8
323
Other
1,124
282
31
5
1,442
Total
2,129
1,471
276
57
3,933
2019
EMS
705
591
708
155
2,159
Fire
229
40
22
11
302
Other
1,070
267
92
12
1,441
Total
2,004
898
822
178
3,902
2020
EMS
961
731
749
151
2,592
Fire
230
48
17
13
308
Other
1,235
304
87
24
1,650
Total
2,426
1,083
853
188
4,550
Total
6,559
3,452
1,951
423
12,385
Observations:
Total
■ In 2018, 9 percent of calls lasted more than one hour.
■ In 2019, 26 percent of calls lasted more than one hour.
■ In 2020, 23 percent of calls lasted more than one hour.
■ For fire calls, the percentage of calls lasting more than one hour remained constant at
9 percent.
■ For EMS calls, the percentage of calls lasting more than one hour went from 13 percent (2018),
up to 40 percent (2019), and back down to 34 percent (2020).
EMS
■ On average, there were 5.2, 3.6, and 4.6 EMS calls per day in 2018, 2019, and 2020,
respectively, that lasted less than one hour. The number of EMS calls per day that lasted less
than one hour decreased 32 percent in 2019 and then increased 31 percent in 2020.
■ On average, there were 0.7, 2.4, and 2.5 EMS calls per day in 2018, 2019, and 2020
respectively, that lasted more than one hour. The number of EMS calls that lasted more than
one hour per day increased 226 percent to 863 in 2019 and another 4 percent to 900 in 2020.
Fire
■ On average, there were 0.8, 0.7, and 0.8 fire calls per day in 2018, 2019, and 2020,
respectively, that lasted less than one hour.
■ On average, there were 0.1 fire calls per day that lasted more than one hour each year.
■ The duration of fire calls did not change significantly in the three years.
104
Average Calls by Month and Hour of Day
The following figure shows the monthly variation in the average daily number of calls handled by
EMFD in three years. Similarly, the subsequent figure illustrates the average number of calls
received each hour of the day over the three years.
FIGURE 5-3: Average Calls by Month and Year
Observations:
■ In 2018, the average call volume per day ranged from 9.2 in September to 12.6 in April.
■ In 2019, the average call volume per day ranged from 9.6 in September to 11.8 in October.
■ In 2020, the average call volume per day ranged from 10.9 in April to 14.6 in December.
105
FIGURE 5-4: Calls by Hour of Day and Year
Observations:
■ In 2018, the average call volume per hour ranged from 0.2 between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m.
to 0.7 between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
■ In 2019, the average call volume per hour ranged from 0.2 between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.
to 0.6 between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.
■ In 2020, the average call volume per hour ranged from 0.2 between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.
to 0.7 between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.
106
Units Arriving at Calls (EMFD Only)
The following table and two figures detail the number of calls with one, two, three, and four or
more EMFD units arriving at a call, broken down by call type, for 2019. In this section, we limit
ourselves to calls where a unit from EMFD arrives. For this reason, there are fewer calls in this table
than in Table 5-2. Table 5-6 shows the number of arriving EMFD units by grand call type.
TABLE 5-5: Calls by Call Type and Number of Arriving EMFD Units in 2019
Call Type
Number of Units
Total
Calls
One
Two
Three
Four or More
Breathing difficulty
242
11
0
0
253
Cardiac and stroke
235
9
0
0
244
Fall and injury
422
36
3
0
461
Illness and other
685
28
1
0
714
MVA
96
14
2
0
112
Overdose and psychiatric
69
6
0
0
75
Seizure and unconsciousness
283
5
0
0
288
EMS Total
2,032
109
6
0
2,147
False alarm
99
2
0
0
101
Good intent
15
4
0
0
19
Hazard
11
5
0
0
16
Outside fire
37
8
2
0
47
Public service
79
4
0
0
83
Structure fire
13
6
11
4
34
Fire Total
254
29
13
4
300
Canceled
44
0
0
0
44
Aid given
925
48
5
1
979
Total
3,255
186
24
5
3,470
Percentage
93.8
5.4
0.7
0.1
100.0
107
FIGURE 5-5: 2019 EMS Calls by Number of Arriving EMFD Units
FIGURE 5-6: 2019 Fire Calls by Number of Arriving EMFD Units
108
Observations:
Overall
■ On average, 1.1 units arrived at all calls; for 94 percent of calls, only one unit arrived.
■ Overall, four or more units arrived at less than 1 percent of calls.
EMS
■ On average, 1.1 units arrived per EMS call.
■ For EMS calls, one unit arrived 95 percent of the time, two units arrived 5 percent of the time,
and three units arrived less than 1 percent of the time.
Fire
■ On average, 1.2 units arrived per fire call.
■ For fire calls, one unit arrived 85 percent of the time, two units arrived 10 percent of the time,
three units arrived 4 percent of the time, and four or more units arrived 1 percent of the time.
■ For outside fire calls, three or more units arrived 4 percent of the time.
■ For structure fire calls, three or more units arrived 44 percent of the time.
109
TABLE 5-6: Number of Arriving EMFD Units by Grand Call Type and Year
Year
Grand
Call Type
One
Two
Three
Four or
More
Total
2018
EMS
1,937
190
34
0
2,161
Fire
265
37
13
3
318
Other
1012
65
2
0
1,079
Total
3,214
292
49
3
3,558
2019
EMS
2,032
109
6
0
2,147
Fire
254
29
13
4
300
Other
969
48
5
1
1,023
Total
3,255
186
24
5
3,470
2020
EMS
2,500
77
9
0
2,586
Fire
232
51
20
5
308
Other
1,145
61
23
0
1,229
Total
3,877
189
52
5
4,123
Total
10,346
667
125
13
11,151
Observations:
2018
■ On average, 1.1 units arrived at all calls
■ On average, 1.1 units arrived per EMS call.
■ On average, 1.2 units arrived per fire call.
■ For outside fire calls, three or more units arrived at 2 percent of calls.
■ For structure fire calls, three or more units arrived at 26 percent of calls.
2019
■ On average, 1.1 units arrived at all calls
■ On average, 1.1 units arrived per EMS call.
■ On average, 1.2 units arrived per fire call.
■ For outside fire calls, three or more units arrived at 4 percent of calls.
■ For structure fire calls, three or more units arrived at 44 percent of calls.
2020
■ On average, 1.1 units arrived at all calls
■ On average, 1.0 units arrived per EMS call.
■ On average, 1.4 units arrived per fire call.
■ For outside fire calls, three or more units arrived at 10 percent of calls.
■ For structure fire calls, three or more units arrived at 48 percent of calls.
110
WORKLOAD: RUNS AND TOTAL TIME SPENT
The workload of EMFD’s unit is measured in two ways: runs and deployed time. The deployed
time of a run is measured from the time a unit is dispatched through the time the unit is cleared.
Because multiple units respond to some calls, there are more runs (4,302) than calls (3,902) and
the average deployed time per run varies from the total duration of calls.
Runs and Deployed Time – EMFD Units
Deployed time, also referred to as deployed hours, is the total deployment time of EMFD units
deployed on all runs. Table 5-7 shows the total deployed time, both overall and broken down by
type of run, for all EMFD units in 2019. Table 5-8 presents the same information for all years
studied: 2018, 2019, and 2020. Table 5-9 and Figure 5-7 present the average deployed minutes
by hour of day and year.
TABLE 5-7: Annual EMFD Runs and Deployed Time by Run Type, 2019
Run Type
Avg.
Deployed
Min. per
Run
Total
Annual
Hours
Percent
of Total
Hours
Avg.
Deployed
Min. per
Day
Total
Annual
Runs
Avg.
Runs
per
Day
Breathing difficulty
30.6
138.7
6.7
22.8
272
0.7
Cardiac and stroke
31.6
139.4
6.8
22.9
265
0.7
Fall and injury
28.4
244.6
11.9
40.2
516
1.4
Illness and other
30.8
389.4
18.9
64.0
759
2.1
MVA
30.3
67.2
3.3
11.0
133
0.4
OD
33.0
47.9
2.3
7.9
87
0.2
Seizure and UNC
37.0
187.3
9.1
30.8
304
0.8
EMS Total
31.2
1,214.5
58.9
199.6
2,336
6.4
False alarm
15.0
26.7
1.3
4.4
107
0.3
Good intent
20.7
7.9
0.4
1.3
23
0.1
Hazard
45.6
16.7
0.8
2.7
22
0.1
Outside fire
33.5
36.3
1.8
6.0
65
0.2
Public service
22.4
34.3
1.7
5.6
92
0.3
Structure fire
77.9
125.9
6.1
20.7
97
0.3
Fire Total
36.6
247.9
12.0
40.8
406
1.1
Canceled
7.4
14.3
0.7
2.4
116
0.3
Aid given
24.3
585.6
28.4
96.3
1,444
4.0
Other total
23.1
600.0
29.1
98.6
1,560
4.3
Total
28.8
2,062.4
100.0
339.0
4,302
11.8
Note: OD=Overdose and psychiatric; UNC=Unconsciousness.
111
Observations:
Overall
■ The total deployed time for 2019 was 2,062.4 hours. The daily average was 5.7 hours for all
EMFD units combined.
■ There were 4,302 runs, including 116 runs dispatched for canceled calls and 1,444 runs
dispatched for aid given calls. The daily average was 11.8 runs.
EMS
■ EMS runs accounted for 59 percent of the total workload.
■ The average deployed time for EMS runs was 31.2 minutes. The deployed time for all EMS runs
averaged 3.3 hours per day.
Fire
■ Fire runs accounted for 12 percent of the total workload.
■ The average deployed time for fire runs was 36.6 minutes. The deployed time for all fire runs
averaged 40.8 minutes per day.
■ There were 162 runs for structure and outside fire calls combined, with a total workload of
162.2 hours. This accounted for 8 percent of the total workload.
■ The average deployed time for outside fire runs was 33.5 minutes per run, and the average
deployed time for structure fire runs was 77.9 minutes per run.
112
TABLE 5-8: EMFD Runs and Deployed Time by Run Type and Year
Run Type
Total Annual Hours
Total Annual Runs
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
Breathing difficulty
94.7
138.7
183.5
227
272
336
Cardiac and stroke
108.4
139.4
174.0
250
265
275
Fall and injury
256.9
244.6
309.2
602
516
637
Illness and other
345.1
389.4
473.1
765
759
911
MVA
100.9
67.2
97.7
268
133
174
OD
37.2
47.9
57.9
85
87
91
Seizure and UNC
131.9
187.3
203.3
310
304
310
EMS Total
1,075.2
1,214.5
1,498.6
2,507
2,336
2,734
False alarm
20.4
26.7
23.4
89
107
89
Good intent
5.4
7.9
6.1
18
23
23
Hazard
19.0
16.7
23.5
41
22
39
Outside fire
30.3
36.3
65.4
59
65
129
Public service
50.6
34.3
34.8
129
92
91
Structure fire
75.9
125.9
101.3
88
97
80
Fire Total
201.6
247.9
254.4
424
406
451
Canceled
9.9
14.3
23.8
100
116
153
Aid given
535.1
585.6
715.2
1,449
1,444
1,671
Other total
545.0
600.0
739.0
1,549
1,560
1,824
Total
1,821.7
2,062.4
2,492.1
4,480
4,302
5,009
Note: OD= Overdose and psychiatric; UNC=Unconsciousness.
Observations:
■ The total EMFD deployed time increased 13 percent from 1,821.7 hours in 2018 to 2,062.4 hours
in 2019 and another 21 percent to 2,492.1 hours in 2020.
■ The number of EMFD runs decreased 4 percent from 4,480 in 2018 to 4,302 in 2019 and then
increased 16 percent to 5,009 in 2020.
113
TABLE 5-9: EMFD Deployed Minutes by Hour of Day, Grand Call Type, and Year
Hour
2018
2019
2020
EMS
FIRE
Other
Total
EMS
FIRE
Other
Total
EMS
FIRE
Other
Total
0
5.8
1.2
2.2
9.2
5.8
1.4
2.8
10.0
9.6
0.7
3.7
14.0
1
5.5
1.3
2.1
8.9
6.7
0.8
1.7
9.2
8.1
1.0
2.7
11.8
2
4.4
1.2
1.8
7.4
6.9
0.4
1.8
9.1
6.0
1.3
1.5
8.8
3
3.6
0.9
1.8
6.3
4.9
0.5
1.7
7.0
6.1
1.4
1.8
9.3
4
4.3
0.8
1.1
6.2
3.8
0.7
1.9
6.4
5.5
1.3
2.9
9.6
5
5.4
1.0
1.6
8.0
2.5
1.4
0.8
4.7
5.0
1.2
2.7
9.0
6
4.4
0.4
2.5
7.3
5.0
1.3
1.9
8.2
6.7
2.4
2.3
11.4
7
6.3
0.6
2.9
9.8
6.2
1.5
2.7
10.4
8.1
1.8
2.7
12.6
8
6.5
1.8
4.3
12.6
5.8
1.2
3.7
10.7
8.8
2.0
4.5
15.2
9
7.0
1.5
5.4
13.9
7.1
1.9
5.3
14.3
9.3
1.4
6.6
17.3
10
7.6
1.0
5.2
13.8
7.8
1.5
5.2
14.5
10.3
1.6
7.7
19.6
11
6.7
1.2
5.0
12.8
8.4
2.4
5.3
16.0
11.4
2.1
6.6
20.1
12
7.5
1.0
6.2
14.7
9.3
2.7
6.1
18.1
12.3
2.1
6.9
21.4
13
7.5
1.5
5.4
14.4
7.8
1.6
5.8
15.2
13.0
2.4
8.0
23.4
14
7.8
0.8
5.1
13.7
10.2
1.7
7.6
19.5
12.4
2.4
7.8
22.6
15
9.3
0.8
4.6
14.8
10.0
1.8
6.8
18.6
13.0
3.0
7.9
23.9
16
9.2
1.8
4.5
15.5
12.0
1.7
6.1
19.8
12.8
3.4
7.1
23.3
17
10.1
2.2
5.4
17.7
11.8
2.2
5.6
19.6
13.6
1.6
5.6
20.9
18
10.5
2.4
4.4
17.2
10.6
2.3
5.6
18.5
12.2
1.4
6.6
20.1
19
10.6
2.3
5.4
18.3
12.1
2.8
5.0
19.9
14.5
1.4
5.4
21.4
20
11.5
2.7
3.2
17.4
13.4
2.6
4.8
20.8
13.7
1.5
5.9
21.1
21
10.3
1.8
3.9
16.0
12.0
1.7
3.6
17.3
12.2
1.8
5.1
19.0
22
7.9
1.5
3.1
12.5
11.1
1.7
3.8
16.6
11.6
1.6
5.3
18.4
23
7.0
1.5
2.6
11.0
8.6
2.9
3.2
14.6
9.5
1.2
3.8
14.4
Daily
Avg.
176.7
33.2
89.6
299.5
199.6
40.8
98.6
339.0
246.3
41.8
121.5
409.7
114
FIGURE 5-7: Average Deployed Minutes by Hour of Day
Observations:
■ In 2018, the average deployed time peaked between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., averaging
18.3 minutes.
■ In 2018, the average deployed time was lowest between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., averaging
6.2 minutes.
■ In 2019, the average deployed time peaked between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., averaging
20.8 minutes.
■ In 2019, the average deployed time was lowest between 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., averaging
4.7 minutes.
■ In 2020, the average deployed time peaked between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., averaging
23.9 minutes.
■ In 2020, the average deployed time was lowest between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m., averaging
8.8 minutes.
115
Workload by Unit
Table 5-10 provides a summary of each EMFD unit’s workload for 2019. Tables 5-11 and 5-12
provide a more detailed view of workload, showing each unit’s runs broken out by run type
(Table 5-11) and its daily average deployed time by run type (Table 5-12). Table 5-13 examines
the workload of each unit for all three years.
TABLE 5-10: Workload by EMFD Unit, 2019
Unit
Unit Type
Deployed
Minutes
per Run
Total
Hours
Total
Pct.
Deployed
Minutes
per Day
Total
Runs
Runs
per
Day
BC121
BC
34.6
144.8
7.0
23.8
251
0.7
BR121
Brush Truck
59.1
21.7
1.1
3.6
22
0.1
E121
Engine
27.8
1,357.0
65.8
223.1
2,924
8.0
E122
Engine
27.3
246.7
12.0
40.6
542
1.5
LA121
Low acuity
29.4
263.0
12.8
43.2
537
1.5
Other
Other
67.5
29.3
1.4
4.8
26
0.1
Total
28.8
2,062.4
100.0
339.0
4,302
11.8
Note: Other includes a bike team, a threat liaison officer (TLO), and four fire investigator units.
TABLE 5-11: Total Runs by Run Type and EMFD Unit, 2019
Unit
EMS
False
Alarm
Good
Intent
Hazard Outside
Fire
Public
Service
Structure
Fire
Canceled
Aid
Given
Total
BC121
66
1
4
6
6
3
22
4
139
251
BR121
0
0
0
0
6
0
1
0
15
22
E121
1,512
82
18
14
41
58
32
79
1,088
2,924
E122
274
24
1
2
8
14
8
14
197
542
LA121
483
0
0
0
0
16
16
19
3
537
Other
1
0
0
0
4
1
18
0
2
26
Total
2,336
107
23
22
65
92
97
116
1,444
4,302
Note: See Table 5-10 for unit type.
TABLE 5-12: Average Deployed Minutes by Run Type and EMFD Unit, 2019
Unit
EMS
False
Alarm
Good
Intent
Hazard Outside
Fire
Public
Service
Structure
Fire
Canceled
Aid
Given
Total
BC121
5.2
0.1
0.4
1.1
0.7
0.3
5.1
0.0
10.9
23.8
BR121
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
2.2
3.6
E121
131.1
3.2
0.9
1.4
3.4
3.9
6.2
1.3
71.7
223.1
E122
24.4
1.1
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.6
2.1
0.2
11.3
40.6
LA121
39.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
2.7
0.8
0.1
43.2
Other
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
4.2
0.0
0.2
4.8
Total
199.6
4.4
1.3
2.7
6.0
5.6
20.7
2.4
96.3
339.0
Note: See Table 5-10 for unit type.
116
TABLE 5-13: Workload and Runs by EMFD Unit and Year
Unit
Unit Type
Total Hours
Total Runs
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
BC121
BC
153.9
144.8
123.6
364
251
237
BR121
Brush Truck
23.1
21.7
73.9
21
22
95
E121
Engine
1,251.8
1,357.0
1,242.8
3,191
2,924
2,601
E122
Engine
5.3
246.7
836.7
18
542
1,776
LA121
Low acuity
373.1
263.0
169.7
860
537
269
Other
Other
14.4
29.3
45.4
26
26
31
Total
1,821.7
2,062.4
2,492.1
4,480
4,302
5,009
Note: Other includes a bike team, a threat liaison officer (TLO), and four fire investigator units.
Observations:
■ Unit E121 made the most runs and had the highest total annual deployed hours in each year.
○ The total deployed time increased 8 percent from 1,251.8 hours (or 3.4 hours per day) in
2018 to 1,357.0 hours (or 3.7 hours per day) in 2019 and then decreased 8 percent to 1,242.8
hours (or 3.4 hours per day) in 2020.
■ Unit E122 made the second most runs and had the third-highest total annual deployed hours
in 2019, and then the second most runs and the second-highest total annual deployed hours
in 2020.
○ In 2018, unit E122 was only dispatched 18 times in the five days between April 16th and 20th
(5.3 total deployed hours).
○ The total deployed time increased 239 percent from 246.7 hours (or 40.6 minutes per day) in
2019 to 836.7 hours (or 2.3 hours per day) in 2020.
■ Unit LA121 made the second most runs and had the second-highest total annual deployed
hours in 2018, the third most runs and the second-highest total annual deployed hours in 2019,
and then the third most runs and the third-highest total annual deployed hours in 2020.
○ The total deployed time decreased 30 percent from 373.1 hours (or 61.3 minutes per day) in
2018 to 263.0.0 hours (or 43.2 minutes per day) in 2019 and further decreased 35 percent to
169.7 hours (or 27.9 minutes per day) in 2020.
117
ANALYSIS OF BUSIEST HOURS
In this analysis, we included all 13,663 calls that occurred inside and outside El Mirage in the
three years studied. For all these calls, there is significant variability in the number of calls from
hour to hour. One special concern relates to the resources available for hours with the heaviest
workload. We tabulated the data for each of the 8,760 hours in 2018 and 2019 and the 8,784
hours in 2020. Table 5-14 shows the number of hours in each year in which there were zero to four
or more calls during the hour. Table 5-15 shows the number of times a call overlapped with
another call by year.
TABLE 5-14: Frequency Distribution of the Number of Calls, by Year
Calls in
an Hour
2018
2019
2020
Frequency
Percentage
Frequency
Percentage
Frequency
Percentage
0
5,373
61.3
5,423
61.9
5,143
58.5
1
2,569
29.3
2,475
28.3
2,613
29.7
2
660
7.5
721
8.2
828
9.4
3
135
1.5
114
1.3
168
1.9
4+
23
0.3
27
0.3
32
0.4
Total
8,760
100.0
8,760
100.0
8,784
100.0
Note: There were 365 days in 2018 and 2019 and 366 days in 2020.
TABLE 5-15: Frequency of Overlapping Calls, by Year
Scenario
Number of Calls
Percent of All Calls
Total Hours
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
No overlap
3,372
3,064
3,297
76.9
70.1
67.2
1,809.2
2,100.6
2,265.7
Overlap with one call
878
1,049
1,340
20.0
24.0
27.3
261.0
424.7
464.8
Overlap with two calls
125
220
248
2.8
5.0
5.1
19.3
60.3
51.9
Overlap with three calls
9
39
18
0.2
0.9
0.4
1.2
5.7
2.8
Overlap with four calls
2
1
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
Note: All calls within El Mirage are included. The column totals for the number of calls will match Table 5-1.
Table 5-16 focuses on EMFD’s availability to respond to calls within its fire district. At the same
time, it focuses on calls where at least one unit (EMFD, another FD agency, or ambulance)
eventually arrived and ignores calls where no unit arrived. While there were 9,465 calls within
El Mirage (See Table 5-1, the fifth row of the “Total” column), there were 224 calls without an
arriving unit.
118
TABLE 5-16: EMFD Availability to Respond to Calls, by Year
Year
Calls in
District
EMFD
Responded
Percent
Responded
EMFD
Arrived
Percent
Arrived
EMFD
First
Percent
First
2018
2,968
2,527
85.1
2,511
84.6
2,405
81.0
2019
2,957
2,508
84.8
2,491
84.2
2,229
75.4
2020
3,316
2,975
89.7
2,966
89.4
2,843
85.7
Total
9,241
8,010
86.7
7,968
86.2
7,447
80.9
Observations:
■ In 2018, during 23 hours (0.3 percent of all hours), four or more calls occurred; in other words,
including aid given calls within El Mirage, EMFD was responsible for four or more calls in an
hour roughly once every 16 days.
○ The highest number of calls to occur in an hour was four, which happened 23 times.
■ In 2019, during 27 hours (0.3 percent of all hours), four or more calls occurred; in other words,
including aid given calls within El Mirage, EMFD was responsible for four or more calls in an
hour roughly once every 14 days.
○ The highest number of calls to occur in an hour was six, which happened once.
■ In 2020, during 32 hours (0.4 percent of all hours), four or more calls occurred; in other words,
including aid given calls within El Mirage, EMFD was responsible for four or more calls in an
hour roughly once every 11 days.
○ The highest number of calls to occur in an hour was five, which happened 3 times.
■ During the three years, the availability of EMFD to respond to calls within its fire district was
highest in 2020 and lowest in 2019.
○ In 2020, the percent of times that an EMFD unit responded, arrived, and arrived first to a call
were 90, 89, and 86 percent, respectively.
○ In 2019, the percent of times that an EMFD unit responded, arrived, and arrived first to a call
were 85, 84, and 75 percent, respectively.
119
RESPONSE TIME
In this part of the analysis, we present response time statistics for different call types. We separate
response time into its identifiable components. Dispatch time is the difference between the time
a call is received and the time a unit is dispatched. Dispatch time includes call processing time,
which is the time required to determine the nature of the emergency and the types of resources
to dispatch. Turnout time is the difference between dispatch time and the time a unit is en route
to a call’s location. Travel time is the difference between the time en route and arrival on scene.
Response time is the total time elapsed between receiving a call to arriving on scene.
In this analysis, calls whose travel code was recorded as “code 3” were identified as
emergencies. We included all calls within the City of El Mirage to which at least one non-
administrative EMFD unit arrived. Units from non-EMFD agencies were not included. Also, calls
with a total response time exceeding 30 minutes were excluded. In addition, non-emergency
calls were excluded. Finally, we focused on units that had complete time stamps, that is, units
with all components recorded, so that we could calculate each segment of response time.
Based on the methodology above, starting with 12,385 calls in three years, we excluded 4,198
aid given calls (outside El Mirage), 335 canceled calls, 525 calls where no units recorded a valid
on-scene time, six calls with a total response time exceeding 30 minutes, 256 calls where one or
more segments of the first arriving unit’s response time could not be calculated due to missing or
faulty data, and 490 non-emergency calls. As a result, in this section, a total of 6,575 calls are
included in the analysis.
In this section, we conducted a detailed analysis for calls in 2019. We also included a shorter
analysis of response times by year. Finally, we also examine the average response time to non-
emergency calls.
Response Time by Type of Call
Table 5-17 breaks down the average dispatch, turnout, travel, and total response times by call
type for all 2019 calls in El Mirage, and Table 5-18 does the same for 90th percentile response
times. A 90th percentile means that 90 percent of calls had response times at or below that
number. For example, Table 5-18 shows an overall 90th percentile response time of 8.1 minutes,
which means that 90 percent of the time, a call had a response time of no more than 8.1
minutes. Figures 5-8 and 5-9 illustrate the same information.
120
TABLE 5-17: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type, 2019
Call Type
Minutes
Number of Calls
Dispatch
Turnout
Travel
Total
Breathing difficulty
0.8
1.0
3.7
5.5
190
Cardiac and stroke
0.9
0.9
3.6
5.5
188
Fall and injury
1.0
1.0
3.9
5.9
408
Illness and other
1.1
1.0
4.0
6.0
569
MVA
0.7
0.9
4.2
5.9
93
Overdose and psychiatric
0.8
0.9
3.4
5.1
62
Seizure and unconsciousness
0.9
0.9
3.6
5.4
239
EMS Total
1.0
1.0
3.8
5.8
1,749
False alarm
1.3
1.0
4.9
7.2
100
Good intent
1.2
1.2
3.1
5.4
6
Hazard
1.0
0.8
3.4
5.2
6
Outside fire
1.1
1.0
4.3
6.3
43
Public service
1.4
0.7
3.4
5.4
12
Structure fire
1.3
1.0
3.6
5.9
27
Fire Total
1.2
1.0
4.4
6.6
194
Total
1.0
1.0
3.9
5.8
1,943
FIGURE 5-8: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type, 2019, EMS
Calls
121
FIGURE 5-9: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type, 2019, Fire
Calls
TABLE 5-18: 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type, 2019
Call Type
Minutes
Number of Calls
Dispatch
Turnout
Travel
Total
Breathing difficulty
1.3
1.8
5.8
7.7
190
Cardiac and stroke
1.6
1.6
5.3
7.1
188
Fall and injury
1.6
1.6
5.6
8.0
408
Illness and other
1.9
1.6
5.8
8.3
569
MVA
1.2
1.5
6.4
8.1
93
Overdose and psychiatric
1.4
1.6
4.9
6.9
62
Seizure and unconsciousness
1.4
1.5
5.4
7.3
239
EMS Total
1.6
1.6
5.6
8.0
1,749
False alarm
2.2
1.8
6.7
9.6
100
Good intent
1.8
1.5
5.3
8.4
6
Hazard
1.5
1.0
5.5
7.3
6
Outside fire
2.1
1.6
6.8
9.2
43
Public service
2.0
1.1
4.4
8.8
12
Structure fire
2.5
1.5
6.2
8.4
27
Fire Total
2.2
1.7
6.6
9.4
194
Total
1.7
1.6
5.7
8.1
1,943
122
Observations:
■ The average dispatch time was 1.0 minutes.
■ The average turnout time was 1.0 minutes.
■ The average travel time was 3.9 minutes.
■ The average total response time was 5.8 minutes.
■ The average response time was 5.8 minutes for EMS calls and 6.6 minutes for fire calls.
■ The average response time was 6.3 minutes for outside fires and 5.9 minutes for structure fires.
■ The 90th percentile dispatch time was 1.7 minutes.
■ The 90th percentile turnout time was 1.6 minutes.
■ The 90th percentile travel time was 5.7 minutes.
■ The 90th percentile total response time was 8.1 minutes.
■ The 90th percentile response time was 8.0 minutes for EMS calls and 9.4 minutes for fire calls.
■ The 90th percentile response time was 9.2 minutes for outside fires and 8.4 minutes for structure
fires.
123
Table 5-19 shows the average response time by year and the time of day for calls in El Mirage.
The table also shows 90th percentile response times. Figures 5-10 and 5-11 present the average
and 90th percentile response times by year, respectively.
TABLE 5-19: Average and 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by
Hour of Day and Year
Hour
Average Response Time
(Minutes)
90th Percentile Response
Time (Minutes)
Number of Calls
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
0
6.9
6.1
6.3
9.2
8.1
8.6
65
52
90
1
6.7
6.5
7.0
8.4
9.2
8.7
63
57
67
2
7.2
6.9
7.1
9.7
9.0
9.5
44
50
55
3
7.0
6.9
7.0
9.1
8.8
9.0
47
40
58
4
7.1
7.2
7.2
9.3
9.8
10.5
49
38
49
5
6.9
6.9
6.7
8.7
8.9
8.1
59
37
64
6
6.5
6.8
6.7
8.3
9.1
8.5
51
62
61
7
6.0
6.4
6.2
7.9
9.1
8.0
75
63
83
8
5.2
6.4
5.8
7.3
9.5
7.4
94
66
97
9
5.4
5.6
5.6
7.7
7.7
8.0
83
88
110
10
5.9
5.6
5.7
7.9
7.6
8.0
90
76
112
11
5.1
5.4
5.7
6.8
6.9
7.2
84
93
125
12
5.2
5.6
5.5
7.7
8.3
7.4
94
90
127
13
5.2
5.4
5.5
7.3
7.2
7.5
97
85
111
14
5.3
5.5
5.6
7.5
7.7
7.6
104
96
139
15
5.8
5.5
5.4
8.1
7.3
7.4
114
111
113
6
5.4
5.4
5.3
7.6
7.4
6.8
109
110
147
17
5.5
5.4
5.2
7.9
7.0
7.2
123
121
140
18
5.4
5.6
5.4
7.0
7.4
7.3
116
102
120
19
5.5
5.6
5.4
7.6
7.4
7.2
124
119
152
20
5.7
5.8
5.4
7.6
8.0
7.0
130
124
121
21
5.4
5.7
5.6
7.2
7.8
7.5
122
93
146
22
6.1
6.0
6.0
8.8
7.8
7.8
91
100
115
23
6.1
6.2
6.1
8.2
8.3
7.9
99
70
103
Total
5.8
5.8
5.8
8.0
8.1
7.8
2,127
1,943
2,505
124
FIGURE 5-10: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Hour of Day and
Year
FIGURE 5-11: 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Hour of Day
and Year
125
Observations:
■ The 2018 average response time was between 5.1 minutes (11:00 a.m. to noon) and
7.2 minutes (2:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m.).
■ The 2019 average response time was between 5.4 minutes (4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.) and
7.2 minutes (4:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.).
■ The 2020 average response time was between 5.2 minutes (5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and
7.2 minutes (4:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.).
■ The 2018 90th percentile response time was between 6.8 minutes (11:00 a.m. to noon) and
9.7 minutes (2:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m.).
■ The 2019 90th percentile response time was between 6.9 minutes (11:00 a.m. to noon) and
9.8 minutes (4:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.).
■ The 2020 90th percentile response time was between 6.8 minutes (11:00 a.m. to noon and
4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.) and 10.5 minutes (4:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.).
126
Response Time Distribution By Year
Here, we present a more detailed look at how response times to calls are distributed. The
cumulative distribution of total response time by year for the first arriving unit to EMS calls is
shown in Figure 5-12. Table 5-20 shows the response times by year for the first arriving unit to EMS
calls as a frequency distribution in whole-minute increments. Figure 5-13 and Table 5-21 show the
same analysis for the first arriving unit to outside and structure fire calls.
The cumulative percentages here are read in the same way as a percentile. In Figure 5-12, the
90th percentiles of 7.9, 8.0, and 7.7 minutes mean that 90 percent of EMS calls had a response
time of 7.9, 8.0, and 7.7 minutes or less in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively. In Table 5-20, the
cumulative percentages of 91.0, 90.5, and 92.2 mean that 91.0, 90.5 and 92.2 percent of EMS
calls had a response time under 8 minutes in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively.
FIGURE 5-12: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time by Year, First Arriving Unit,
EMS
127
FIGURE 5-13: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time by Year, First Arriving Unit,
Outside and Structure Fires
TABLE 5-20: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time by Year, First Arriving Unit,
EMS
Response
Time (minute)
Frequency
Cumulative Percentage
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
1
2
2
2
0.1
0.1
0.1
2
4
3
10
0.3
0.3
0.5
3
49
43
50
2.8
2.7
2.7
4
220
213
222
14.2
14.9
12.3
5
431
391
487
36.4
37.3
33.4
6
453
388
624
59.8
59.5
60.5
7
391
366
476
79.9
80.4
81.2
8
215
177
254
91.0
90.5
92.2
9
97
89
96
96.0
95.6
96.4
10
47
36
43
98.5
97.7
98.2
11
21
21
17
99.5
98.9
99.0
12
4
7
9
99.7
99.3
99.3
13
4
4
7
99.9
99.5
99.7
14
0
4
3
99.9
99.7
99.8
15+
1
5
5
100.0
100.0
100.0
128
TABLE 5-21: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time by Year, First Arriving Unit,
Outside and Structure Fires
Response
Time (minute)
Frequency
Cumulative Percentage
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
1
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
3
2
2
1.6
1.0
1.0
4
18
15
19
11.2
8.8
10.5
5
40
33
32
32.4
25.8
26.5
6
33
39
42
50.0
45.9
47.5
7
41
30
35
71.8
61.3
65.0
8
21
30
36
83.0
76.8
83.0
9
20
16
23
93.6
85.1
94.5
10
7
19
5
97.3
94.8
97.0
11
1
3
4
97.9
96.4
99.0
12+
4
7
2
100.0
100.0
100.0
Observations:
2018
■ For 91 percent of EMS calls, the response time of the first arriving unit was less than 8 minutes.
■ For 83 percent of structure and outside fire calls, the response time of the first arriving unit was
less than 8 minutes.
2019
■ For 91 percent of EMS calls, the response time of the first arriving unit was less than 8 minutes.
■ For 77 percent of structure and outside fire calls, the response time of the first arriving unit was
less than 8 minutes.
2020
■ For 92 percent of EMS calls, the response time of the first arriving unit was less than 8 minutes.
■ For 83 percent of structure and outside fire calls, the response time of the first arriving unit was
less than 8 minutes.
129
Comparison of Emergency and Non-emergency Response Times
The following table compares the average and 90th percentile response times of the first arriving
unit for both emergency and non-emergency calls by year.
TABLE 5-22: Trend of Average and 90th Percentile Response Times (Minutes) of
First Arriving Unit, for Emergency and Non-emergency Calls
Type
Average
90th Percentile
Number of Calls
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
Emergency
EMS
5.7
5.8
5.8
7.9
8.0
7.7
1,939
1,749
2,305
Fire
6.2
6.6
6.2
8.6
9.4
8.5
188
194
200
Total
5.8
5.8
5.8
8.0
8.1
7.8
2,127
1,943
2,505
Non-
emergency
EMS
6.3
6.9
6.8
9.8
9.7
8.9
63
80
111
Fire
7.2
7.5
6.9
10.8
11.6
9.9
82
79
75
Total
6.8
7.2
6.9
10.5
11.1
9.2
145
159
186
Observations:
■ The average response time to non-emergency EMS calls was 0.5, 1.1, and 1.0 minutes longer
than the average response time for emergency EMS calls in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively.
■ The average response time to non-emergency fire calls was 1.1, 0.9, and 0.7 minutes longer
than the average response time for emergency fire calls in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively.
130
ATTACHMENT I: EMFD CALLS OUTSIDE EL MIRAGE
From 2018 to 2020, EMFD responded to 4,198 calls outside of its fire district. Of these, 214 were
structure fire calls and 105 were outside fire calls.
EMFD Calls Outside El Mirage by Type
Table 5-23 shows the number of aid given calls outside El Mirage by call type and year.
Figures 5-14 and 5-15 show the percentage of calls that fall into each EMS (Figure 5-14) and fire
(Figure 5-15) type category by year.
TABLE 5-23: EMFD Calls Outside El Mirage, by Call Type and Year
Call Type
Number of Calls
Calls per Day
Call Percentage
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
Breathing difficulty
116
87
92
0.3
0.2
0.3
8.6
6.5
6.1
Cardiac and stroke
109
88
81
0.3
0.2
0.2
8.1
6.6
5.4
Fall and injury
306
225
236
0.8
0.6
0.6
22.6
16.9
15.6
Illness and other
293
221
269
0.8
0.6
0.7
21.7
16.6
17.8
MVA
69
63
62
0.2
0.2
0.2
5.1
4.7
4.1
OD
20
19
11
0.1
0.1
0.0
1.5
1.4
0.7
Seizure and UNC
125
113
112
0.3
0.3
0.3
9.2
8.5
7.4
EMS Total
1,038
816
863
2.8
2.2
2.4
76.7
61.3
57.0
False alarm
55
62
58
0.2
0.2
0.2
4.1
4.7
3.8
Good intent
7
7
15
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
Hazard
29
21
18
0.1
0.1
0.0
2.1
1.6
1.2
Outside fire
22
32
51
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.6
2.4
3.4
Public service
48
22
24
0.1
0.1
0.1
3.5
1.7
1.6
Structure fire
88
81
45
0.2
0.2
0.1
6.5
6.1
3.0
Fire Total
249
225
211
0.7
0.6
0.6
18.4
16.9
13.9
Canceled
66
290
440
0.2
0.8
1.2
4.9
21.8
29.1
Total
1,353
1,331
1,514
3.7
3.6
4.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
Note: OD=Overdose and psychiatric; UNC=unconsciousness.
131
FIGURE 5-14: EMS Calls Outside El Mirage, by Type and Year
FIGURE 5-15: Fire Calls Outside El Mirage, by Type and Year
Observations:
■ Outside fire calls increased 45 percent from 22 in 2018 to 32 in 2019 and then again increased
59 percent to 51 in 2020.
■ Structure fire calls decreased 8 percent from 88 in 2018 to 81 in 2019 and then decreased 44
percent to 45 in 2020.
132
EMFD Workload by Location Outside El Mirage
For the three years studied, Table 5-24 examines the EMFD workload outside El Mirage by call
location. Table 5-25 provides further detail on the trend of EMFD’s workload associated with
structure and outside fires, also broken down by call location.
TABLE 5-24: EMFD Workload and Runs Outside El Mirage, by Location and Year
Location
Total Annual Calls
Total Annual Runs
Total Annual Hours
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
Surprise
693
680
764
738
725
825
284.1
319.3
399.6
Sun City
382
384
405
406
415
449
125.4
142.2
128.9
Youngtown
207
195
241
222
226
260
87.3
89.3
95.1
Peoria
29
34
39
34
35
51
8.4
7.9
16.5
Glendale
20
13
25
23
14
35
10.0
9.4
19.4
Other
22
25
40
26
29
51
20.0
17.6
55.8
Total
1,353
1,331
1,514
1,449
1,444
1,671
535.2
585.7
715.3
TABLE 5-25: Structure and Outside Fire EMFD Runs Outside El Mirage, by Location
and Year
Location
Structure Fire Runs
Outside Fire Runs
Hours for Structure and
Outside Fires
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
Surprise
59
41
41
14
18
21
32.2
23.6
62.5
Sun City
38
43
22
6
4
35
24.6
29.0
29.7
Youngtown
19
19
15
8
28
6
18.8
32.2
21.5
Peoria
7
6
4
5
0
4
2.9
1.3
6.7
Glendale
5
4
0
0
0
7
5.9
3.9
8.3
Other
6
7
2
4
9
20
12.2
13.2
47.6
Total
222
217
164
96
124
222
202.8
265.4
343.0
133
ATTACHMENT II: WORKLOAD OF AID FD AGENCY
From 2018 to 2020, there were 2,310 calls in El Mirage where aid was received from surrounding
FD agencies. Out of these calls, 1,032 calls involved a joint response with EMFD, and 1,278 calls
involved a response by other agencies alone (See Table 5-1).
Calls Responded by Aid FD Agency, by Type
Table 5-26 shows the number of calls where aid was received by another agency, broken out by
call type and year. The table also presents the annual runs and work hours for each type of call.
TABLE 5-26: Aid Received Workload by Type and Year, Inside El Mirage
Call Type
Total Annual Calls
Total Annual Runs
Total Annual Hours
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
Breathing difficulty
78
77
52
91
87
55
31.9
29.1
20.5
Cardiac and stroke
63
65
43
71
69
48
23.7
23.9
15.8
Fall and injury
120
134
78
133
169
83
47.2
63.1
33.8
Illness and other
218
213
152
271
257
182
131.0
117.2
89.7
MVA
81
74
51
152
141
102
56.6
51.6
33.0
OD
24
28
17
26
31
25
6.8
8.6
7.3
Seizure and UNC
128
88
63
142
92
64
52.5
32.9
30.0
EMS Total
712
679
456
886
846
559
349.6
326.3
230.0
False alarm
39
32
24
55
37
32
12.9
9.1
7.3
Good intent
4
5
6
18
14
17
4.3
4.3
4.2
Hazard
22
10
11
67
25
54
16.7
11.1
22.5
Outside fire
16
19
22
61
55
83
25.9
33.4
19.4
Public service
34
23
19
45
31
31
13.7
8.2
10.3
Structure fire
26
25
20
221
257
165
88.9
173.5
95.9
Fire Total
141
114
102
467
419
382
162.4
239.6
159.6
Canceled
27
43
36
34
65
70
3.2
7.6
24.3
Total
880
836
594
1,387
1,330
1,011
515.2
573.5
413.9
Note: OD= Overdose and psychiatric; UNC=Unconsciousness.
Observations:
■ Aid received workload increased 11 percent from 515.2 hours in 2018 to 573.5 hours in 2019
and then decreased 28 percent to 413.9 hours in 2020.
134
Workload by Aid FD Agency
The following table examines the workload of each aid FD agency’s units over the three years
studied.
TABLE 5-27: Aid Received by Unit, Agency, and Year
Agency
Unit
Unit Type
Total Runs
Total Hours
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
SUR
BC301
BC
39
33
37
13.2
20.2
16.8
E301
Engine
359
297
273
136.2
108.2
116.4
E305
Engine
23
11
2
7.7
4.7
0.8
L305
Aerial truck
35
44
26
4.3
6.9
3.4
LT305
Ladder tender
68
72
55
25.4
29.2
20.0
Other
Other
130
135
66
72.8
94.3
50.6
Total
654
592
477
259.7
263.4
216.3
SUN
BC131
BC
9
5
9
4.6
5.6
1.4
E131
Engine
6
6
NA
1.4
5.8
NA
E132
Engine
55
30
17
19.5
12.6
7.8
E133
Engine
328
329
186
122.2
121.9
69.3
L131
Aerial truck
7
12
17
1.5
7.4
4.6
LT131
Ladder tender
10
7
11
3.3
0.8
1.5
Other
Other
1
3
4
0.7
2.7
0.7
Total
416
392
244
153.2
156.7
85.2
GLN
BC152
BC
6
2
7
1.6
0.3
3.5
E158
Engine
0
2
1
0.0
0.5
0.0
Other
Other
41
55
30
27.2
42.5
19.2
Total
47
59
38
28.8
43.4
22.7
PEO
BC191
BC
7
5
4
1.5
2.6
2.3
E191
Engine
1
5
1
0.3
2.5
0.3
E194
Engine
36
33
22
13.3
16.7
10.5
L191
Aerial truck
7
6
4
2.8
1.1
1.4
LT191
Ladder tender
7
7
4
0.7
1.3
0.0
Other
Other
16
16
12
3.5
12.1
4.3
Total
74
72
47
22.2
36.3
18.8
NCO
Total
65
62
71
14.4
32.7
25.9
LAB
Total
73
101
68
18.5
23.1
23.0
PHX
Total
29
32
35
4.9
10.3
11.9
AVO
Total
14
13
15
5.1
3.2
4.2
GDY
Total
8
3
7
2.9
2.4
3.6
RMF
Total
7
4
9
5.7
2.0
2.3
Total
1,387
1,330
1,011
515.2
573.5
413.9
135
ATTACHMENT III: NUMBER OF ARRIVING UNITS, INSIDE EL MIRAGE, ALL
AGENCIES
The following table presents the three-year trend for the total number of arriving units (including
all fire departments and ambulance services) by grand call type. Here we only considered calls
that occurred inside El Mirage and had an arriving unit (See Table 5-16).
TABLE 5-28: Number of Arriving Units by Grand Call Type and Year, All Agencies
Year
Type
Number of Arriving Units
Total
One
Two
Three
4 / 5
6 / 7
8 / 9
10 / 11
12
2018
EMS
581
1,649
226
59
10
8
0
0
2,533
Fire
315
25
19
11
10
3
5
4
392
Other
37
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
43
Total
933
1,678
247
70
20
11
5
4
2,968
2019
EMS
604
1,741
151
37
4
2
0
0
2,539
Fire
304
21
12
11
2
4
2
8
364
Other
45
8
0
1
0
0
0
0
54
Total
953
1,770
163
49
6
6
2
8
2,957
2020
EMS
870
1,881
105
15
6
1
0
0
2,878
Fire
262
44
11
11
11
3
2
8
352
Other
67
13
2
2
0
1
0
1
86
Total
1,199
1,938
118
28
17
5
2
9
3,316
Total
3,085
5,386
528
147
43
22
9
21
9,241
136
Observations:
2018
■ On average, 1.9 units arrived at all calls
■ For outside fire calls, three or more units arrived at 16 percent of calls.
■ For structure fire calls, three or more units arrived at 56 percent of calls.
2019
■ On average, 1.8 units arrived at all calls
■ For outside fire calls, three or more units arrived at 12 percent of calls.
■ For structure fire calls, three or more units arrived at 54 percent of calls.
2020
■ On average, 1.8 units arrived at all calls
■ For outside fire calls, three or more units arrived at 13 percent of calls.
■ For structure fire calls, three or more units arrived at 63 percent of calls.
137
ATTACHMENT IV: FIRE LOSS
Table 5-29 presents the number of outside and structure fires by year, broken out by levels of fire
loss and EMFD response type (1 engine or 3-1 assignment). Table 5-30 shows the property loss
and content loss, broken out by response type and year. Table 5-31 summarizes the way we
distinguished response types based upon the response protocol recorded as the “final response
text” and “final response type” in the provided CAD data.
TABLE 5-29: Total Fire Loss Above and Below $25,000, by Year and Response Type
Response
Type
Call Type
No Loss
Under $25,000
$25,000 plus
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
1 Engine
Outside fire
34
43
53
5
2
11
1
0
1
Structure fire
17
12
9
0
1
0
0
0
0
3-1
Assignment
Outside fire
2
1
5
1
0
2
1
0
0
Structure fire
12
9
2
6
6
10
3
3
6
Other
Outside fire
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Structure fire
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
Total
67
66
69
13
9
23
5
6
7
TABLE 5-30: Total Content and Property Loss, by Year, Structure and Outside Fires
Response
Type
Call Type
Property Loss
Content Loss
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
1 Engine
Outside fire
$54,500
$11,000
$54,088
$2,000
$1,700
$5,000
Structure fire
0
$500
0
0
0
0
3-1
Assignment
Outside fire
$94,000
0
$8,000
$70,500
0
$1,000
Structure fire
$372,125
$128,795
$435,638
$33,850
$103,700
$222,766
Other
Outside fire
0
0
0
0
0
0
Structure fire
0
$610,000
0
$100
$77,000
0
Total
$520,625
$750,295
$497,726
$106,450
$182,400
$228,766
Note: The table includes only fire calls with a recorded loss greater than 0.
138
TABLE 5-31: Dispatch Protocols and CAD Response Type Descriptions, Outside
and Structure Fires
Dispatch Protocol
Final Response Text
Final Response
Type
Number of
Calls
1 Engine
1 ENGINE
1E
154
1 ENGINE (EL MIRAGE)
1E-RL1
19
1ENGINE, 1 BRUSH
BR1
14
1 ENGINE, MANPOWER (PHOENIX)
0.1
2
3-1 Assignment
3-1 EL MIRAGE
3-1EL1
39
3-1 EL MIRAGE
3-1EL2
2
3-1 WF HAZMAT (EL MIRAGE)
WFHEL1
1
3-1 WORKING FIRE (EL MIRAGE)
WF-EL1
24
3-1 WORKING FIRE (EL MIRAGE)
WF-EL2
3
Other
2 ENGINE BRUSH
BR2
1
ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT, AMBULANCE
ALA
1
ALS (EL MIRAGE)
ALAEL1
2
FULL STRUCTURAL ASSIGNMENT, WORKING
FIRE
SWF
3
139
ATTACHMENT V: RESPONSE OF LOW ACUITY UNIT
From 2018 to 2020, EMFD’s low acuity unit LA121 made 860, 537, and 269 runs in service (see
Table 5-13) and arrived at 799, 494, and 246 calls, respectively. For 149, 75, and 30 calls in each
of three years, LA121 arrived with one EMFD engine. Unit LA121 never arrived with two EMFD
engines. When all engines from both EMFD and other aid FD agencies are included, there are
calls where LA121 arrived with more than one engine. Table 5-32 summarizes the number of
engines (from all agencies) arriving at calls together with LA121.
TABLE 5-32: Low Acuity Unit Arrivals, by Number of Arriving Engines and Year
Number of
Engines
2018
2019
2020
Calls
Pct. Calls
Calls
Pct. Calls
Calls
Pct. Calls
0
562
70.3
362
73.3
186
75.6
1
206
25.8
117
23.7
56
22.8
2
14
1.8
6
1.2
1
0.4
3
13
1.6
4
0.8
0
0.0
4 or more
4
0.5
5
1.0
3
1.2
Total
799
100.0
494
100.0
246
100.0
Note: We only considered calls where LA121 and a responding engine arrived.
140
ATTACHMENT VI: ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
TABLE 5-33: Workload of Administrative Units
Unit ID
Unit Type
Annual Hours
Annual Runs
2018
2019
2020
2018
2019
2020
C121
Chief Officer Car
17.0
0
0
6
0
0
C122
Chief Officer Car
5.8
35.9
32.4
5
12
8
C123
Chief Officer Car
17.6
39.5
14.7
9
10
7
Other *
Administrative Unit(s)
25.5
33.6
24.4
35
29
26
Note: *The “other” unit identifier summarizes the aid received workload of 32 administrative units from other
FD agencies.
- END -