2 agenda - wsls · “gis/mapping lead” ... presentation of final project report 4. community...

County of Botetourt, Virginia

Fire Station Feasibility and Facilities Study – Final Report

Presentation to the Board of Supervisors

3/26/2019

Agenda

Introductions and Overview

Project Approach

Community Engagement

Facilities Study

Recommendations

Questions

2

Who Are We? Albemarle County, VA-based, woman-owned business (SWaM)

Over 100 years combined experience working in local governments, with

the majority of the experience focused in Fire Service

Flexible, nimble, and lean project team comprised of seasoned

professionals including former Fire Chiefs, First Responders, Budget and

Finance Director, among others.

3

NELSIE BIRCH“PROJECT LEAD”

PAUL BROOKS“LEAD AUTHOR”

GREGORY GRAYSON“COMMUNITY

ENGAGEMENT LEAD”

ROBERT MCNALLY“GIS/MAPPING LEAD”

Our Approach

Phase I: Data Gathering and Project Kick-Off

Phase II: Current Conditions Analysis/Jurisdictional

Assessment

Phase III: Public Input/Peer Review Process

Phase IV: Analyze Service Area Model and Present

Recommendations for Future Planning

Presentation of Final Project Report

4

Community Input

Qualitative Measurement

Public Survey

Focus Group Sessions

5

Public Survey

148 Responses were received.

Most all geographic areas of the county were represented.

9 questions were offered.

Questions were designed for general public feedback.

Survey was open for one month.

Approximately 50% of respondents report using fire and rescue services in the past five (5) years.

6

Public Survey

61% of respondents reported that they

were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with

the level of fire and rescue services.

Most feedback was related to needs,

with a focus on staffing levels, growth,

supporting volunteers and capital needs.

The need for an additional fire station in

the Daleville area was specifically noted

eight (8) times.

7


Over fifty persons were in

attendance.

The focus was the fire and rescue

service delivery system in Botetourt

County.

A strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and threats (SWOT)

format was utilized during the two

feedback sessions.

8


Strengths:

Personnel, both career and volunteer.

Level of service provided in a diverse county.

Collaboration with county fire staff.

Development of a strategic plan before a

crisis.

Quality of equipment.

Assistance provided between fire departments in Botetourt County.

9


Weaknesses:

Need to educate residents about the level of

services that they receive.

Recognition that services are provided in

urban, suburban, rural and wilderness areas

within the county.

Varying levels of density as well as risk and

hazard within the county.

Emergency communications coverage –both emergency radios and cellular service

for 9-1-1 access.

10


Opportunities:

Re-engage fire departments into their

core/home communities to gain further

understanding and support.

Become more in touch with individual

communities.

Explore non-traditional roles for volunteers.

Higher level of use of social media.

Higher level of engagement with high schools for recruitment.

Better educate Botetourt County elected

officials about fire and rescue services.

11


Perceived Threats:

Ever increasing call volume.

Leadership transition within the fire and

rescue services.

Need to keep volunteers effectively

engaged.

Concerns over loss of property and

potentially life due to the response times and

staffing levels.

Growth of Botetourt County is outpacing the

growth of the fire and rescue services and

concern about the sustainability of services.

12

Station Location Presentation

Outline

Study Methodology

Development & Growth

Station Location Study

Recommendations

Study Methodology

Collect and evaluate raw data

Seven Years History – Five Years projections

Dispatch and Incident Data

Document Reviews

County generated Reports/Studies

Insurance Services Office (ISO) Reports

Troutville Fire Presentation

Data files for Geospatial Analysis

Study Methodology

Area & Station Tour(s)

Follow-up Communications

Interviews

Community Development

Economic Development

Botetourt County Fire Services Members

Elected and Community Officials

Study MethodologyRegression

Analysis

COUNTY POPULATION

Growth Trend Linear Trend

Average of

Trends

YEAR

Forecasting Linear Growth

2010 33196 33196

2011 32998 32998

2012 33118 33118

2013 32990 32990

2014 33074 33074

2015 33340 33340

2016 33150 33150

2017 33192 33192

2018 33212 33212 33212

2019 33229 33229 33229

2020 33247 33247 33247

2021 33265 33265 33265

2022 33282 33282 33282

2023 33300 33300 33300

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000All Incidents

Fire

Medical

Rescue

Other

Linear

(Fire)Linear

(Medical)

Service

Area

Matrix

For Fire

Station

Modeling

Standards –

Comparison/Reference Industry Standards

NFPA

1221 – Communications

1710 – Organization and Operations for Career Fire Departments

1720 – Organization and Operations for Volunteer or Combination Department

Commission on Fire Accreditation international

National Institute of Technology and Underwriters Laboratory

Research

ISO – Fire Protection (Insurance) Rating Schedule

Development & Growth

Demographics

Older Population

22% older than 65

Only 19% under 18

Should anticipate some younger Demographics in 2020 Census

Household Income Stable - $ 64.7K

Virginia $70.8K

US $60.0K

Becoming Better Educated

28.3% earned Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

92.5% HS or Higher

R² = 0.1406

R² = 0.1408

32800

32900

33000

33100

33200

33300

33400

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

201

4

201

5

201

6

201

7

201

8

201

9

202

0

202

1

202

2

202

3

Total Population Projections

POPULATION

Linear

Expon.

20

Current

Population

Density

21

Current

Population

Density

- 33,192 Population

- $4.19 Billion Valuation

- 4,863 Total Calls

Development

& Growth -

2017

- 33,300 Population

(+.01%)

- $ 4.5 Billion Valuation

(+8.44%)

- 5,925 Total Calls

- (+24%)

Development

& Growth -

2023

Station Location Study

Current & Future Service Demand

Response Time

Basis for Distribution of Resources

Standard Fire Station Service Area Matrix

– Station location Model

Challenges

Recommendations

Service Demand – Recent Activity

• Total Change

• 708 Calls

• 17.08% ^ Overall

• 3.28% ^ Annually

Fire, 329,

8%

Medical,

3009, 72%

Rescue, 539,

13%

Other, 278,

7%

2012 DEMAND FOR SERVICE

Fire, 336, 7%

Medical, 3809,

78%

Rescue, 470,

10%

Other, 248, 5%

2017 DEMAND FOR SERVICE

26

Service

Demand

Hotspots –

All Calls

27

Service

Demand

Hotspots –

All Calls

28

Service

Demand

Hotspots –

Fire Calls

29

Service

Demand

Hotspots –

Fire Calls

Service Demand - Future

R² = 0.8861

R² = 0.8794

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Total Calls for Service

Total

Linear (Total)

Expon. (Total)

2 per. Mov. Avg.

(Total)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

20122013201420152016201720182019202020212022

All Incidents

Fire

Medical

Rescue

Other

Linear (Fire)

Linear (Medical)

Linear (Rescue)

Linear (Other)

Risk

31

Risk

32

ISO Travel

Distances

33

Travel

Time

34

Travel

Time

35

Total Response Time

Standards

Alarm Handling, Fire – 64 Sec – 90%

Alarm Handling, EMS – 90 Sec – 90%

Turnout Time, Fire – 80 Sec – 90%

Turnout Time, EMS – 60 Sec – 90%

Travel Time First Due – 240 Sec – 90%

Travel Time ERF – 480 Sec – 90%

Basis for Distribution of

Resources

Cardiac Survival

Cardiac Arrest Survival

Sudden Cardiac Arrest: A Cardiac Arrest Survival

Formula, University of Washington Press.

Fire Propagation

Consequences of Flame

Spread per 1000 Fires

1.91 – Civilian death rate for

fires confined to room of

origin

22.73 – Civilian Death rate

when fire extends beyond

room of origin to floor of

origin

Source: NFFPA Fire Analysis and

Research Division as reported in NFPA

1710 Annex A.

Service Area Assessment

Model

Modeling Travel Time

4 min.

4 min.

4 min.

4 min.


4 min.

4 min.

4 min.

4 min.

2

min

2

min


2 min

2 min

2 min

2 minSimple Thinking

• Four times the number of

stations to reduce response

time by half.

• One quarter the number of

stations results in doubling

the response time.

• Model helps find the most

efficient deployment model

for the Hazards/Risks,

Probability/Consequences.

Service Area Evaluation

FactorsGrowth Factors

Developable Land 5.00%

Population 15.00%

Developed Land 20.00%

Sub-Total 40.00%

Service Demand Factors

Call Volume 5.00%

Commercial Sq Footage 5.00%

Risk Score 15.00%

Property Valuation 15.00%

Sub-Total 40.00%

Performance / Capability

Distance to Fire Station 5.00%

Over 4 minute Calls 10.00%

% Covered in 4 Minutes 5.00%

Sub-Total 20.00%

Grand Total 100.00%

Service

Area

Scoring

45

Challenges to Efficient

Station Deployment

Rural and Remote Nature of Majority of County

Growth Following Infrastructure in Linear Fashion

Street Network Connectivity

Interstate/Major Highways

Changes in Lifestyles - Urbanization

Limited Development Areas

Service

Area

Scoring -

Priorities

47

78.24

84.92

85.56

87.29

87.58

94.00

109.01

114.69

115.88

123.17

130.24

134.16

136.51

137.24

238.48

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00

21 - Troutville Sta.

37

67

15

29

1 - Read Mtn. Sta.

77 - Buchanan Sta.

8

23 - Blue Ridge Sta.

20 - Greenfield Ind. Pk.

16

13 - Daleville Towne Ctr

9

35 - Fincastle Sta.

14 - Gateway Crossing

Standard Station Service Area Scoring

Top 15

Service Area

Scoring

Grid 13 – Gateway Crossing

Population – 1,720 (5.19%)

Structure Sq. Ft. – 1,378,706

Property Valuation –

$ 179.9 Million

Calls – 262

% Calls > 4 Min. – 100%

Service Area

Scoring

Grid 13 – Daleville Town

Center

Population – 997 (3.01%)

Structure Sq. Ft. – 664,170


$ 130.5 Million

Calls – 618

% Calls > 4 Min. – 99%

Service Area

Scoring

Grid 20 – Greenfield

Industrial Park

Population – 1066 (3.22%)

Structure Sq. Ft. – 1,264,602


$ 214 Million

Calls – 213

% Calls > 4 Min. – 100%

Deployment Recommendations

1. Systems, processes and products used within the Countyshould be improved to encourage and allow regularlyscheduled review and analysis of data. Specifically, anintegrated Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and IncidentRecords Management System (RMS) should be pursued.

2. Develop plans for the extension of resources to better servethe three areas of Gateway Crossing, Daleville Town Centerand the Greenfield Industrial Park. This can beaccomplished with a new fire station and assets located inGrid #14 or #13 along the US Rte. 220 corridor. Ourrecommendation is for a single station that can provideimproved service to all three grids due to the growing riskbut in consideration of the economic impact of multiplestations. This station should house one engine company andan EMS unit.

3. As the Daleville and Greenfield areas continue to developcommercially, a future evaluation should consider thedeployment of an additional ladder company in the stationrecommended in #2 above. This service area hascommercial and large industrial properties. This companywould contribute measurably as an additional unit foreffective response force deployments.

4. Circumstances that allow or require the county to re-evaluate its deployment at the Blue Ridge and ReadMountain sites. If such an opportunity were to arise, it isrecommended that a re-location of Read Mountain beconsidered.

Deployment Recommendations

5. Existing stations should be evaluated when their life cycle

indicates the time for replacement. Relocation should be a

consideration, especially when the existing station lies within

an existing flood zone. The Standard Station Service Area

Matrix can be used to evaluate future options for the existing

stations.

6. The Standard Station Service Area Matrix created for and

provided to Botetourt County in this study can and should be

used to identify future additional stations (or more efficient

sites for relocation of existing stations, as discussed in

recommendation #5.)

7. This study recommends the county and fire districts focus

services in the areas of greatest development and

population density in the southern part of the county. The

stations located to serve communities in the rural and remote

areas are adequately located currently for the existing

service demand. Those facilities and equipment however

must be routinely evaluated to ensure their operational

readiness and effectiveness for the risks and demand.

52

Questions?

Thank you.

53

2 agenda - wsls · “gis/mapping lead” ... presentation of final project report 4. community...

Documents