Watertown, NY Fire Department Study

Fire Services
Operations and Data Analysis

Watertown, New York
March 2015
FIRE
Operational Analysis
EMS
Center for Public Safety Management
474 K Street, NW, Suite 702

Washington, DC 20001
www.cpsm.us 716-969-1360
Exclusive Provider of Public Safety Technical Assistance for the
International City/County Management Association
General Information
About ICMA
The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) is a 100-year-old
nonprofit professional association of local government administrators and managers, with
approximately 9,000 members located in 28 countries.
Since its inception in 1914, ICMA has been dedicated to assisting local governments in providing
services to their citizens in an efficient and effective manner. Our work spans all of the activities of
local government: parks, libraries, recreation, public works, economic development, code
enforcement, brownfields, public safety, and a host of other critical areas.
ICMA advances the knowledge of local government best practices across a wide range of platforms,
including publications, research, training, and technical assistance. Our work includes both
domestic and international activities in partnership with local, state, and federal governments, as
well as private foundations. For example, we are involved in a major library research project
funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and are providing community policing training in El
Salvador, Mexico, and Panama with funding from the United States Agency for International
Development. We have personnel in Afghanistan helping to build wastewater treatment plants and
have teams working with the United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) in Central America
on conducting assessments and developing training programs for disaster preparedness.
Center for Public Safety Management
The ICMA Center for Public Safety Management (ICMA/CPSM) is one of four Centers within the
Information and Assistance Division of ICMA providing support to local governments in the areas of
police, fire, EMS, emergency management, and homeland security. In addition to providing
technical assistance in these areas we also represent local governments at the federal level and are
involved in numerous projects with the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland
Security. In each of these Centers, ICMA has selected to partner with nationally recognized
individuals or companies to provide services that ICMA has previously provided directly. Doing so
will provide a higher level of services, greater flexibility, and reduced costs in meeting members
needs as we will be expanding the services that ICMA can offer to local government. For example,
the Center for Productivity Management (CPM) is now working exclusively with SAS, one of the
worlds leaders in data management and analysis. And the Center for Strategic Management (CSM)
is now partnering with nationally recognized experts and academics in local government
management and finance.
The Center for Public Safety Management, LLC (CPSM) is the exclusive provider of public safety
technical assistance for ICMA and continues to provide training and research for the associations
members and represents ICMA in its transactions with the federal government and other public
safety professional associations.
Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York
page ii
CPSMs 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 advance industry
best practices. We have conducted more than 175 such studies in 35 states and 135 communities
ranging in size from 8,000 population (Boone, Iowa) to 800,000 population (Indianapolis, Ind.).
Thomas Wieczorek is the Director of the Center for Public Safety Management. Leonard Matarese
serves as the Director of Research & Program Development. Dr. Dov Chelst is the Director of
Quantitative Analysis. Joseph Pozzo is the Senior Manager for Fire/EMS.
Methodology
The ICMA Center for Public Safety Management team follows a standardized approach to
conducting analyses of fire, police, and other departments involved in providing services to the
public. We have developed this approach by combining the experience sets of dozens of subject
matter experts in the areas of police, fire, and EMS. Our collective team has several hundred years of
experience leading and managing public safety agencies, and conducting research in these areas for
cities in and beyond the United States.
The reports generated by the operations and data analysis team are based upon key performance
indicators that have been identified in standards and safety regulations and by special interest
groups such as the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), the International Association of
Fire Fighters (IAFF), and the Association of Public-Safety Communication Officials International,
and through ICMAs Center for Performance Measurement. These performance measures have been
developed following decades of research and are applicable in all communities. For this reason, the
data yield similar reporting formats, but each communitys data are analyzed on an individual basis
by the CPSM specialists and represent the unique information for that community.
The CPSM team begins most projects by extracting calls for service and raw data from a public
safety agencys computer-aided dispatch system. The data are sorted and analyzed for comparison
with nationally developed performance indicators. These performance indicators (e.g., response
times, workload by time, multiple-unit dispatching) are valuable measures of agency performance
regardless of departmental size. The findings are shown in tables and graphs organized in a logical
format. Despite the size and complexity of the documents, a consistent approach to structuring the
findings allows for simple, clean reporting. The categories for the performance indicators and the
overall structure of the data and documents follow a standard format, but the data and
recommendations are unique to the organization under scrutiny.
The team conducts an operational review in conjunction with the data analysis. The performance
indicators serve as the basis for the operational review. The review process follows a standardized
approach comparable to that of national accreditation agencies. Before the arrival of an on-site
team, agencies are asked to provide the team with key operational documents (policies and
procedures, asset lists, etc.). The team visits each jurisdiction to interview agency management and
supervisory personnel, rank-and-file officers, and local government staff.
page iii
The information collected during the site visits and through data analysis results in a set of
observations and recommendations that highlight the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities
ofand threats tothe organization and operations under review. To generate recommendations,
the team reviews operational documents; interviews key stakeholders; observes physical facilities;
and reviews relevant literature, statutes and regulations, industry standards, and other information
and/or materials specifically included in a projects scope of work.
The standardized approach ensures that the Center for Public Safety Management measures and
observes all of the critical components of an agency, which in turn provides substance to
benchmark against localities with similar profiles. Although agencies may vary in size, priorities,
and challenges, there are basic commonalities that enable comparison. The approach also enables
the team to identify best practices and innovative approaches.
In general, the standardized approach adopts the principles of the scientific method: We ask
questions and request documentation upon project start-up; confirm accuracy of information
received; deploy operations and data analysis teams to research each unique environment; perform
data modeling; share preliminary findings with the jurisdiction; assess inconsistencies reported by
client jurisdictions; follow up on areas of concern; and communicate our results in a formal written
report.
ICMA/CPSM Project Contributors
Thomas J. Wieczorek, Director

Leonard A. Matarese, Director of Research and Program Development
Dov N. Chelst, Ph.D., Director of Quantitative Analysis
Joseph E. Pozzo, Senior Manager for Fire and EMS
Gerard Hoetmer, Senior Associate
Gang Wang, Ph.D., Senior Quantitative Analyst
Sarita Vasudevan, Quantitative Analyst
Dennis Kouba, Editor
page iv
Contents
General Information ........................................................................................................................ii
About ICMA ................................................................................................................................................... ii
Center for Public Safety Management.......................................................................................................... ii
Methodology................................................................................................................................................ iii
ICMA/CPSM Project Contributors ................................................................................................................ iv
Contents ...........................................................................................................................................v
City of Watertown........................................................................................................................... 1
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... 3
Recommendations and Considerations ........................................................................................................ 4
Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Fire Department Staffing and Deployment................................................................................................. 10
Watertown Fire Department ...................................................................................................................... 12
Fire Services ................................................................................................................................... 13
Emergency Medical Services.......................................................................................................... 17
Population, Demand for Services, and Operational Workload................................................................... 18
Organizational Analysis ................................................................................................................. 24

Internal Planning ......................................................................................................................................... 24
Fiscal Review ............................................................................................................................................... 26
Infrastructure Overview .............................................................................................................................. 28
Fleet ............................................................................................................................................... 28
Facilities ......................................................................................................................................... 30
Training and Education ............................................................................................................................... 31
Fire Prevention............................................................................................................................................ 31
Operational Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 33

Risk Assessment for Fire Services ............................................................................................................... 33
Station and Response Time Analysis........................................................................................................... 34
Current Station and Response Time Analysis ............................................................................................. 38
External System Relationships .................................................................................................................... 41
Operational Staffing and Deployment ........................................................................................................ 42
Appendix I: Data and Workload Analysis ...................................................................................... 47

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 47
Methodology.................................................................................................................................. 47
Aggregate Call Totals and Dispatches ......................................................................................................... 48
page v
Workload by Individual UnitCalls and Total Time Spent ......................................................................... 62

Analysis of Busiest Hours ............................................................................................................................ 67
Dispatch Time and Response Time ............................................................................................................. 71
Attachment I: Workload of Support Units .................................................................................................. 85
Attachment II: Property and Content Loss Analysis for Structure and Outside Fire Calls .......................... 86
Attachment III: Actions Taken Analysis for Structure and Outside Fire Calls ............................................. 87
Attachment IV: False Alarm Calls by Description ........................................................................................ 88
page vi
City of Watertown
The City of Watertown, N.Y., is located approximately seventy miles north of Syracuse, and thirty
miles south of the Ontario border. Watertown serves as the county seat of Jefferson County and has
a land area of approximately 9.02 square miles.
The Citys 2013 estimated population was
27,823, 1 making it the largest population center
in Jefferson County. Watertown is close to an
international airport, numerous highway
systems and has freight service by rail.
professional medical centers and practices. 2
Watertown is quite attractive to a variety of

industries, including retail trade, public
administration, accommodations and food
services, manufacturing, healthcare, and
construction, to name a few. To serve the
community at large Watertown has numerous
Watertown is served by numerous public, private, and parochial schools, along with Jefferson
Community College. There are also several SUNY locations within a sixty mile radius of the City. The
City has a wide array of recreational and leisure opportunities such as golf and country clubs,
rafting, shopping centers, and public parks. There is also an emphasis on arts and culture, with a
wide variety of cultural events and festivals being offered. 3
Operating under a council-manager form of government, the City council is comprised of four
council members and a Mayor; all are elected at large to serve four-year terms. 4 Chapter 45, Article
IV of the City code provides that a Mayor Pro-Tem will be selected from the membership to serve if
the Mayor is unable to do so; 45-21 specifies that the selection of the Mayor Pro-tem shall be made
from the longest-serving member of the council at the time of the vacancy. The City of Watertown
adopted Plan C of Chapter 444 of the Laws of 1914, also known as the Optional City Government
Law, under which:
(t)he administrative and executive powers of the City, including the power of appointments
of officers and employees, are vested in an official to be known as the City Manager, who
shall be appointed by the Council
The City manager effectuates the policy, plans, and/or programs established by the City council.
1 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/3678608.html
2 http://www.city-data.com/city/Watertown-New-York.html#b
3 http://watertown-ny.gov/index.asp?nid=416
4 http://www.citywatertown.org/index.asp?nid=363
page 1
Figure 1 illustrates the chart of the organization for the City of Watertown.
Figure 1: City of Watertown Chart of the Organization
page 2
Executive Summary
The Center for Public Safety Management, LLC (CPSM) was retained by the City of Watertown to
complete a comprehensive analysis of the Citys fire service and fire department. This analysis is
designed to provide the City with a thorough and unbiased review of services provided by the
Watertown Fire Department (WFD). The report further provides a benchmark of the WFDs existing
service delivery performance as analyzed in the accompanying comprehensive data analysis, which
was performed utilizing information provided by the WFD. This data analysis in itself provides
significant value to the City as it now has a workload analysis from which to move forward with future
planning efforts. Also included in this report is the use of geographic information systems (GIS) data
mapping to support the operational discussion and recommendations.
During the study, CPSM analyzed performance data provided by the WFD and also examined
firsthand the departments operations. Fire departments tend to deploy resources utilizing
traditional approaches, which are rarely reviewed. To begin the review, project staff asked the City
for certain documents, data, and information. The project staff used this information/data to
familiarize themselves with the departments structure, assets, and operations. The provided
information was also used in conjunction with the raw performance data collected to determine the
existing performance of the department, and to compare that performance to national benchmarks.
These benchmarks have been developed by organizations such as the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA), Center for Public Safety Excellence, Inc. (CPSE), and the ICMA Center for
Performance Measurement. WFD staff was also provided an electronic shared information folder to
upload information for analysis and use by the CPSM project management staff.
Project staff conducted a site visit on September 23-24, 2014, for the purpose of observing fire
department and agency-connected supportive operations, interviewing key department staff, and
reviewing preliminary data and operations. Telephone conference calls were conducted as were email exchanges between CPSM project management staff, the City, and the WFD so that CPSM staff
could affirm the project scope, and elicit further discussion regarding this operational analysis.
Recommendations and considerations for continuous improvement of services are presented next
and in the order in which they appear in the report. CPSM recognizes there may be
recommendations and considerations offered that have to be bargained, budgeted for, and/or for
which processes must be developed prior to implementation.
In our recommendations, reference is made to NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and
Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to
the Public by Career Departments, 2010 Edition. This national consensus standard is utilized by
CPSM as a benchmark for service delivery and in the overall staffing and deployment
considerations of a fire department. NFPA 1710 is not being put forth as a CPSM recommendation
as a single criterion for adoption and implementation. Further, the adoption of a national consensus
standard such as NFPA 1710 is a formal policy decision and should be discussed thoroughly, as
there are potential initial, on-going, and legacy costs associated with its adoption. The City of
Watertown has not formally adopted this standard.
page 3
Recommendations and Considerations
A visit to the Jefferson County Dispatch Center (JCDC) revealed that the JCDC has in place a
medical priority emergency dispatch (EMD) system, which is a national best practice. An
EMD program is essential in any communications center that dispatches EMS resources, as
it helps to ensure the right resources are dispatched, and also that appropriate and
sometimes life-saving pre-arrival instructions are delivered by trained telecommunicators.
According to the JCDC supervisor who was on duty during CPSMs visit, the JCDC follows the
EMD resource deployment recommendations when dispatching EMS calls for service to all
participating agencies other than the WFD.
The WFD has implemented internal EMD instructions to the JCDC which list specific call
types and WFD units to dispatch, and which include the rescue apparatus on all low-priority
calls for service and an additional fire resource on high-priority calls. This arrangement can
create potential inefficiencies. According to Geoff Cady, an expert in medical dispatch
systems: The most visible features of an EMD system are its ability to identify the need for
pre-arrival instruction and prioritize an EMS response. Therefore, utilizing an EMD system
in the manner in which it is designed, and sending the units and responders that are
required based on the severity of the call, is the most efficient system the WFD can deploy in
conjunction with Guilfoyle Ambulance Service. CPSM recommends the fire department
work with the Jefferson County Dispatch Center and transition to the full use of the
already implemented priority emergency medical dispatch system. CPSM further
recommends the WFD consider responding only the closest unit to medical emergency
calls for service and discontinue the practice of the rescue apparatus responding to all
low-priority medical calls for service, as well as the dual response of the rescue
apparatus and an engine to high-priority medical calls for service. CPSM further
recommends the WFD only respond to high-priority life-threatening calls for service as
identified by the emergency communications center priority emergency medical
dispatch system.
The WFD does not have a formal strategic plan in place. The WFD does include prior budget
year accomplishments and current budget year goals and objectives in its current-year
budget document. Defining clear goals and objectives for any organization through a formal
strategic planning document establishes a resource that any member of the organization, or
those external to the organization, can view and determine in what direction the
organization is heading, and as well how the organization is planning to get there.
Ultimately, the strategic plan defines the systems thinking the organization is conducting to
serve its core mission. Because fire and emergency medical services are dynamic, and
should be measured for efficiency and effectiveness at a minimum, it is recommended
the WFD develop a strategic plan that links to the City strategic planning process. The
development of the plan should involve members of the department as well as members
from the community.
One of the most important elements of strategic planning is performance measurement,

which within local government describes service delivery performance so that both citizens
page 4
and those providing the service have the same understanding. The customer will ask, Did I
get what I expected? The service provider will ask, Did I provide what was expected?
Ensuring that the answer to both questions is yes requires alignment of these
expectations. To ensure this, CPSM recommends the WFD expand any current goals and
objectives/performance measurement to include output, efficiency, effectiveness, and
outcome measures, and that any measures are reported on a scheduled basis so that
both internal members and the public can review the processes in place, and to ensure
that these processes are being measured for continuous improvement.
To instill a process of continuous improvement within the department, at one point the
WFD initiated the Commission on Fire Accreditation International accreditation process
sponsored through the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE). The fire accreditation
process provides a well-defined, internationally recognized benchmark system to measure
the quality of fire and emergency services. Further, the accreditation process provides the
individual department the benefit of a critical self-assessment of its performance at varying
levels to ensure continuous self-improvement. It is an extremely comprehensive review that
is conducted over a certain time period and requires reaccreditation, which helps to ensure
that the standards are being maintained. The WFD is not currently pursuing accreditation,
although a component of this process (Standards of Cover) has been completed. It is
recommended the WFD consider re-engaging the CPSE accreditation program and
conduct a self-assessment under the CPSE guidelines as a means toward overall
organizational improvement.
The department is very limited in its ability to control its operational costs due to the fact
that only about 5 percent of its operational expenses are not fixed costs. In other words, 95
percent of its operational expenses are tied to the collective bargaining minimum staffing
requirements, its current service model, and its fringe benefit and retirement expenditures.
Therefore, unless the current fire department fixed-cost model changes, the budget
model will remain the same and potentially may not be sustainable in the future.
The WFDs primary response model is to send heavy fire apparatus on EMS and fire calls for
service. While this is the traditional deployment model in the fire service, there are more
efficient equipment deployment models, particularly for departments where EMS calls for
service and low acuity fire responses make up the greatest workload demand. This is the
case with the WFD (see Tables 1 and 5 for a profile of calls received in a year). A potentially
more efficient deployment model that focuses on reducing wear and tear on heavy fire
apparatus and operating costs is to deploy lighter vehicles on low acuity calls for service,
which have been effectively screened in the emergency communications center and do not
require a fire pump and hose, but do require a fire department response to abate the call for
service. This can include EMS calls for service, and certain fire calls for service such as
smoke odor and smoke detector calls with no smoke or fire present, power line down, and
other public service calls that do not need a heavy fire apparatus as determined by the
emergency communications center. CPSM recommends consideration of this deployment
model at all three stations, and certainly at a minimum at station 1.
page 5
The three WFD fire stations, because of their age, have ongoing and regular maintenance
issues. There is no scheduled extensive rehabilitation work and there is no plan to replace
or relocate any of the fire stations. The current capital improvement budget allocates
$27,500 for overhead door work to station 1 during FY 15/16. It was noted that stations 1
and 2 have facilities with gender separation and that station 3 does not. There should be
consideration for a planned future remedy for this so as not to create potential
employee relations issues.
Whether fire prevention activities are located in the fire department or in the bureau of
code enforcement, it is important to understand that fire suppression and response,
although necessary to protect property, have little impact on preventing fire deaths. Rather,
public fire education, fire prevention, and built-in fire protection systems are essential
elements in protecting citizens from death and injury due to fire, smoke inhalation, and
carbon monoxide poisoning. To this end it is important that contemporary fire
prevention practices (strategies developed to prevent loss from a variety of
emergencies) are carried out and measured. Those occupancies of public assembly
where the risk of death or loss is great although the risk of fire is small or infrequent,
along with properties that have a statistical history of fire problems and/or where fires
or fire code issues and concerns are frequent, should be considered a priority and are
scheduled for regular fire inspections.
CPSM cannot stress enough the importance of the prefire planning process, identifying and
classifying target hazards, and building and occupancy familiarization by fire companies. As
such, CPSM recommends the current prefire planning process be fully implemented,
and that this program include the assignment of buildings and occupancies to specific
companies and shifts for completion, and that this is measured and reported on a
quarterly basis, and that regular building and occupancy familiarization occur, as
these are basic foundational practices of the fire service. CPSM further recommends
that as fire companies are conducting prefire planning activities they work with the
bureau of code enforcement and communicate in a timely manner and report obvious
and potential fire prevention, loss, and life safety issues. CPSM is not recommending fire
companies enforce the fire prevention code but rather report fire prevention concerns
and issues to the appropriate code enforcement office.
Community risk and vulnerability assessment are essential elements in a fire

departments planning process. The WFD completed a comprehensive community risk
and vulnerability assessment in 2004 as a part of its Standards of Cover. This was and
remains an extremely important process to maintain and utilize, given the response
area, types of structures, and density in certain parts of the City. Included in this
assessment are both structural (as described in the section on assessing community
vulnerability) and nonstructural (weather, wildland-urban interface, transportation routes
etc.) components. As the current Standards of Cover document is ten years old, CPSM
strongly recommends the WFD complete an update to this document to include
conducting a new fire and community risk assessment. The WFD should then link this
updated assessment to the station and response time analysis and fire and EMS calls for
page 6
service demand analysis provided in this report and include this information in the
updated Standards of Cover.
The dispatch of calls for service for the WFD is a function of Jefferson County. In the
response and workload analysis section of this report, it can be seen that the most glaring
response time concern is dispatch time. When comparing against the 90th percentile,
dispatch time for the WFD is in excess of three times the national benchmark discussed
herein (NFPA 1710s standard of 60 seconds versus the current experience of 204 seconds).
While such an elapsed time is understandable when processing EMS calls for service and
utilizing priority medical dispatch algorithms, the fire dispatch time is equally high. It is
critical this time element be addressed and managed, as it adds considerably to the overall
WFD response time and thus affects the service levels of the WFD. CPSM recommends the
WFD address the dispatch time concerns with the Jefferson County Dispatch Center with
a goal of aligning dispatch time closer to national benchmarking.
Overall turnout time (114 seconds) and travel time (258 seconds) for the WFD are near the
national benchmarking figures at the 90th percentile. Some improvement can occur in
turnout time as, again, this element of response time is controllable by the fire
department, and as such should be monitored on a continual basis with a goal of
continuous improvement. Travel time at the 90th percentile is only slightly greater than
the NFPA 1710 benchmark; however, this is not as controllable as dispatch and turnout
time as the existing road network and the environment are contributing factors that can
pose issues for emergency response. Response time is, however, affected overall by the
dispatch time.
The three current fire stations are properly placed, with each providing good travel times at
each of the NFPA 1710 national benchmarks. CPSM does not recommend additional fire
stations at this time.
As with any agreement or memorandum of understanding in place in a local government

and which is interlocal or otherwise, it is a best practice to routinely review and update inplace agreements or memorandums of understanding. While there is no standard for this,
reviews of agreements that include revenue or expenditures generally occur or are driven
by the agreement expiration. Those agreements such as discussed herein generally do not
have a termination or expiration date and renew automatically or without review for many
years (the county mutual aid fire plan calls for an annual review). Over this period of time
leadership and management positions change. Therefore, it is recommended that the WFD
review all interlocal agreements, MOUs, and memorandums that are in-place and
which affect response of assets into another jurisdiction or which call for response into
the City. This review should ensure the information is current, meets all legal and risk
management components, and that all the parties can continue to provide stated
services, or, as the case may be, if services can be enhanced or changed.
Aside from the staffing alternatives discussed in this report, CPSM does not recommend
any addition to the minimum unit staffing currently in place.
page 7
The WFD does not utilize volunteer members as a surge capacity asset and should consider
this as an alternative to career member recall. Utilizing volunteer members engages
potential and available community members, creates efficiencies in surge staffing, and
avails the department of trained volunteer members for other, related staffing assignments.
CPSM recommends the City consider alternatives to the current staffing model, and
which include demand or peak-load staffing of the rescue apparatus, or cross-staffing
between the truck and rescue apparatus.
It should be acknowledged that the scope of NFPA 1710 is designed to establish the
minimum requirements relating to the organization and deployment of fire and EMS
operations for career fire departments. NFPA 1710 is meant to create a universal level of
service for communities serviced by a career fire department. When considering the
applicability of this standard several factors must be taken into consideration, including the
level of risk, demand, demographics, and community expectation. While these factors must
be considered, the local government has the ultimate responsibility and the authority
to establish the level of service within a community. The WFD addressed the level of risk
and demographics, and to some degree, demand, in its 2004 report. This CPSM report
addresses demand and response times more succinctly, as well as current demographics
and socioeconomic research. Coupled with the WFD 2004 report, this CPSM report provides
policy makers a better understanding and more contemporary information from which to
draw conclusions on staffing and deployment of fire services.
Therefore with regards to WFD staffing and deployment, CPSM recommends:
No additional operational (shift work) staffing be added at this time.
No further reduction in operational (shift work) staffing at this time.
Consider cross-staffing the rescue and the truck (ladder apparatus) with a single crew of
three.
Consider peak-load staffing of the rescue unit with a crew of two between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Based on available funding, fill any funded operational vacancies at this time and
maintain operational staffing at full strength as consistently as possible. This will reduce
the reliance on overtime that is caused by built-in overstaffing designed to fill daily
vacancies created by scheduled and unscheduled leave.
Bargain the inclusion of battalion chiefs into Article 6, Section 1b. The battalion chiefs
are represented by the collective bargaining agreement and thus should be included in
the daily leave count.
Bargain the number of available leave positions from six to five (including the battalion
chief) during one 24-hour period. This will decrease overtime expenditures and adjust
the actual approved leave positions from nine to eight (six annual leave and one Kelley
day and Kelley night) per 24-hour period.
page 8
Bargain an increase in the work week as delineated in Article 5, Section 1a of the current
collective bargaining agreement from forty hours to forty-two hours. This includes
eliminating the one 10-hour Kelley Day and one 14-hour Kelley Day per operational (shift
work) member over a twelve week cycle.
Bargain the permanent reassignment of the uniformed fire prevention staff currently
assigned to the bureau of code enforcement to the fire department. Transfer the
appropriate budget and personnel count (fire to codes) to accommodate civilianization of
these positions.
Develop and implement policy that more definitively prescribes when an emergency recall
should occur. CPSM further recommends Article 5, Sections 4b and 8 be removed through
the bargaining process. While it is auspicious to maintain a certain level of personnel on
duty at all times for continuous staffing, this comes with a cost. The staffing and deployment
of fire services and the emergency recall of personnel is and should be both a management
decision process and council policy. Further, the emergency recall of personnel should be
managed by the on-duty battalion chief through approved policy.
page 9
Overview
Fire Department Staffing and Deployment
The staffing and deployment of fire services is ultimately a management decision. The decisionmaking process includes many factors that contribute to the overall staffing and deployment of fire
and EMS departments. Staffing is one component, and the type of apparatus on which the staff is
deployed and from where (station locations) are the other two components that determine how fire
and EMS services are delivered. Linked to these components of staffing and deployment are ten
critical factors that drive various levels and models from which fire and EMS departments staff and
deploy. These factors are:
Fire risk and vulnerability of the community: A fire department collects and organizes
risk evaluation information about individual properties, and on the basis of the rated factors
then derives a fire risk score for each property. The community risk and vulnerability
assessment evaluates the community as a whole, and with regard to property, measures all
property and the risk associated with that property and then segregates the property as
either a high-, medium-, or low-hazard property depending on factors such as the life and
building content hazard, and the potential fire flow, 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.
Call demand: Types of calls to which units are responding and where the calls are
occurring. This drives workload and station siting considerations.
Workload of units: Types of calls to which units are responding and the workload of each
unit in the deployment model.
Travel times from fire stations: Ability to cover the response area in a reasonable and
acceptable travel time when measured against national benchmarks. This links to demand
and risk assessment.
NFPA standards, ISO, national technical studies: National benchmarking.
EMS demand: Community demand; demand on available units and crews; demand on nonEMS units responding to calls for service (fire units); availability of crews in departments
that utilize cross-trained EMS staff to perform fire suppression.
Critical tasking: The ability of a fire and EMS department to comprise an effective response
force when confronted with the need to perform required tasks on a fire or EMS incident
scene and its ability to provide adequate resources to mitigate each event. Departmentdeveloped and measured against national benchmarks. This information links to risk and
vulnerability analysis.
page 10
Innovations in staffing and deployable apparatus: The fire departments 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 calls (typically the largest percentage of calls) that do not require
heavy fire apparatus.
Community expectations: Measuring, understanding, and meeting community
expectations.
Ability to fund: The communitys ability and willingness to fund all local government
services, and understanding how the revenues are divided up to meet the communitys
expectations.
Figure 2: Staffing and Deploying Fire and EMS Departments
Staffing
Community
Expectations
Critical Tasking
Benchmarking
Apparatus
Deployment
Ability to Fund
Station
Location(s)
Risk Analysis
Workload of
Units
Innovations
Call Demand
Travel Times
EMS Demand
While each component presents its own metrics of data, consensus opinion, and/or discussion
points, aggregately they form the foundation for informed decision making geared toward the
implementation of sustainable, data- and theory-supported, effective fire and EMS staffing and
deployment models that fit the communitys profile, risk, and expectations.
page 11
Watertown Fire Department

The Watertown Fire Department has a traditional organizational structure as illustrated in
Figure 3. The fire chief directs the overall operations of the department and is directly assisted by a
deputy chief. The deputy chief serves as the second in command and supervises five battalion
chiefs, one who manages the training and safety components and four who serve as operational
shift commanders. Shift commanders supervise shift captains, who manage individual stations and
companies and assigned firefighter personnel. Two fire prevention staff members are assigned to
the Citys code enforcement office where they perform fire inspection activities. Overall, the
department is authorized for seventy-eight positions and operates with a current total complement
of seventy-six positions.
Figure 3: WFD Table of Organization
Not delineated on the organizational chart is a captain position assigned to fire administration and
who serves as the public education officer. This position develops and coordinates public education
efforts for the community, coordinates the juvenile fire setter program, and assists with arson
investigation. As this position is not one that is budgeted and included per se as a staff position and
included in the approved department organizational chart above, consideration should be given to
transferring this position back to fire operations where there are current vacancies and
transitioning this positions responsibilities to current administrative staff (fire chief, deputy fire
chief, battalion chief of training). Discussed later in this report is the transition of fire prevention
personnel positions to the code enforcement division. Figure 4 is a proposed organizational chart
for the WFD reflecting the current discussion.
page 12
Figure 4: Proposed WFD Table of Organization

Fire Chief
Deputy Chief
Battalion Chief
Training
Administrative
Assistant
Public Education
A Shift
B Shift
C Shift
D Shift
Battalion Chief
Battalion Chief
Battalion Chief
Battalion Chief
Captain: E1, E2, E3,

T1, R1

T1, R1

T1, R1

T1, R1
Firefighters
Firefighters
Firefighters
Firefighters
Fire Services
Fire services are provided from three stations, as illustrated in Figure 5. Station 1 serves as the
central station; it houses fire suppression units and crews as well as fire administration. Overall, the
WFD currently deploys three engine companies (pumper apparatus), one truck company (aerial
ladder), and one rescue company (custom fire apparatus carrying technical rescue equipment). As
an all-hazards response agency, the WFD also deploys watercraft and associated equipment trailers
for swift water and flood water rescue incidents, and responds with technical rescue and hazardous
materials equipment to mitigate these types of emergencies.
page 13
Figure 5: WFD Station Locations and Apparatus Deployment
Engine
Engine
Engine
Truck
Rescue
Technical Rescue
Battalion Chief
Table 1 depicts fire call types by category to which WFD responded during the one-year data study
period (July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014) of this project. Call percentages in the table represent that of
the overall call count (including EMS calls for service).
Table 1: Fire Calls by Call Type
Call Type
Structure fire
Outside fire
Hazard
False alarm
Good intent
Public service
Fire Total
Average
Number
Calls
of Calls per Day
50
84
493
519
73
322
1,541
0.14
0.23
1.35
1.42
0.20
0.88
4.22
Call
Percentage
1.2
2.0
11.8
12.4
1.7
7.7
36.8
The table shows that the category of call with highest percentage of calls for fire service are
those classified as false alarms, which include alarm system malfunctions and unintentional
alarm activations, as well as other types of calls for service that did not generate any
page 14
findings upon arrival of WFD units. This experience is generally the norm in all fire studies
conducted by CPSM. Table 2 further examines the calls in this category.
The category of call with the second largest percentage of fire calls for service are those
classified as hazardous conditions found with no fire. These include spills, leaks, electrical
hazardous conditions, and structural collapse, to name a few. Combined, actual fire calls
(structure and outside) represented just 3.2 percent of the overall calls to which the WFD
responded.
Table 2: False Alarm Call Types

Description
Smoke detector activation, no fire unintentional

Alarm system activation, no fire unintentional
Smoke detector activation due to malfunction
False alarm or false call, Other
Second alarm
Detector activation, no fire unintentional
Unintentional transmission of alarm, Other
System malfunction, Other
Alarm system sounded due to malfunction
Sprinkler activation due to malfunction
CO detector activation due to malfunction
Malicious, mischievous false call, Other
Sprinkler activation, no fire unintentional
Fire alarm
Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO
Unknown problem
Bomb scare no bomb
Extinguishing system activation
Heat detector activation due to malfunction
Number
of Calls
140
68
43
41
37
36
34
23
18
18
14
14
13
8
6
3
1
1
1
Table 3 examines the actions taken by the WFD on fire incident types. and the information in this
table shows that 33 of the 50 structure fire calls were extinguished by fire service personnel either
by hand lines and water from pumper apparatus or other methods such as fire extinguishers, and
50 of 84 outside fire calls were extinguished by WFD personnel. In total, of the fire calls, 62 percent
were extinguished/mitigated by WFD.
page 15
Table 3: Actions Taken Analysis for Fire Calls

Number of Calls
Action Taken
Structure fire
Fire control or extinguishment, Other

Extinguishment by fire service personnel
Contain fire (wildland)
Remove hazard
Fires, rescues & hazardous conditions, Other
Ventilate
Information, investigation & enforcement, Other
Investigate
Investigate fire out on arrival
Standby
Action taken, Other
Total
Outside
fire
2
33
0
1
0
3
0
2
7
1
1
50
10
48
1
0
2
0
8
11
2
1
1
84
Table 4 looks at property loss as estimated and recorded by the WFD on those incidents in which
property damage occurred. A review of this information shows that out of 50 structure fire calls, 14
calls (28 percent) had recorded property loss, with total recorded loss value of $141,920. The
largest recorded property loss for a single incident was $65,000, which occurred at 140 Palmer St., on
March 30, 2014. This was due to a roof collapse from snow. Of 84 outside fire calls, four had recorded
property loss.
Table 4: Property and Content Loss Analysis for Structure and Outside Fire Calls
Property Loss
Call Type
Structure fire
Outside fire
Total
Loss Value
$141,920
$49,500
$191,420
Content Loss
Number of
Calls
14
4
18
Loss Value
$4,450
$0
$4,450
Number of
Calls
5
0
5
page 16
Emergency Medical Services

Emergency medical services (EMS) transport for Watertown is provided by Guilfoyle Ambulance
Service, Inc. Guilfoyle Ambulance is located in Watertown and operates sixteen advanced life
support ambulances, three paramedic fly cars, and two advanced life support fly cars. Guilfoyle also
provides other nonemergency and emergency transport services as well. Guilfoyle responds to
more than 8,000 calls per year and has a New York state certificate of need to provide service to all
of Jefferson County as well as many townships that are contiguous to the county. 5
The WFD provides first response EMS from each of its fire stations. The majority of operational staff
is certified at the emergency medical technician level. Each fire apparatus carries an automated
external defibrillator and basic emergency medical kit and other ancillary medical splinting
equipment. The WFD does provide a third person to Guilfoyle Ambulance Service on certain calls
when needed.
The response matrix to EMS calls for service by the WFD is as follows:
Low-priority EMS calls: Rescue apparatus from station 1 (this is citywide).
High-priority EMS calls: Rescue apparatus from station 1 and closest engine by district.
Table 5 depicts EMS call types by category to which the WFD responded during the one-year data
study period (July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014) of this project. Percentages in the table represent that
of the overall call count (including fire calls for service).
Table 5: EMS Calls by Call Type
Call Type
Cardiac and stroke
Seizure and unconsciousness
Breathing difficulty
Overdose and psychiatric
MVA
Fall and injury
Illness and other
EMS Total
Average
Number
Calls
of Calls per Day
237
258
355
154
121
846
587
2,558
0.65
0.71
0.97
0.42
0.33
2.32
1.61
7.01
Call
Percentage
5.7
6.2
8.5
3.7
2.9
20.2
14.0
61.2
Overall, EMS calls for service represent the largest percentage (61.2 percent) of the calls for service
to which the WFD responds. Table 5 further shows that lower-priority (basic life support care) EMS
calls for service (fall and injury, illness and other) represent the largest percentage of both EMS
calls (56 percent) and overall calls (34.2 percent) for service to which the WFD responded.
5
http://guilfoyleambulance.com/
page 17
Potentially higher-priority (advanced life support care) EMS calls for service, such as cardiac and
stroke, seizure and unconsciousness, and breathing difficulty, represent 20.4 percent of all calls.
This is not to say the typical lower-priority call type cannot be a higher-priority call upon arrival
and a higher-priority call type cannot be a lower-priority call upon arrival, as this does occur.
A visit to the Jefferson County Dispatch Center (JCDC) revealed that the JCDC has in place an
emergency medical dispatch (EMD) system, which is a national best practice. An EMD program is
essential in any communications center that dispatches EMS resources, as it helps to ensure the
right resources are dispatched, and that the appropriate and sometimes life-saving pre-arrival
instructions are delivered by trained telecommunicators. 6 According to the JCDC supervisor who
was on duty during CPSMs visit, the JCDC follows the EMD resource deployment recommendations
when dispatching EMS calls for service to all participating agencies other than the WFD.
The WFD has implemented internal EMD instructions to the JCDC which lists specific call types and
WFD units to dispatch, and which include the rescue apparatus on all low-priority calls for service
and an additional fire resource on high-priority calls. This arrangement can create potential
inefficiencies. According to Geoff Cady, 7 an expert in medical dispatch systems: The most visible
features of an EMD system are its ability to identify the need for pre-arrival instruction and prioritize
an EMS response. Therefore, utilizing an EMD system in the manner for which it is designed, and
sending the units and responders that are required based on the severity of the call, is the most
efficient system the WFD can deploy in conjunction with Guilfoyle Ambulance Service. CPSM
recommends the fire department work with the Jefferson County Dispatch Center and
transition to the full use of the already implemented priority emergency medical dispatch
system. CPSM further recommends the WFD consider responding only the closest unit to
medical emergency calls for service and discontinue the practice of the rescue apparatus
responding to all low-priority medical calls for service, as well as the dual response of the
rescue apparatus and an engine to high-priority medical calls for service. CPSM further
recommends the WFD only respond to high-priority life-threatening calls for service as
identified by the emergency communications center priority emergency medical dispatch
system.
Population, Demand for Services, and Operational Workload

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the City of Watertown had an estimated population in 2013 of
27,823. The official 2010 U.S. Census population was 27,031. Demographically, the City is 86.2
percent white, 6.0 percent African-American, 0.6 percent American Indian and Alaskan native, 1.8
percent Asian, and 5.6 percent Hispanic or Latino. As of the 2010 Census there were 12,562 total
housing units in the City. Housing units in multi-unit structures (for the period 2008-2012) made
up 56.3 percent of the total housing units. The average number of people per household was 2.25
ASTM Standard F1258, 2006, Standard Practice for Emergency Medical Dispatch, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2003. www.astm.org.
7 Geoff Cady, The Medical Priority Dispatch System:-A System and Product Overview,
http://www.emergencydispatch.org/articles/ArticleMPDS (Cady).html.
6
page 18
people. Of the total population, 9.0 percent were below the age of five, 13.2 percent above the age of
65, and 52.2 percent female. The median household income (2008-2012) was reported as $38,511,
with 19.8 percent of the population reported to be under the federal poverty level during the same
period. When evaluating risk in a community, the demographic and socioeconomic components as
depicted above must be considered in the total risk evaluation when considering staffing and
deploying resources.
A December 2004 topical fire research paper released through the United States Fire
Administration (USFA) found that: 8
Children under the age of 5 and the population over the age of 54 are at the highest risk of
death in fires.
Men are 1.6 times more likely to die in a fire than women.
African-Americans and American Indians are at much greater risk of dying in a fire than the
general population.
The risk of dying in the South is higher than in other areas on the United States. The
Midwest has the second highest risk.
Populations at the lowest income levels are at a greater risk of dying in a fire than those
with higher incomes.
It is concluded from this paper that when determining fire risk, factors such as age, demographic,
and socio-economic factors are relevant. People in the Southeast (17.9 percent) and the Midwest
(15.3 percent) were at higher risk than other regions of the country during the research period of
this USFA paper. Further, certain demographic groups as noted above have a considerably higher
risk of death or injury from fire than does the population as a whole. Lastly, one can see that the
risk from fire is not the same for everybody.
Demand for fire and EMS response is as well a key component in the staffing and deployment
decision-making process. Staffing to meet demand either by geography or by peak-demand periods
are important considerations. It is essential these components be monitored and reviewed on a
regular basis to ensure staffing and deployment of resources are adequately meeting demand, and
the most appropriate resources are being deployed. Figure 6 illustrates the time of day calls are
occurring in Watertown. Figures 7, 8, and 9 illustrate demand and the distribution of fire, EMS, and
other types of incidents occurring during the study period.
Figure 6 shows us that hourly call rates averaged between 0.24 calls and 0.62 calls per hour and the
peak call rates were highest during the day between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., averaging between
0.52 and 0.62 calls per hour.
Fire Risk: Topical Fire Research Paper, Volume 4, Issue 7. United States Fire Administration, December 2004.
page 19
Figure 6: Call Distribution by Hour of Day
Peak Call Period
Highest Call Demand Period
8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
10: a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Lowest Demand Period

12:00 midnight to 8:00 a.m.
The next three figures illustrate the demand for fire, emergency medical services, and other types of
responses the WFD handled during the study period. In each demand map, the darker the color, the
more intense the demand for service. In these demand maps, each square represents a 0.5 squaremile area.
page 20
Figure 7 shows us the heaviest concentration of calls for fire service are in the central core of the City, running along State and Arsenal
Streets, Massey and Main Streets, and the secondary streets that run off these primary city streets.
Figure 7: Fire Demand
page 21
Figure 8 shows us the heaviest concentration of calls for EMS service follows almost the same pattern as fire calls, which is in the central
core of the City running along State and Arsenal Streets, Massey and Main Streets, and the secondary streets that run off these primary
city streets.
Figure 8: EMS Demand
page 22
Figure 9: Other Call Types (Good Intent, Public Service, Hazard, Fire Alarms) Demand
page 23
Organizational Analysis
Internal Planning
Organizing and managing a contemporary fire and emergency medical services agency requires an
optimal organizational structure as discussed previously in this report, and results-oriented and
well-thought-out and achievable goals and objectives. In addition, to determine how well an
organization or program is doing requires that these goals be measurable and that they are
measured against desired results. Included in a fire organizations key internal planning
components should be a formal strategic plan, community risk and vulnerability assessment and
plan, performance measures, and a succession plan.
The WFD does not have a formal strategic plan in place. The WFD does include prior budget year
accomplishments and current budget year goals and objectives within its current year budget
document. Defining clear goals and objectives for any organization through a formal strategic
planning document establishes a resource that any member of the organization, or those external to
the organization, can view and determine in what direction the organization is heading, and as well
how the organization is planning to get there. Ultimately, the strategic plan defines the systems
thinking the organization is conducting to serve its core mission.
Because fire and emergency medical services are dynamic, and should be measured for
efficiency and effectiveness at a minimum, it is recommended the WFD develop a strategic plan
that links to the City strategic planning process. The development of the plan should involve
members of the department as well as members from the community. Figure 10 illustrates this
process.
Figure 10: Strategic Planning Model
Strategic Planning
Model
page 24
As there is no perfect strategic planning model for an organization, the above model provides an
alternative from which the organization can begin to develop a strategic planning process, and
eventually a strategic plan. Listed below are the steps for a successful approach to this critical
process: 9
Purpose-Mission: This is the statement that describes why an organization exists. This
statement should describe what customer needs are intended to be met and with what services.
Top-level management should agree what the mission statement/purpose is, understanding
this will change over the years as the organization changes.
Selection of goals the organization must meet to accomplish its mission: Goals are general
statements about what needs to be accomplished to meet the purpose, or mission, and address
major issues facing the organization.
Identify specific approaches or strategies that must be implemented to reach each goal:
The strategies are often what change the most as the organization eventually conducts more
robust strategic planning, particularly by more closely examining the external and internal
organizational environments.
Identify specific actions to implement each strategy: An organization must identify specific
activities each division or major function must undertake to ensure it is effectively
implementing each strategy. Objectives should be clearly worded to the extent that staff and the
community can assess if the objectives have been met or not. Ideally, top management develops
specific committees that each have a work plan, or set of objectives.
Monitor and update the plan: Regularly reflect on the extent to which the goals are being met
and whether action plans are being implemented. Perhaps the most important feedback is
positive feedback from customers, both internal and external.
Finally, one of the most important elements of strategic planning is performance measurement,
which within local government describes service delivery performance so that both citizens and
those providing the service have the same understanding. The customer will ask, Did I get what I
expected? The service provider will ask, Did I provide what was expected? Ensuring that the
answer to both questions is yes requires alignment of these expectations. To ensure this, CPSM
recommends the WFD expand any current goals and objectives/performance measurement to
include output, efficiency, effectiveness, and outcome measures, and that any measures are
reported on a scheduled basis so that both internal members and the public can review the
processes in place, and to ensure that these processes are being measured for continuous
improvement. Performance measures as developed by the Governmental Accounting Standards
Board are shown in Table 6.
McNamara, C.: (1996-2007) Basic Overview of Various Strategic Planning Models. Adapted from the Field
Guide to Nonprofit Strategic Planning and Facilitation. (Minneapolis, MN: Authenticity Consulting, LLC).
page 25
Table 6: Performance Measures

Category
Input indicators
Output indicators
Outcome indicators
Efficiency (and costeffectiveness) indicators
Explanatory information
Definition
These are designed to report the amount of resources,
either financial or other (especially personnel), that have
been used for a specific service or program.
These report the number of units produced or the services
provided by a service or program.
These are designed to report the results (including quality)
of the service.
These are defined as indicators that measure the cost
(whether in dollars or employee hours) per unit of output
or outcome.
This includes a variety of information about the
environment and other factors that might affect an
organizations performance.
To summarize, establishing a performance management system within the framework of an overall

strategic plan will help City management and elected officials gain a better understanding of what
the WFD is trying to achieve.
To instill a process of continuous improvement, at one point the WFD initiated the Commission on
Fire Accreditation International accreditation process through the Center for Public Safety
Excellence (CPSE). The fire accreditation process provides a well-defined, internationally
recognized benchmark system to measure the quality of fire and emergency services. 10 Further, the
accreditation process provides an individual department the benefit of a critical self-assessment of
its performance at varying levels to ensure continuous self-improvement. It is an extremely
comprehensive review that is conducted over a certain time period and requires reaccreditation,
which helps to ensure that the standards are being maintained. The WFD is not currently pursuing
accreditation, although a component of this process (Standards of Cover) has been completed and is
discussed later in this report. It is recommended the WFD consider re-engaging the CPSE
accreditation program and conduct a self-assessment under the CPSE guidelines as a means
toward overall organizational improvement.
Fiscal Review
The City of Watertown Fire Department is funded through the Citys general fund budget. The
greatest percentage of the Citys revenue comes from sales and property taxes, with the percentage
in 2013-14 at 47 percent and 22 percent, respectively. Fees, licenses, and state and federal aid make
up the remainder of the Citys revenues.
10
CPSE, About CPSE (2012), http://www.publicsafetyexcellence.org (accessed on October 31, 2012).
page 26
The sluggish economy has put a strain on Watertowns budget. As is the case with many
communities across the country, the dependence on the sales tax, and property taxes to a lesser
extent, makes the City vulnerable to a downturn in the economy. Figure 11 illustrates how the
economy has affected actual sales tax revenue.
Figure 11: Historical Sales Tax Actuals
The WFDs FY 2014-15 budget is $8,832,626, which represents approximately 22 percent of the
Citys overall $39.72 million general fund budget. The WFD budget for FY 2014-15 is 98.7 percent of
the previous years budget; the slight reduction is due primarily to the reduction of one firefighter
position after a firefighter who retired in 2014 was not replaced.
Overall, the WFD budget has increased by 7 percent since FY 2011-12. The primary line item
driving the WFD budget higher over the last four years has been increasing retirement costs, which
have increased 50 percent since FY 2011-12. In FY 2011-12, retirement costs represented 13.9
percent of the WFD budget; this has grown to 18.5 percent in the FY 2014-15 budget.
The department is very limited in its ability to control its operational costs due to the fact that only
about 5 percent of its operational expenses are not fixed costs. In other words, 95 percent of its
operational expenses are tied to the collective bargaining minimum staffing requirements, its
current service model, etc. Therefore, unless the current fire department fixed-cost model
changes, the budget model will remain the same and potentially may not be sustainable in the
future.
page 27
Infrastructure Overview
Fleet
The provision of an operationally ready and strategically located fleet of mission-essential firerescue vehicles is fundamental to the ability of a fire-rescue department to deliver reliable and
efficient public safety within a community.
The procurement, maintenance, and eventual replacement of aging response vehicles is one of the
largest expenses incurred in sustaining a communitys fire-rescue department. While it is the
personnel of the WFD who provide emergency services within the community, the departments
fleet of response vehicles is essential to operational success, delivering responders and the
equipment/materials they employ to the scene of dispatched emergencies.
The WFD operates and deploys an array of fire apparatus and equipment from three fire stations.
The primary response vehicle to EMS and fire incidents is heavy fire apparatus. The heavy fire
apparatus are listed and described in Table 7. In addition to these vehicles the department operates
and deploys several smaller vehicles such as sports utility vehicles utilized for staff and command
and control, pickup trucks for crew movement and that also have plows for inclement weather, and
watercraft for water rescue incidents.
Table 7: WFD Fire Apparatus

Apparatus Type
Engine 1
Engine 2
Engine 3
Engine 4
Engine 5
Heavy Rescue
Truck 1
Truck 2
Year of
Manufacture
Service Status
2000
2006
2007
1996
1986
2005
2000
1986
Frontline
Frontline
Frontline
Reserve
Reserve
Frontline
Frontline
Reserve
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 committee review process.
The committee membership is made up of representatives from the fire service, manufacturers,
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.
page 28
The Annex Material in NFPA 1901 contains recommendations and work sheets to assist in decision
making in vehicle purchasing. With respect to recommended vehicle service life, the following
excerpt is noteworthy:
"It is recommended that apparatus greater than 15 years old that have been properly
maintained and that are still in serviceable condition be placed in reserve status and upgraded
in accordance with NFPA 1912, Standard for Fire Apparatus Refurbishing, to incorporate as
many features as possible of the current fire apparatus standard. This will ensure that, while
the apparatus might not totally comply with the current edition of the automotive fire
apparatus standards, many improvements and upgrades required by the recent versions of the
standards are available to the firefighters who use the apparatus.
"Apparatus that were not manufactured to the applicable apparatus standards or that are
over 25 years old should be replaced."
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, older vehicles simply do not incorporate the many advances in occupant safety like 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 current replacement schedule the WFD works from is:
Engine apparatus: 15 years frontline, 10 years reserve.
Truck (aerial) apparatus: 20 years frontline, 10 years reserve.
This schedule is in line with the NFPA 1901 benchmark regarding engine apparatus, but not
aerial apparatus, and this should be reviewed by the department. In addition to this schedule,
the WFD also factors in maintenance cost per year as well as available funding. The current capital
improvement plan (CIP) budget is approved to support the fire department replacement plan as
follows: engine 5 is scheduled for replacement in FY 14/15; truck 2 is scheduled for replacement in
FY 16/17; and heavy rescue is scheduled for replacement in FY 18/19. Additionally, engine 1 is
scheduled for refurbishment in FY 15/16. Aggregately, the five-year CIP allots $2,865,500 for fire
department fleet replacement/refurbishment (includes some small vehicles as well).
Vehicle maintenance is performed by the City through the public works department. Fire pump and
aerial apparatus hydraulic work is performed by a third-party vendor that specializes in this type of
maintenance and repair. Required annual testing on ground and aerial ladders, fire pumps, and
other equipment requiring such testing is performed by qualified third-party vendors.
As discussed within this report, the WFD primarily responds heavy fire apparatus on EMS and fire
calls for service. While this is the traditional deployment model in the fire service, there are more
page 29
efficient equipment deployment models, particularly for departments where EMS calls for service
and low acuity fire responses make up the greatest workload demand. This is the case with the
WFD (see Tables 1 and 5, above, for review). A potentially more efficient deployment model that
focuses on reducing wear and tear on heavy fire apparatus and operating costs is to deploy lighter
vehicles on low acuity calls for service, and which have been effectively screened in the emergency
communications center and do not require a fire pump and hose, but do require a fire department
response to abate the call for service. This can include EMS calls for service, and certain fire calls for
service such as smoke odor and smoke detector calls with no smoke or fire present, power line
down, and other public service calls that do not need a heavy fire apparatus as determined in the
emergency communications center. CPSM recommends consideration of this this deployment
model at all three stations, and certainly at a minimum at station 1.
Facilities
Fire department capital facilities are exposed to some of the most intense and demanding uses of
any public local government facility, as they are occupied 24 hours a day. 11 The WFD operates out
of three fire stations. The stations range in age from twenty-six years to thirty-six years, with fire
station 1 being the oldest.
The day-to-day cost of operating a fixed capital facility can burden an operating budget. Some
building maintenance and utility costs are charged directly to the WFD general operating budget.
Any cost incurred for utilities and building repairs and maintenance must be controlled, and
department members must be responsible for seeking opportunities for cost savings. Properly
maintaining mechanical and structural components is critical to the longevity of the facility.
Deferring routine maintenance creates inefficiencies of mechanical systems and increases costs for
replacement and repairs.
The three WFD fire stations, because of their age, have ongoing and regular maintenance issues.
There is no scheduled extensive rehabilitation work and there is no plan to replace or relocate any
of the fire stations. The current capital improvement budget allocates $27,500 for overhead door
work to station 1 during FY 15/16. It was noted that stations 1 and 2 have facilities with gender
separation and that station 3 does not. There should be consideration for a planned future
remedy for this so as not to create potential employee relations issues.
Compton and Granito, eds., Managing Fire and Rescue Services (Washington, DC: International City/County
Management Association, 2002), 219.
11
page 30
Training and Education

A battalion chief serves as the municipal training officer for the WFD. The area of responsibility
includes recruit, incumbent, and officer training. Fire training is legislated by the state of New York.
Minimum standards are required for combat-level firefighters at the entry, incumbent, and officer
level.
Entry-level firefighters are sent to the New York State Firefighter Academy in Montour Falls for
initial training, and to receive basic firefighter training certification. An alternative recruit training
site is located in Utica. The WFD also provides in-house training for those recruits hired who
already possess the minimum standard training; this in-house training is focused on WFD specifics,
and it also ensures the entry-level firefighter has the skills and competencies necessary to perform
in the role of a firefighter.
Incumbent personnel (permanently appointed firefighters and officers) must annually receive 100
hours of minimum standards in-service training. The majority of this training is conducted in-house
utilizing a combination of the municipal training officer, the on-duty battalion chief (shift
commander), and the assigned company officer. The required annual training serves as an annual
refresher and covers all components of the discipline. The municipal training officer also prepares
an annual training schedule for incumbent training. Each platoon is assigned specific training or
tasks that serve as training opportunities for almost every shift of the year each is scheduled.
Firefighter level personnel who are promoted to a lieutenant or captain supervisory level position
(first-line supervisor) must have completed or must complete the 160-hour First Line Supervisors
Training Program. This program is instructed at the New York City Fire Department training
academy and satisfies the state requirement for supervisory level I responsibilities. 12 The course is
offered at no cost to the individual or department as it is funded through the state with cost
reimbursement transferred to the City of New York Fire Department.
Emergency medical services training, certifications, and continuing education requirements are
legislated by the state of New York and coordinated through the North Country EMS Program
Agency.
Fire Prevention
Fire prevention inspections are conducted from the bureau of code enforcement. In 1993 the fire
prevention office, consisting of a fire captain and fire inspector (uniformed positions), was
consolidated into the bureau of code enforcement. Today, this bureau consists of a code
enforcement supervisor, two code enforcement officers, and the two uniformed fire department
inspectors. This office utilizes the 2010 Fire Code of New York State (International Code Council
12
New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, Part 437.
page 31
amended) for fire code compliance. For fire protection system plans review, this office utilizes the
2010 edition of the Building Code of New York State (International Code Council amended).
Whether fire prevention activities are located in the fire department or in the bureau of code
enforcement, it is important to understand that fire suppression and response, although necessary
to protect property, have little impact on preventing fire deaths. Rather, public fire education, fire
prevention, and built-in fire protection systems are essential elements in protecting citizens from
death and injury due to fire, smoke inhalation, and carbon monoxide poisoning. To this end it is
important that contemporary fire prevention practices (strategies developed to prevent loss
from a variety of emergencies) are carried out and measured. Those occupancies of public
assembly where the risk of death or loss is great although the risk of fire is small or infrequent,
along with properties that have a statistical history of fire problems and/or where fires or fire
code issues and concerns are frequent, should be considered a priority and are scheduled for
regular fire inspections.
Included in this is prefire planning and identifying certain structures and occupancies as target
hazards (locally defined occupancies that pose specific risks to occupants and fire service
responders). Prefire planning is the process of gathering and recording information to be used by
decision makers (incident commanders) during a fire or other incident at a given property.
Property and lives may be saved as the incident commander and decision makers have immediate
access to critical information about the building, its contents, and any life safety concerns.
It is important that while conducting prefire planning that the company officer identify the
property as a target hazard, gathering and posting the specific information that classifies the
property as such. Additionally any peculiarities or obvious fire prevention issues that are identified
while conducting prefire planning activities should be communicated to the fire prevention staff, or
in the case of Watertown, to the bureau of code enforcement. This will ensure the potential fire
code issue will be properly addressed. Prefire planning is also beneficial to responding fire
companies in that they become familiar with buildings and occupancies in their district, identifying
potential hazards, routes of ingress and egress, water supply and fire protection connections,
apparatus positioning, and occupant life safety issues to name a few.
CPSM cannot stress enough the importance of the prefire planning process, identifying and
classifying target hazards, and building and occupancy familiarization by fire companies. As such,
CPSM recommends the current prefire planning process be fully implemented, and that this
program include the assignment of buildings and occupancies to specific companies and shifts
for completion, and that this is measured and reported on a quarterly basis, and that regular
building and occupancy familiarization occur, as these are basic foundational practices of the
fire service. CPSM further recommends that as fire companies are conducting prefire planning
activities they work with the bureau of code enforcement and communicate in a timely manner
and report obvious and potential fire prevention, loss, and life safety issues. CPSM is not
recommending fire companies enforce the fire prevention code but rather report fire
prevention concerns and issues to the bureau of code enforcement.
page 32
Operational Analysis
Risk Assessment for Fire Services
One area of internal planning that is a critical component for determining the proper staffing and
deployment model for a fire department is the completion of a Community Fire Risk Assessment.
Whats involved in a fire risk analysis? A fire department collects and organizes risk evaluation
information about individual properties, and on the basis of the rated factors then derives a fire
risk score for each property. This is done by assessing the needed fire flow, probability,
consequences, a n d occupancy risk, and then establishing fire management zones. The score is
then used to categorize the property as one of low-, moderate-, or high/maximum-risk.
The community fire risk assessment may also include determining and defining the differences in
fire risk between a detached single-family dwelling, a multifamily dwelling, an industrial building,
and a high-rise building by placing each in a separate category. Further, an overall community risk
profile can be linked to historical response time data and demand, which is discussed later in this
report. This analysis can then be used to informatively establish response time baselines and
benchmarks.
Community risk and vulnerability assessment are essential elements in a fire departments
planning process. The WFD completed a comprehensive community risk and vulnerability
assessment in 2004 as a part of its Standards of Cover process. This was and remains an
extremely important process to maintain and utilize given the response area, types of
structures, and density in certain parts of the City. Included in this assessment are both
structural and nonstructural (weather, wildland-urban interface, transportation routes, etc.)
components.
A Standards of Cover document, such as the WFD developed in 2004, examines a fire departments
ability to respond to and mitigate emergency incidents created by natural or human-made
disasters. According to the Center for Public Safety Excellence, 13 a Standards of Cover document
represents those written procedures that determine the distribution and concentration of the fixed
and mobile resources of a fire and EMS organization. A systems approach to deployment, rather
than a one-size-fits-all prescriptive formula, allows for local determination of the level of
deployment to meet the risks presented in each community. In this comprehensive approach, each
agency can match local need (risks and expectations) with the costs of various levels of service.
According to a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) paper on assessing community
vulnerability, fire department operational performance is a function of three considerations:
resource availability/reliability, department capability, and operational effectiveness. 14 These
elements can be further defined as:
Center for Public Safety Excellence, Commission on Fire Accreditation International, Chantilly, VA.
Fire Service Deployment, Assessing Community Vulnerability: From
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/urbanfirevulnerability.pdf.
13
14
page 33
Resource availability/reliability: The degree to which the resources are ready and
available to respond.
Department capability: The ability of the resources deployed to manage an incident.
Operational effectiveness: The product of availability and capability. It is the outcome

achieved by the deployed resources or a measure of the ability to match resources deployed
to the risk level to which they are responding. 15
The community risk and vulnerability assessment evaluates the community as a whole, and with
regard to property, measures all property and the risk associated with that property and then
segregates 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. 16 The 2004 WFD Standards of Cover utilizes maximum,
significant, moderate, and low as structural classifications and appropriately defines each in the
document, expanding the maximum and significant classifications into separate classifications from
the stand-alone high-hazard classification that NFPA utilizes.
As the current Standards of Cover document is ten years old, CPSM strongly recommends the
WFD complete an update to this document to include conducting a new fire and community
risk assessment. It should then link this updated assessment to the station and response time
analysis and fire and EMS calls for service demand analysis provided in this report and include
this information in the updated Standards of Cover.
Station and Response Time Analysis

This section discusses response time from current stations. Response time and travel time from
each station, when coupled with demand for service, are the appropriate drivers for making
deployment decisions.
Dispatch time is the difference between the unit dispatch time and call received time. Turnout time
is the difference between the unit time en route and the unit dispatch time. The fire department
has the greatest control over these segments of the total response time. Travel time is the time
interval that initiates when the unit is en route to the call and ends when the unit arrives at the
scene. Response time (or total response time) is the time interval that begins when the call is
received by the primary dispatch center and ends when the dispatched unit arrives on the scene to
initiate action.
Most jurisdictions report all available response data at the mean or average. While the average
provides easily understood statistics, a more conservative and stricter measure of total response
15 National Fire Service Data Summit Proceedings, U.S. Department of Commerce, NIST Tech Note 1698, May
2011.
16 Cote, Grant, Hall & Solomon, eds., Fire Protection Handbook (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection
Association, 2008), 12.
page 34
time is the 90th percentile measurement. Simply explained, for 90 percent of calls, the first unit
arrives within a specified time. A less conservative measure of typical performance is the average.
For comparative purposes, the average (mean) in a normal distribution of data will be represented
near the 50th percentile. The average is more susceptible to influence from outliers such as zero
response times (walk-ins) and delayed responses, so the average will generally reside between the
40th and 60th percentiles.
According to NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression
Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career
Departments, 2010 Edition, where the primary public safety answering point is the communications
center, the alarm processing time or dispatch time should be less than or equal to 60 seconds 90
percent of the time. 17 This standard also states that the turnout time should be less than or equal to
60 seconds for emergency medical services 90 percent of the time, and travel time shall be less than
or equal to 240 seconds for the first responder basic life support (BLS) 90 percent of the time. The
standard further states that the travel times for advanced life support (ALS) service should be 480
seconds 90 percent of the time. Fire responses are afforded an additional 20 seconds (80 seconds)
for turnout time due to the impact of donning personal protective gear prior to beginning the travel
segment while maintaining the same dispatch and travel requirements as the BLS EMS
recommendations. NFPA 1710 response time criterion is utilized by CPSM as a benchmark for service
delivery and in the overall staffing and deployment of a fire department. It is not a CPSM
recommendation as a single criterion. There are several factors as discussed in this report that CPSM
recommends be included in staffing and deployment decisions, such as understanding the fire risk and
incident demand of the community, travel times from fire facilities, unit workload, and critical tasking.
Table 8 depicts average dispatch, turnout, travel, and total response times of first arriving WFD
units for fire and EMS category calls. Table 9 depicts the 90th percentile response time (NFPA 1710
benchmark).
NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency
Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Departments, 2010 Edition, 7.
17
page 35
Table 8: Average Response Time Components of First Arriving Unit

Call Type
Cardiac and stroke
MVA
Fall and injury
Illness and other
EMS Total
Structure fire
Outside fire
Hazard
False alarm
Good intent
Public service
Fire Total
Total
Dispatch
Time
1.8
2.0
1.9
2.5
2.2
2.4
2.4
2.2
1.5
2.4
2.4
1.8
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.2
Turnout
Time
Travel
Time
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
2.3
2.5
2.9
2.8
2.0
3.0
2.8
2.8
1.9
2.2
2.5
1.9
2.5
2.6
2.3
2.6
Response
Time
5.2
5.5
5.8
6.4
5.3
6.5
6.4
6.1
4.7
5.7
6.1
4.9
6.4
6.3
5.7
6.0
Sample
Size
217
221
311
124
96
740
515
2,224
39
67
388
382
52
203
1,131
3,355
Table 9: 90th Percentile Response Time Components of First Arriving Unit

Call Type
Cardiac and stroke
MVA
Fall and injury
Illness and other
EMS Total
Structure fire
Outside fire
Hazard
False alarm
Good intent
Public service
Fire Total
Total
Dispatch Turnout
Time
Time
2.6
3.1
2.7
4.0
3.2
4.1
4.2
3.6
2.7
3.6
4.0
2.8
3.6
3.9
3.5
3.6
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.8
2.0
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.0
1.9
Travel
Time
3.7
4.1
4.3
4.8
3.4
4.6
4.7
4.5
3.9
3.6
4.2
3.3
4.1
4.3
3.9
4.3
Response
Time
6.9
7.3
7.8
9.4
7.8
9.1
9.2
8.6
6.9
9.2
9.2
6.6
8.4
9.3
8.2
8.5
Sample
Size
217
221
311
124
96
740
515
2,224
39
67
388
382
52
203
1,131
3,355
page 36
When comparing average response time components with the 90th percentile components, the
following is observed:
The average dispatch time was 2.2 minutes.
The 90th percentile dispatch time was 3.6 minutes.
The 90th percentile turnout time was 1.9 minutes.
The 90th percentile travel time was 4.3 minutes.
The 90th percentile travel time for structure fire calls was 3.9 minutes.
The 90th percentile travel time for EMS calls was 4.5 minutes.
The 90th percentile response time for EMS calls was 8.6 minutes.
The 90th percentile response time for fire category calls was 8.2 minutes.
The average turnout time was 1.2 minutes.

The average travel time was 2.6 minutes.
The average travel time for structure fire calls was 1.9 minutes.
The average travel time for EMS calls was 2.8 minutes.
The average response time for EMS calls was 6.1 minutes.
The average response time for fire category calls was 5.7 minutes.
The dispatch of calls for service for the WFD is a function of Jefferson County. In the response and
workload analysis, it can be seen that the most glaring response time concern is dispatch time.
When comparing against the 90th percentile, dispatch time is in excess of three times the national
benchmark discussed herein (NFPA 1710s standard of 60 seconds versus the current experience of
204 seconds). While such an elapsed time is understandable when processing EMS calls for service
and utilizing priority medical dispatch algorithms, the fire dispatch time is equally high. It is critical
this time element be addressed and managed, as it adds to the overall WFD response time and
affects the service levels of the WFD. CPSM recommends the WFD address the dispatch time
concerns with the Jefferson County Dispatch Center with a goal of aligning dispatch time closer
to national benchmarking.
Overall turnout time (114 seconds) and travel time (258 seconds) for the WFD is near the national
benchmarking at the 90th percentile. Some improvement can occur in turnout time as, again,
this element of response time is controllable by the fire department, and as such should be
monitored on a continual basis with a goal of continuous improvement. Travel time at the 90th
percentile is only slightly greater than the NFPA 1710 benchmark; however, this is not as
controllable as dispatch and turnout time, since the existing road network and the environment are
contributing factors that can pose issues for emergency response. Response time is, however,
affected overall by the dispatch time.
page 37
In summary, setting reasonable standards for response times should be a local policy decision that
incorporates elements of risk, the communitys willingness to pay for services, the communitys
acceptable level of risk it is willing to assume, and the communitys expectations for service
measured against the service level objectives established in a Standards of Cover.
Current Station and Response Time Analysis

Travel time is analyzed further here through geographic information system (GIS) mapping, as
illustrated in the next set of figures. Figures 12 and 13 utilize GIS mapping to illustrate response
time probabilities, showing 240-second, 360-second, and 480-second travel time bleeds. These
travel time bleeds are made with ArcView GIS, utilizing the existing road network from each WFD
fire station. The blue, green and orange concentric circles equal a 1.5 mile radius around each fire
station; the larger purple-shade concentric circle represents a 2.5 mile concentric circle from
station 1, where the aerial apparatus is stationed. For full credit in the ISO Fire Suppression Rating
Schedule, the fire protection area with residential and commercial properties should have a firstdue engine company within 1.5 road miles and a ladder service company within 2.5 road miles. 18
The location of responding units is one important factor in response time; reducing response times,
which is one of the key performance measures in determining the efficiency of department
operations, is often dependent on this factor. A community with a network of several responding
fire stations seeks to optimize coverage with short travel distances while giving special attention to
natural and manmade barriers and response routes that can create response-time problems. 19
Within the current station deployment system of the WFD, one can see in Figure 13 that the 240second travel time benchmark covers almost 100 percent of the City, and is within each of 1.5 mile
concentric circles, which also cover nearly 100 percent of the City. The 2.5 mile concentric circle
covers almost 100 percent of the City as well. This tells us the initial responding company in each
district is strategically located to provide optimal service. Figure 13 also shows us that at the 360and 480-second benchmark the City is 100 percent covered. The 480-second mark as a benchmark
is notable as the NFPA 1710 standard calls for the collection of the entire first alarm assignment, as
designated by the jurisdiction, within a 480-second travel time parameter. From this mapping and
the collective response travel time data, the three current fire stations are properly placed, with
each providing good travel times at each of the NFPA 1710 national benchmarks. CPSM does not
recommend additional fire stations at this time.
18
19
http://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/3000/ppc3014.html
NFPA 1710, 122.
page 38
Figure 12: 1.5 Mile Concentric Circles from WFD Stations (Insurance Service Office Engine Coverage Benchmark)
2.5 Mile Concentric Circle from Station 1 (Insurance Service Office Ladder Coverage Benchmark)
page 39
Figure 13: 240-, 360-, and 480-Second Travel Time Bleeds from WFD Stations
Red= 240 seconds

Green- 360 seconds
Blue=480 seconds
ArcGIS software
utilizes default speed
limit values to build
response time bleeds
from each station.
page 40
External System Relationships

Local governments use many types of intergovernmental agreements to enhance local fire
protection, with mutual aid and automatic aid agreements among the most common types of these
shared service agreements. In the case of a service delivery system such as the WFDs, where
staffing is maximized through the cross-staffing of units, it is critical that automatic and mutual aid
agreements and an understanding of shared services be in place. Communities such as Watertown
and those contiguous to Watertown rely on surrounding jurisdictions to augment moderate- and
high-risk incident responses.
It is also important that fire departments be able to quickly access extra and/or specialized
resources in the aftermath of a disaster or other large-scale event. In addition, because these types
of incidents do not respect jurisdictional boundaries, they often require coordinated response.
Sharing specialized capabilities, such as aerial ladder apparatus and technical rescue team response
personnel and units, also helps departments reduce costs without impacting service delivery. These
circumstances point to the critical need for good working relationships with other fire and EMS
organizations.
The WFD participates in the Jefferson County Mutual Aid Fire Plan, which is a countywide mutual
aid plan. This plan (implemented in 1983 with latest revision in 2004), among other administrative
components, provides for service between agencies within Jefferson County when additional
resources are needed to mitigate an emergency. The agencies that may participate include all cities,
towns, villages, and fire districts of the county. Participating agencies are only obligated to provide
requested equipment unless notification has been made that the jurisdiction cannot (see next
paragraph). The WFD will respond appropriate resources if these resources are available.
The WFD also is signatory to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Jefferson County
regarding the storage of certain hazardous material response equipment, periodic inspection of this
equipment, and response of the equipment with staffing (when available) and joint training in the
hazardous materials discipline. An MOU of this type is common across the country and it serves the
City as well as the county in the mitigation of a hazardous materials incident.
Lastly, the WFD is signatory to a water rescue automatic aid agreement with the town of
Watertown and the Northpole and Glen Park Fire Departments. These agencies are contiguous to
the City and share a common waterway (Black River). The WFD agrees to automatically respond a
specified crew, resources, and command officer should a water rescue emergency occur outside of
the WFDs jurisdiction. It is also common for this type of agreement to occur when one jurisdiction
staffs, trains, and resources a specific discipline.
As with any agreement or memorandum of understanding in place in a local government and which
is interlocal or otherwise, it is a best practice to routinely review and update in-place agreements or
memorandums of understanding. While there is no standard for this, reviews of agreements that
include revenue or expenditures generally occur or are is driven by the agreement expiration.
Those agreements such as discussed herein generally do not have a termination or expiration date
page 41
and renew automatically or without review for many years (the county mutual aid fire plan calls for
an annual review). Over this period of time leadership and management positions change.
Therefore, it is recommended that the WFD review all interlocal agreements, MOUs, and
memorandums that are in-place and which affect response of assets into another jurisdiction
or which call for response into the City. This review should ensure the information is current,
meets all legal and risk management components, and that all the parties can continue to
provide stated services, or if services can be enhanced or changed.
Operational Staffing and Deployment

The WFD operational staffing personnel are deployed under a 10/14 schedule, meaning a
shift/platoon is scheduled for ten hours during the day shift (8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and fourteen
hours during the night shift (6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.). With this staffing configuration there are four
shifts or platoons. Each platoon is scheduled on-duty for three day shifts, is off-duty for three days,
and is then scheduled for three night shifts. As delineated in Article 5, Section 1a of the current
collective bargaining agreement, this schedule is averaged over a twelve-week period, and with the
inclusion of a single 24-hour Kelley Day for each operational employee, the average workweek is
then forty hours.
As discussed, the WFD is currently budgeted for seventy-eight total personnel, with seventy-two
assigned to fire operations. Under this model there are eighteen personnel assigned to each shift
when the department is at full strength (at the time of this report there were two vacancies at the
firefighter level). Article 5, Section 4b delineates operational shift minimum staffing. The current
collective bargaining agreement stipulates a minimum strength of fourteen members, excluding the
battalion chief position. Section 4b is further interpreted by the department to mean that when
staffing levels fall below fourteen due to a prolonged incident or a mutual aid response that reduces
available staffing in the City, off-duty firefighters are recalled to maintain the fourteen-person
minimum staffing. If available during staff work hours (Monday through Friday), on-duty
administrative staff (training chief, public education officer, fire prevention inspectors) are utilized
to meet the fourteen-person minimum staffing.
As discussed, the WFD operates out of three stations. The following units are deployed with the
minimum staffing noted, per Article 5, Section 8 of the collective bargaining agreement (minimum
of fourteen-personnel excluding the battalion chief):
Station 1: Engine Minimum Staffing of 3
Truck (aerial apparatus) Minimum Staffing of 3
Battalion Chief (shift commander) Minimum Staffing of 1
Rescue- Minimum Staffing of 2
Station 2: Engine - Minimum Staffing of 3
Station 3: Engine - Minimum Staffing of 3
page 42
Aside from the staffing alternatives discussed below, CPSM does not recommend any addition
to the minimum unit staffing currently in place as described above.
Article 5, Section 8 of the collective bargaining agreement further stipulates that at no time is there
to be fewer than eleven operational personnel available to respond to a first alarm assignment. This
drives the recall of off-duty operational personnel as well, which is a driver for overtime.
The recall of personnel to meet the intent of Article 5 Sections 4b and 8 is managed through
departmental standard operating guidelines (3.25 and 3.37). These guidelines delineate recall
methods and define when certain mutual aid responses occur by the WFD when a recall may occur.
Recalls associated with in-City deployment (working incidents that commit one or more units for
extended periods) are managed by the incident commander. Normally, the two opposite shifts are
utilized for recalls and this creates overtime. The WFD does not utilize volunteer members as a
surge capacity asset and should consider this as an alternative to career member recall.
Utilizing volunteer members engages potential and available community members, creates
efficiencies in surge staffing, and avails the department of trained volunteer members for
other, related staffing assignments.
As discussed above, there are eighteen personnel assigned to each of the four platoons. The
additional three firefighter personnel assigned to each platoon (above the fourteen-person
minimum staffing plus the battalion chief) are utilized to fill vacancies created by scheduled and
unscheduled leave, and will temporarily fill a vacancy created by an employee separation. Article 6,
Section 1b stipulates a maximum of six operational personnel (excluding the battalion chief) are
allowed to take annual leave during one period (24 hours or aggregate of a 10-hour and 14-hour
period). One additional leave slot is available to the battalion chief as well during a period as
described above. The battalion chief is not included in the current leave schedule, but should be as
this position is included in the CBA and is allotted three vacation picks, as are all other operational
CBA members. There is also one operational person scheduled off on a Kelley day per work
segment (10 hours or 14 hours). Potentially then, there can be up to nine operational staff members
off on scheduled leave during one twenty-four-hour period. In addition to this, there is the potential
for unscheduled leave (sick, FMLA, and bereavement, as examples), and as well scheduled leave
such as training and union leave.
As one can see, the three additional personnel per platoon can be absorbed quickly by scheduled
and unscheduled leave, which then drives the use of overtime to satisfy minimum staffing in
accordance with the collective bargaining agreement.
Deployment of resources for incidents is managed through standard operating guidelines. Other
than emergency medical services, which is described above, fire service calls generally deploy the
following resources:
Fire alarms, low/moderate risk: 2 engines/1 truck/1 Battalion Chief.
Fire alarms, high/substantial risk: 3 engines/1 truck/1 rescue/1 Battalion Chief.
Structural fires: 3 engines/1 truck/1 rescue/1 Battalion Chief.
page 43
Outside fires: 1 engine (additional units dependent on call type).
Service calls: 1 engine (1 rescue/1 Battalion Chief, dependent on call type)
Standard operating guidelines prescribe certain actions by either a single company, the actions to
be taken by a second engine if deployed with an engine already on scene, the truck and rescue
company, and so on. This is a best practice, as it manages expectations and creates expectations and
efficient operations for companies and for the incident commander.
Alternatives to the current staffing model include demand or peak-load staffing of the rescue
apparatus, or cross-staffing between the truck and rescue apparatus. Currently, the truck
responds to 1.9 runs per day on average. Fifty-nine percent of these runs for the truck are false
alarms. The truck company averages thirty-five minutes a day on calls for service. The rescue
averages 8.7 runs per day; however, 74 percent of these calls are EMS responses and 13 percent are
false alarm responses. By utilizing EMS priority medical dispatch and a modified EMS fire response
as discussed above, EMS workload for the rescue would be reduced significantly.
Based on the analysis of the current workload and the recommended changes to the WFD response
to EMS calls for service, one alternative the City should consider is the cross-staffing of the rescue
and the truck with a single crew of three members. The truck would be deployed on those calls
where the aerial device would potentially be needed and the rescue would be deployed on those
calls where staffing and the complement of standard and specialized equipment and crew resource
skills are needed. This deployment model maximizes staffing and deployment of apparatus as well
as creates efficiencies in staffing. The additional staffing assigned to the rescue (two per shift) can
be utilized as overstaffing to cover scheduled and unscheduled leave. Through time the department
can be reduced with a focus on meeting the demand and workload presented in this report.
Another alternative is to staff the rescue with a crew of two during peak-load times, which has been
established to be between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. (see Figure 5 above). As this is a
fourteen-hour period, some adjustment in hours can be made to maintain the current department
10/14 schedule. The peak call period is between 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., a ten-hour period. This
deployment model requires four members as there are only two platoons of two personnel
(currently there are eight assigned as minimum staffing). The additional staffing assigned to the
rescue (four members) can be utilized as overstaffing to cover scheduled and unscheduled leave, or
through attrition the department can be right-sized with a focus on meeting the demand and
workload presented in this report.
In 2001, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) released 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. This significant event marked the firstever consensus document addressing staffing and response times for the fire service. The goal was
to establish an organized approach to defining adequate levels of service and deployment
capabilities for the fire service. However, the inherent flaw found in this approach was in creating
one set of performance measures for an industry where no two communities or risk portfolios are
the same.
page 44
Additionally, the City earlier commissioned two reports regarding fire department staffing and
deployment. The first was provided in 1986 by Cresap, McCormick and Paget. This report, among
other things, recommended a three-station model and a reduction in staffing to fourteen per
platoon, with the addition of a battalion chief. This is the current staffing model today. The second
report, provided by MMA Consulting Group, recommended with additional findings the
decommissioning of station 3 but redistributing the staffing and expanding the equipment
deployment model to utilize multifunction equipment rather than single function equipment. This
report did not recommend a staffing level less than fifteen. Coincidentally, the MMA report also
called for the revision of how the WFD responds to emergency medical calls for service to include
emergency medical dispatching and the response of fire equipment on only life-threatening calls for
service.
Lastly, the WFD completed a Standards of Cover in 2004 where the minimum number of on-duty
operational staffing of fifteen is discussed, in addition to other resources required, dependent on
the type of risk associated with the call for service. The 2004 document also includes a risk
assessment from which the structural risk of the City is articulated in terms of the numbers of and
types of buildings and the risks they pose. The most prevalent risk (12,763) by building type is of
the moderate risk category, which in Watertown is largely single-family dwellings. The fire chief
believes the moderate risk number of properties as identified in the 2004 report has not changed
appreciably. Higher-risk structures and occupancies, if conditions have rapidly progressed prior to
arrival of the fire department or after arrival of initial companies, generally cannot be handled
entirely by the on-duty Watertown staff. Emergency call-backs and mutual aid will be required. As
such, the staffing and deployment for the greatest share of risk in the City (moderate) is
appropriate in this case. The current staffing and deployment also provides for an initial
complement to begin concentrated mitigation efforts when combatting larger risks. Mutual aid is in
place to provide some surge capacity required to mitigate large-scale events, which do not happen
routinely.
It should be acknowledged that the scope of NFPA 1710 is designed to establish benchmarks
relating to the organization and deployment of fire and EMS operations for career fire departments.
In other words, NFPA 1710 is meant to create a universal level of service for communities serviced
by a career fire department. When considering the applicability of this standard several factors
must be taken into consideration, including the level of risk, demand, demographics, and
community expectation. While these factors must be considered, the local government has the
ultimate responsibility and the authority to establish the level of service within a community.
The WFD addressed the level of risk and demographics, and to some degree, demand, in its 2004
report. This CPSM report addresses demand and response times more succinctly, as well as current
demographics and socioeconomic research. Coupled with the WFD 2004 report, this CPSM report
provides policy makers a better understanding and more contemporary information from which to
draw conclusions on staffing and deployment of fire services.
page 45
Therefore, with regards to WFD staffing and deployment, CPSM recommends:
No additional operational (shift work) staffing be added at this time.
No further reduction in operational (shift work) staffing at this time.
Consider cross-staffing of the rescue and the truck (ladder apparatus) with a single crew of
three.
Consider peak-load staffing the rescue unit with a crew of two between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Based on available funding, fill any funded operational vacancies at this time and maintain
operational staffing at full strength as consistently as possible. This will reduce the reliance
on overtime that is caused by built-in overstaffing designed to fill daily vacancies created by
scheduled and unscheduled leave.
Bargain the inclusion of battalion chiefs into Article 6, Section 1b. The battalion chiefs are
represented by the collective bargaining agreement and thus should be included in the daily
leave count.
Bargain the number of available leave positions from six to five (including the battalion
chief) during one 24-hour period. This will decrease overtime expenditures and adjust the
actual approved leave positions from nine to eight (six annual leave and one Kelley day and
Kelley night) per 24-hour period.
Bargain an increase in the work week as delineated in Article 5, Section 1a of the current
collective bargaining agreement from forty hours to forty-two hours. This includes
eliminating the one 10-hour Kelley Day and one 14-hour Kelley Day per operational (shift
work) member over a twelve week cycle.
Bargain the permanent reassignment of the uniformed fire prevention staff currently
assigned to the bureau of code enforcement to the fire department. Transfer the
appropriate budget and personnel count (fire to codes) to accommodate civilianization of
these positions.
Develop and implement policy that more definitively prescribes when an emergency recall
should occur. CPSM further recommends Article 5, Sections 4b and 8, be removed through
the bargaining process. While it is auspicious to maintain a certain level of personnel on
duty at all times for continuous staffing, this comes with a cost. The staffing and deployment
of fire services and the emergency recall of personnel is and should be both a management
decision process and council policy. Further, the emergency recall of personnel should be
managed by the on-duty battalion chief through approved policy.
page 46
Appendix I: Data and Workload Analysis

Introduction
This data analysis was prepared as a key component of the operational study of the Watertown Fire
Department (WFD). This analysis examines all calls for service between July 1, 2013, and June 30,
2014, as recorded in the communications center.
This analysis is divided into four sections: the first section focuses on call types and dispatches; the
second section explores time spent and workload of individual units; the third section presents
analysis of the busiest hours in a year; and the fourth section provides a response time analysis of
WFD units.
During the period covered by this study, the department operated out of three stations. The
department deploys three pumpers, one ladder tower, one heavy rescue, and a shift command unit
24 hours a day, 7 days a week. When needed, the department utilizes two reserve pumpers and one
reserve ladder tower.
During the study period, the department responded to 4,182 calls, including 9 mutual aid calls. The
total combined yearly workload (deployed time) for all WFD units was 2,946 hours. The average
estimated dispatch time of the first arriving WFD unit was 2.2 minutes and the average response
time of the first arriving WFD unit was 6.0 minutes. The 90th percentile dispatch time was 3.6
minutes and the 90th percentile response time was 8.5 minutes, which means that WFD units had a
response time of less than 8.5 minutes for 90 percent of these calls. It should be noted that an ice
storm caused a significant increase in emergency incidents on December 22 and 23, 2013, which
led to a total of 233 wires and tree down incidents, for which data were not available for this report.
Methodology
In this report, we analyze call and run data. A call is an emergency service request or incident. A run
is a dispatch of a unit. Thus, a call might include multiple runs.
We received CAD and National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) data for the Watertown Fire
Department. We first validated CAD and NFIRS data, and we removed CAD test calls from analysis.
We classified the calls in a series of steps. We first used the NFIRS mutual aid field to accurately
identify mutual aid calls from the WFD perspective. Then, we used NFIRS incident type to assign
EMS call types, MVA, fire category, and canceled call types. Lastly, we used CAD call nature to
further break down NFIRS EMS calls.
A total of eight incidents to which support units (fire chief, deputy fire chief, and support vehicles)
were the sole responders are not included in the analysis sections of the report. Nevertheless, the
workload of support units is documented in Attachment I. In this report, mutual aid and canceled
calls are not included in the analysis of call duration and response time analysis.
page 47
Aggregate Call Totals and Dispatches

In this report, each citizen-initiated emergency service request is a call. During the year studied,
WFD responded to 4,182 calls. Of these, 50 were structure fire calls and 84 were outside fire calls
within WFDs jurisdiction. Each dispatched unit is a separate run. As multiple units are dispatched
to a call, there are more runs than calls. The departments total runs and workload are reported in
the second section of this data analysis.
Table D-1: Call Types
Call Type
Cardiac and stroke
MVA
Fall and injury
Illness and other
EMS Total
Structure fire
Outside fire
Hazard
False alarm
Good intent
Public service
Fire Total
Mutual aid
Canceled
Total
Average
Calls
Number
of Calls per Day
237
0.65
258
0.71
355
0.97
154
0.42
121
0.33
846
2.32
587
1.61
2,558
7.01
50
0.14
84
0.23
493
1.35
519
1.42
73
0.20
322
0.88
1,541
4.22
9
0.02
74
0.20
4,182
11.45
Call
Percentage
5.7
6.2
8.5
3.7
2.9
20.2
14.0
61.2
1.2
2.0
11.8
12.4
1.7
7.7
36.8
0.2
1.8
100.0
Observations:
The department received an average of 11.45 calls per day.
EMS calls for the year totaled 2,558 (61.2 percent of all calls), averaging 7.01 per day.
Fire calls for the year totaled 1,541 (36.8 percent of all calls), averaging 4.22 per day.
Structure and outside fires combined for a total of 134 calls during the year, an average of
0.37 calls per day.
Mutual aid calls totaled 9, and canceled calls totaled 74.
page 48
Figure D-1: EMS and Fire Calls by Type
page 49
Observations:
A total of 50 structure fire calls accounted for 3 percent of the fire category total.
A total of 84 outside fire calls accounted for 5 percent of the fire category total.
False alarm calls were the largest fire call category, making up 34 percent of the fire
category total.
Fall and injury calls were the largest EMS call category and accounted for 33 percent of the
EMS category total.
Cardiac or stroke calls were 9 percent of the EMS category total.
Motor vehicle accidents calls were 5 percent of the EMS category total.
page 50
Table D-2: Calls by Type and Duration
Call Type
Cardiac and stroke
MVA
Fall and injury
Illness and other
EMS Total
Structure fire
Outside fire
Hazard
False alarm
Good intent
Public service
Fire Total
Mutual aid
Canceled
Total
Less
than
Half an
Hour
200
212
323
132
77
769
512
2,225
17
64
293
394
68
177
1,013
4
74
3,316
Half an
Hour to
One
Hour
32
42
29
22
40
68
65
298
21
12
119
77
5
85
319
4
0
621
One to
Two
Hours
5
4
3
0
4
8
7
31
9
7
60
35
0
47
158
1
0
190
Greater
than
Two
Hours
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
4
3
1
21
13
0
13
51
0
0
55
Total
237
258
355
154
121
846
587
2,558
50
84
493
519
73
322
1,541
9
74
4,182
page 51
Figure D-2: EMS Calls by Type and Duration
Note: Duration of a call is defined as the longest deployed time of any of the WFD units responding to the same
call.
page 52
Observations:
A total of 2,225 EMS category calls (87 percent of all calls in this category) lasted less than
half an hour, 298 EMS category calls (12 percent) lasted between half an hour and one hour,
and 35 EMS category calls (1 percent) lasted more than one hour.
A total of 200 cardiac and stroke calls (84 percent of this category of call) lasted less than
half an hour, 32 cardiac and stroke calls (14 percent) lasted between half an hour and one
hour, and 5 cardiac and stroke calls (2 percent) lasted more than an hour.
A total of 77 motor vehicle accident calls (64 percent of this category of call) lasted less than
half an hour, 40 motor vehicle accident calls (33 percent) lasted between half an hour and
one hour, and 4 motor vehicle accident calls (3 percent) lasted more than an hour.
A total of 769 fall and injury calls (91 percent of this category of call) lasted less than half an
hour, 68 fall and injury calls (8 percent) lasted between half an hour and one hour, and 9 fall
and injury calls (1 percent) lasted more than an hour.
page 53
Figure D-3: Fire Calls by Type and Duration
Note: Duration of a call is defined as the longest deployed time of any of the WFD units responding to the same
call.
page 54
Observations:
A total of 1,013 fire category calls (66 percent of all calls in this category) lasted less than
half an hour, 319 fire category calls (21 percent) lasted between half an hour and one hour,
158 fire category calls (10 percent) lasted between one and two hours, and 51 fire category
calls (3 percent) lasted more than two hours.
A total of 38 structure fire calls (76 percent of this category of call) lasted less than one
hour, 9 structure fire calls (18 percent) lasted between one and two hours, and 3 structure
fire calls (6 percent) lasted more than two hours.
A total of 76 outside fire calls (90 percent of this category of call) lasted less than one hour,
7 outside fire calls (8 percent) lasted between one and two hours, and 1 outside fire call (1
percent) lasted more than two hours.
A total of 471 false alarm calls (91 percent of this category of call) lasted less than one hour,
35 false alarm calls (7 percent) lasted between one and two hours, and 13 false alarm calls
(2 percent) lasted more than two hours.
page 55
Figure D-4: Average Calls per Day, by Month
Observations:
Average calls per day ranged from a low of 9.1 calls per day in March 2014 to a high of
13.1 calls per day in January 2014. The highest monthly average was 44 percent greater
than the lowest monthly average.
Average EMS calls per day ranged from a low of 6.0 calls per day in March 2014 to a high of
8.4 calls per day in June 2014. The highest monthly average was 39 percent greater than the
lowest monthly average.
Average fire calls per day ranged from a low of 3.0 calls per day in March 2014 to a high of
6.7 calls per day in December 2013. The highest monthly average was 122 percent greater
than the lowest monthly average.
The most calls received in a single day, for which data were available, was 52. That occurred
on December 22, 2013, caused by an ice storm. Those 52 calls included 9 EMS calls,
1 structure fire call, 26 hazard calls, 7 false alarm calls, and 9 public service calls. Most of
those 26 hazard calls were related to wires/tree down. On the next day, December23, 2013,
there was data to support the fact that WFD units responded to 41 calls in a day.
page 56
Figure D-5: Calls by Hour of Day
Table D-3: Calls by Hour of Day

Two-Hour
Interval
0-1
2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-19
20-21
22-23
Calls per Day
Hourly Call Rate

EMS
Fire
Total
0.22
0.08
0.31
0.23
0.09
0.32
0.15
0.08
0.24
0.17
0.12
0.29
0.32
0.22
0.54
0.37
0.25
0.62
0.36
0.24
0.61
0.31
0.22
0.53
0.37
0.23
0.60
0.40
0.21
0.61
0.32
0.20
0.52
0.27
0.17
0.44
7. 01
4.22
11.23
Note: Average calls per day shown are the sum of each column
multiplied by two, since each cell represents two hours.
page 57
Observations:
Hourly call rates averaged between 0.24 calls and 0.62 calls per hour.
Call rates were highest during the day between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., averaging between
0.52 and 0.62 calls per hour.
Call rates were lowest between midnight and 8:00 a.m., averaging between 0.24 and 0.32
calls per hour.
page 58
Figure D-6: Number of Units Dispatched to Calls
page 59
Table D-4: Number of Watertown Fire Department Units Dispatched to Calls

Number of WFD Units
Call Type
Cardiac and stroke
MVA
Fall and injury
Illness and other
EMS Total
Structure fire
Outside fire
Hazard
False alarm
Good intent
Public service
Fire Total
Mutual aid
Canceled
Grand Total
Percentage
One
114
168
307
124
21
769
467
1,970
3
61
311
97
39
240
751
7
60
2,788
66.7
Two
122
87
48
29
94
73
111
564
0
7
96
13
7
22
145
2
10
721
17.2
Three
1
3
0
0
4
3
3
14
0
1
11
4
1
6
23
0
1
38
0.9
Four or
More
0
0
0
1
2
1
6
10
47
15
75
405
26
54
622
0
3
635
15.2
Total
237
258
355
154
121
846
587
2,558
50
84
493
519
73
322
1,541
9
74
4,182
100
Observations:
On average, 2.9 units were dispatched per fire category call.
For fire category calls, one unit was dispatched 49 percent of the time, two units were
dispatched 9 percent of the time, and three or more units were dispatched 41 percent of the
time.
For structure fire calls, one unit was dispatched 3 times, and four or more units were
dispatched on 47 calls.
For outside fire calls, one unit was dispatched 73 percent of the time, two units were
dispatched 8 percent of the time, three units were dispatched once, and four or more units
were dispatched 18 percent of the time.
On average, 1.2 units were dispatched per EMS category call.
For EMS category calls, one unit was dispatched 77 percent of the time, two units were
dispatched 22 percent of the time, and three or more units were dispatched 1 percent of the
time.
page 60
Table D-5: Annual Deployed Time by Call Type
Call Type
Cardiac and stroke
MVA
Fall and injury
Illness and other
EMS Total
Structure fire
Outside fire
Hazard
False alarm
Good intent
Public service
Fire Total
Mutual aid
Canceled
Total
Average
Deployed
Minutes
per Run
20.4
20.3
19.6
18.6
21.9
18.9
20.4
19.9
39.7
31.2
31.6
19.2
14.4
30.7
24.9
28.5
5.6
22.6
Annual
Hours
123
119
132
58
84
292
249
1,058
186
86
510
735
50
308
1,874
5
9
2,946
Percent Deployed Annual

of Total Minutes Number
Hours
per Day of Runs
4.2
20.2
361
4.0
19.5
351
4.5
21.7
403
2.0
9.6
188
2.9
13.9
231
9.9
48.1
928
8.5
40.9
733
35.9
173.9
3,195
6.3
30.5
281
2.9
14.1
165
17.3
83.8
969
24.9
120.8
2,292
1.7
8.2
207
10.5
50.6
603
63.6
308.0
4,517
0.2
0.9
11
0.3
1.5
100
100
484.3
7,823
Runs
per
Day
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.5
0.6
2.5
2.0
8.8
0.8
0.5
2.7
6.3
0.6
1.7
12.4
0.0
0.3
21.4
Note: Each dispatched unit is a separate "run." As multiple units are dispatched to a call, there are more runs than
calls. Therefore, the department responded to 11.2 calls per day and had 21.4 runs per day.
Observations:
Total deployed time for the year, or deployed hours, was 2,946 hours. This is the total
deployment time of all the units deployed on all type of calls; including 14 hours spent on
mutual aid and canceled calls. The deployed hours for all units combined averaged
approximately 8.1 hours per day.
There were 7,823 runs, including 11 runs dispatched for mutual aid calls. The daily average
was 21.4 runs for all units combined.
Fire category calls accounted for 63.6 percent of the total workload.
There were 446 runs for structure and outside fire calls, with a total workload of 272 hours.
This accounted for 9.2 percent of the total workload. The average deployed time for
structure and outside fire calls was 40 and 31 minutes, respectively.
EMS calls accounted for 35.9 percent of the total workload. The average deployed time for
EMS calls was 20 minutes. The deployed hours for all units dispatched to EMS calls
averaged 2.9 hours per day.
page 61
Workload by Individual UnitCalls and Total Time Spent

In this section, the actual time spent by each unit on calls is reported in two types of statistics:
workload and runs. A dispatch of a unit is defined as a run; thus one call might include multiple
runs. The deployed time of a run is from the time a unit is dispatched through the time a unit is
cleared.
Table D-6: Call Workload by Unit
Station
1
2
3
Unit Type
Shift Commander
Pumper
Heavy Rescue
Ladder Tower
Pumper
Pumper
Unit ID
4703
47E1
47R1
47T1
47E2
47E3
Average
Deployed
Minutes
per Run
28.1
29.0
18.7
18.8
25.5
23.3
Annual
Number
of Runs
682
1,108
3,184
682
1,198
969
Annual
Hours
319.4
535.9
990.6
213.1
510.1
376.8
Runs
per
Day
1.9
3.0
8.7
1.9
3.3
2.7
Deployed
Hours
per Day
0.9
1.5
2.7
0.6
1.4
1.0
Note: Reserve command unit 4704 was counted as 4703; reserve ladder tower 47T2 was counted as 47T1; reserve
pumper 47E4 was counted as 47E1; reserve pumper 47E5 was counted as 47E2.
Observations:
Heavy Rescue 47R1 made the most runs, averaging 8.7 runs and 2.7 hours of deployed time
per day.
Of the three pumpers, 47E2 made the most runs, averaging 3.3 runs and 1.4 hours of
deployed time per day.
Pumper 47E1 averaged 3.0 runs and 1.5 hours of deployed time per day.
Pumper 47E3 averaged 2.7 runs and 1.0 hours of deployed time per day.
Shift commander 4703 averaged 1.9 runs and 0.9 hours of deployed time per day.
page 62
Figure D-7: Deployed Minutes by Hour of Day
Table D-7: Deployed Minutes by Hour of Day

Two-Hour
Interval
0-1
2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-19
20-21
22-23
Daily Total
EMS
5.0
5.2
3.7
4.5
8.0
9.4
9.5
7.4
9.2
10.9
7.5
6.6
173.9
Fire
8.2
7.8
6.1
9.2
14.1
22.3
14.4
13.6
16.6
18.1
13.7
9.7
308.0
Total
13.2
13.0
9.8
13.7
22.1
31.7
24.0
21.1
25.8
29.1
21.2
16.3
481.9
Note: Daily totals shown equal the sum of each column multiplied
by two, since each cell represents two hours.
page 63
Observations:
Hourly deployed minutes were highest during the day between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.,
averaging between 21.1 minutes and 31.7 minutes per hour. Average deployed minutes
peaked between 10:00 a.m. and noon, averaging about 31.7 minutes per hour.
Hourly deployed minutes were the lowest between midnight and 6:00 a.m., averaging
between 9.8 minutes and 13.2 minutes per hour.
page 64
Table D-8: Total Annual and Daily Average Number of Runs by Call Type and Unit
Station
1
2
3
Unit Type
Shift Commander
Pumper
Heavy Rescue
Ladder Tower
Pumper
Pumper
Unit
4703
47E1
47R1
47T1
47E2
47E3
EMS
27
172
2,352
31
373
240
Structure
Fire
47
47
47
48
47
45
Outside
Fire
19
34
16
15
44
37
Hazard
94
247
156
78
211
183
False
Alarm
403
419
414
405
356
295
Good
Intent
27
36
33
29
36
46
Public
Service
59
142
94
72
119
117
Mutual
aid
Canceled
3
3
4
7
3
69
0
4
0
12
1
5
Total
682
1,108
3,184
682
1,198
969
Note: A dispatch of a unit is defined as a run; thus a call might include multiple runs.
Observations:
Heavy Rescue 47R1 had the most runs during the year and it averaged 8.7 runs per day. However, most of the runs were EMS
responses (74 percent), and structure and outside fire calls only totaled 63 runs during the year.
Of the three pumpers, 47E2 had the most runs during the year and it averaged 3.3 runs per day. Structure and outside fire calls
only totaled 91 runs during the year. Pumpers 47E1 and 47E3 averaged 3.0 and 2.7 runs per day, respectively.
Shift commander averaged 1.9 runs per day.
page 65
Runs
per Day
1.9
3.0
8.7
1.9
3.3
2.7
Table D-9: Daily Average Deployed Minutes by Call Type and Unit
Station
Unit Type
Shift Commander
Pumper
Heavy Rescue
Ladder Tower
Pumper
Pumper
1
2
3
Unit
EMS
4703
47E1
47R1
47T1
47E2
47E3
2.8
10.7
126.0
2.1
20.0
12.2
Structure
Fire
6.7
5.2
4.2
5.4
5.3
3.7
Outside
Fire
1.4
4.8
0.8
0.6
4.9
1.7
Hazard
False
Alarm
Good
Intent
Public
Service
10.5
23.0
9.7
6.2
19.3
15.1
24.0
27.9
15.1
15.4
20.9
17.7
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.4
1.7
5.4
14.6
4.6
4.3
11.9
9.8
Mutual
aid
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
Canceled
0.1
0.1
1.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
Total
Fire
Category
Calls
Percentage
52.5
88.1
162.8
35.0
83.9
61.9
Observations:
On average, Heavy Rescue 47R1 was deployed 163 minutes (2 hour and 43 minutes) per day. EMS calls accounted for 77.4 percent
of its workload.
On average, Pumper 47E1 was deployed 88 minutes (1 hour and 28 minutes) per day. Fire category calls accounted for 87.9
percent of its workload.
On average, Pumper 47E2 was deployed 84 minutes (1 hour and 24 minutes) per day, and fire category calls accounted for 76.1
percent of its total.
On average, Pumper 47E3 was deployed 62 minutes (1 hour and 2 minutes) per day, and fire category calls accounted for 80.3
percent of its total.
Shift commander averaged 53 minutes of deployed time per day.
page 66
94.6
87.9
22.6
93.9
76.1
80.3
Analysis of Busiest Hours

There is significant variability in the number of calls from hour to hour. One special concern relates
to the fire and EMS resources available for hours with the heaviest workload. We tabulated the data
for each of the 8,760 hours in the year. Approximately once every 13.5 days, the Watertown Fire
Department responded to four or more calls in an hour. This occurred in 0.3 percent of the total
number of hours in the year studied. We report the top ten hours with the most calls received and
discuss the two hours with the most calls received.
Table D-10: Frequency Distribution of the Number of Calls

Number of
Calls in an
Hour
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
14
Frequency Percentage
5,556
63.42
2,434
27.79
608
6.94
135
1.54
21
0.24
3
0.03
1
0.01
1
0.01
1
0.01
Observations:
During 27 hours (0.3 percent of all hours), four or more calls occurred; in other words, the
WFD responded to four or more calls in an hour roughly once every 13.5 days.
Three calls occurred during 135 hours of the year; this means that WFD responded to three
calls in an hour roughly once every 2.7 days.
page 67
Table D-11: Top 10 Hours with the Most Calls Received
Hour
12/22/2013, 4 a.m. to 5 a.m.*
12/23/2013, 9 a.m. to 10 a.m.*
11/1/2013, 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.
1/3/2014, 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
1/4/2014, 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.
1/24/2014, 8 p.m. to 9 p.m.
6/13/2014, 4 p.m. to 5 p.m.
1/11/2014, 9 p.m. to 10 p.m.
3/11/2014, 11 a.m. to 12 p.m.
1/3/2014, 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Number
of Calls
14
8
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
Number
of Runs
18
16
6
16
13
9
17
14
10
9
Total
Deployed
Hours
9.5
2.7
1.8
5.3
5.1
2.4
2.5
5.1
2.5
5.2
Note: The combined workload is the total deployed minutes spent responding
to calls received in the hour, and which may extend into the next hour or hours.
*Number of runs only includes dispatches from WFD units.
Observations:
Watertown had an ice storm that began on December 22, 2013 and which created a
significant number of emergency incidents. The top two hours with most calls received
occurred during the storm. The hour with the most calls received was 4:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.
on December 22, 2013. Based upon data available for this report, there were 14 calls, which
involved 18 individual runs. These 14 calls included one structure fire call, nine hazard calls
(wires/tree down), and four public service calls. The combined workload was 9.5 hours.
The structure fire was responded to by four WFD units, and lasted 114 minutes (1 hour and
54 minutes).
The hour with the second most calls was 9:00 a.m. to10:00 a.m. on December 23, 2013.
Based upon data available for this report, there were eight calls, which involved 16
individual runs. These eight calls included three hazard calls, one good intent call, and four
public service calls. The combined workload was 2.7 hours. The longest call lasted 23
minutes, and it was a public service call, which was responded to by one WFD unit. The
good intent call was responded to by six WFD units, and lasted 19 minutes.
page 68
Table D-12: Unit Workload Analysis between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. on December 22, 2013
Hour
12/22/2013
4:00-5:00
a.m.
Station
Unit
05
510
1015
1520
2025
2530
3035
3540
4045
4550
5055
5560
Total
4703
Station 1
47E1
47R1
3.1
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.7
19.8
3.1
5.0
3.5
Station 2
47E2
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.3
1.0
12.6
0.4
5.0
42.7
47T1
Station 3
47E3
5.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
5.0
0.4
0.5
Number of
Busy Units
2
2
3
3
3
4
3
3
0
0
1
2
22.8
Note: The numbers in the cells are the deployed minutes within the five-minute block. The cell values greater than 2.5 are coded red.
Observations:
During this hour, four units made 18 runs and responded to 14 calls. These 14 calls included one structure fire call, nine hazard
calls (wires/tree down), and four public service calls. The combined workload was 9.5 hours. The structure fire was responded to
by four WFD units, and lasted 114 minutes (1 hour and 54 minutes).
During the busiest five minutes in the hour (4:25 to 4:30 a.m.), four units (three pumpers and one ladder) were deployed
simultaneously. During 25 minutes in the hour (4:10 to 4:25 a.m. and 4:30 to 4:40 a.m.), three units were deployed
simultaneously.
Pumper 47E2 was deployed more than 30 minutes in this hour.
page 69
Table D-13: Unit Workload Analysis between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on December 23, 2013
Station
Hour
12/23/2013
9:00-10:00
a.m.
Unit
05
510
1015
1520
2025
2530
3035
3540
4045
4550
5055
5560
Total
Station 1
4703
2.8
5.0
4.0
11.9
47E1
4.8
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
3.7
2.8
2.5
33.2
47R1
47T1
1.6
2.5
2.8
1.9
2.8
2.3
7.2
6.7
Station 2
Station 3
47E2
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.6
47E3
43.6
31.5
2.1
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.8
2.8
5.0
3.8
Number
of Busy
Units
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
2
6
5
2
0
Note: The numbers in the cells are the deployed minutes within the five-minute block. The cell values greater than 2.5 are coded red.
Observations:
During this hour, six units made 16 runs and responded to eight calls. These eight calls included three hazard calls, one good intent
call, and four public service calls. The combined workload was 2.7 hours. The longest call lasted 23 minutes, and it was a public
service call, which was responded to by one WFD unit. The good intent call was responded to by six units, and lasted 19 minutes.
During the busiest ten minutes in the hour (9:40 to 9:50 a.m.), five or six units were deployed simultaneously. During ten minutes
in the hour (9:25 to 9:35 a.m.), four units were deployed simultaneously.
Three pumpers were deployed more than 30 minutes in this hour.
page 70
Dispatch Time and Response Time

This section presents dispatch and response time statistics for different call types and units. Since
the first arriving WFD units had the shortest response time of all responding units, we focus on the
dispatch and response time of the first arriving WFD units for calls responded with lights and
sirens. However, for structure and outside fire calls, we also analyze the response time of the
second arriving units.
Different terms are used to describe the components of response time: Dispatch time is the
difference between the unit dispatch time and call received time. Turnout time is the difference
between the unit time en route and the unit dispatch time. Travel time is the difference between the
unit on-scene arrival time and the time en route. Response time is the difference between the onscene arrival time and call received time.
In this section, we only included first arriving units with complete unit dispatch time, unit time en
route, and unit on-scene arrival time. Thus, a total of 3,355 fire and EMS category calls (82 percent)
were used in the analysis. We provided analysis of average and 90th percentile statistics to
measure response time performance. The average dispatch time was 2.2 minutes. The average
turnout time was 1.2 minutes, and the average travel time was 2.6 minutes. The average response
time for EMS calls was 6.1 minutes, and the average response time for fire category calls was 5.7
minutes. The average response time for structure fire calls was 4.7 minutes. The average response
time for outside fire calls was 5.7 minutes. The 90th percentile response time was 8.5 minutes,
which means that WFD units had a response time of less than 8.5 minutes for 90 percent of calls.
page 71
Table D-14: Average Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times of First
Arriving Unit, by Call Type
Call Type
Cardiac and stroke
MVA
Fall and injury
Illness and other
EMS Total
Structure fire
Outside fire
Hazard
False alarm
Good intent
Public service
Fire Total
Total
Dispatch
Time
1.8
2.0
1.9
2.5
2.2
2.4
2.4
2.2
1.5
2.4
2.4
1.8
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.2
Turnout
Time
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
Travel
Time
2.3
2.5
2.9
2.8
2.0
3.0
2.8
2.8
1.9
2.2
2.5
1.9
2.5
2.6
2.3
2.6
Response
Time
5.2
5.5
5.8
6.4
5.3
6.5
6.4
6.1
4.7
5.7
6.1
4.9
6.4
6.3
5.7
6.0
Sample
Size
217
221
311
124
96
740
515
2,224
39
67
388
382
52
203
1,131
3,355
Figure D-8: Average Dispatch, Turnout, and Travel Times of First Arriving Unit
by EMS Call Type
page 72
Figure D-9: Average Dispatch, Turnout, and Travel Times of First Arriving Unit
by Fire Call Type
Observations:
The average dispatch time was 2.2 minutes.

The average turnout time was 1.2 minutes.
The average travel time was 2.6 minutes.
The average response time for EMS calls was 6.1 minutes.
The average response time for fire category calls was 5.7 minutes.
The average response time for structure fire calls was 4.7 minutes.
The average response time for outside fire calls was 5.7 minutes.
page 73
Table D-15: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times of
First Arriving Unit, by Call Type
Call Type
Dispatch Turnout
Time
Time
Travel
Time
Response Sample
Time
Size
Cardiac and stroke
2.6
1.8
3.7
6.9
217
3.1
1.7
4.1
7.3
221
2.7
1.8
4.3
7.8
311
4.0
1.9
4.8
9.4
124
MVA
3.2
1.8
3.4
7.8
96
Fall and injury
4.1
2.0
4.6
9.1
740
Illness and other
4.2
1.8
4.7
9.2
515
3.6
1.9
4.5
8.6
2,224
Structure fire
2.7
2.0
3.9
6.9
39
Outside fire
3.6
1.8
3.6
9.2
67
Hazard
4.0
1.9
4.2
9.2
388
False alarm
2.8
1.9
3.3
6.6
382
Good intent
3.6
2.0
4.1
8.4
52
Public service
3.9
2.1
4.3
9.3
203
Fire Total
3.5
2.0
3.9
8.2
1,131
Total
3.6
1.9
4.3
8.5
3,355
EMS Total
Note: A 90th percentile value of 8.5 indicates that the total response time was less than 8.5 minutes for
90 percent of all calls. Unlike averages, the 90th percentile response time is not equal to the sum of the
90th percentile of dispatch time, turnout time, and travel time.
Observations:
The 90th percentile dispatch time was 3.6 minutes.

The 90th percentile turnout time was 1.9 minutes.
The 90th percentile travel time was 4.3 minutes.
The 90th percentile response time for EMS calls was 8.6 minutes.
The 90th percentile response time for fire category calls was 8.2 minutes.
The 90th percentile response time for structure fire calls was 6.9 minutes.
The 90th percentile response time for outside fire calls was 9.2 minutes.
page 74
Figure D-10: Average Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Time of First
Arriving Unit, by Hour of Day
page 75
Table D-16: Average Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times of First
Arriving Unit, by Hour of Day
Hour
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Dispatch Turnout
Time
Time
2.6
1.5
2.7
1.7
2.7
1.7
2.5
1.8
2.5
1.8
2.3
1.7
2.3
1.4
2.0
1.1
2.1
1.0
1.9
1.1
1.9
1.1
2.0
1.1
2.0
1.2
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.1
1.0
2.2
1.0
2.1
1.0
2.3
1.0
2.4
1.0
2.1
1.1
2.2
1.1
2.3
1.2
2.7
1.3
Travel
Time
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.7
3.0
2.7
3.0
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.6
90th
Percentile
Response Response
Time
Time
6.7
9.6
7.1
10.2
7.0
9.9
7.0
9.5
7.3
9.6
6.7
9.0
6.6
9.2
5.7
8.4
5.7
8.6
5.5
7.9
5.6
7.8
5.6
7.9
5.7
8.2
5.5
7.3
5.6
7.8
5.8
7.8
5.7
7.8
5.6
7.9
5.7
8.4
5.9
8.7
5.7
8.2
5.8
7.9
6.1
9.3
6.6
8.8
Sample
Size
108
92
102
93
64
65
73
103
145
173
154
209
178
173
169
134
183
180
172
181
193
133
136
142
Observations:
Average dispatch time was between 1.9 and 2.7 minutes.
Average turnout time was between 1.0 and 1.8 minutes. Turnout time peaked between
midnight and 6:00 a.m., averaging between 1.5 and 1.8 minutes.
Average travel time was between 2.4 and 3.0 minutes.
Average response time was between 5.5 and 7.3 minutes. Response time peaked between
1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., averaging above 7.0 minutes.
page 76
Figure D-11: Number of Total Calls by First Arriving Units
Table D-17: Number of Total Calls by First Arriving Units
Unit
47R1
47E2
47E3
47E1
4703
47T1
EMS
1,743
242
139
93
1
6
Structure
and
Outside
Fire
5
40
23
20
16
2
Other
Fire
141
270
209
235
140
30
Total
1,889
552
371
348
157
38
Cumulative
Percentage Percentage
56.3
56.3
16.5
72.8
11.1
83.8
10.4
94.2
4.7
98.9
1.1
100.0
Observations:
47R1 arrived first on scene most often, followed by 47E2 and 47E3. Those three units
accounted for 84 percent of the first arrivals at calls.
For structure and outside fire calls, 47E2 and 47E3 arrived first on scene most often.
page 77
Figure D-12: Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of Response Time of First

Arriving Unit for EMS calls
Reading the CDF Chart: The vertical axis is the probability or percentage of calls. The horizontal axis is response
time. For example, with regard to EMS calls, the 0.9 probability line intersects the graph at the time mark at about
8.6 minutes for first arriving WFD unit. This means that WFD units had a response time of less than 8.6 minutes for
90 percent of these calls.
page 78
Figure D-13: Frequency Distribution Chart of Response Time of First Arriving

Unit for EMS Calls
page 79
Table D-18: Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of Response Time of First

Arriving Unit for EMS Calls
Response
Time
Cumulative
(minute) Frequency Percentage
0-1
0.0
1-2
0.1
2-3
20
1.0
3-4
182
9.2
4-5
474
30.5
5-6
556
55.5
6-7
417
74.2
7-8
260
85.9
8-9
137
92.1
9 - 10
79
95.6
10 - 11
40
97.4
11 - 12
29
98.7
> = 12
28
100.0
Observations:
The average response time of first arriving WFD unit for EMS calls was 6.1 minutes.
For 85.9 percent of EMS calls, the response time of the first arriving WFD unit was less than
or equal to 8 minutes.
For 90 percent of EMS calls, the response time of the first arriving WFD was less than
8.6 minutes.
page 80
Table D-19: Average Response Time for Structure and Outside Fire Calls by First
Arriving Unit
Unit Type
First
Arriving
Unit
Outside Fire
Structure Fire
Total
Response Number Response Number

Time
of Calls
Time
of Calls
Response
Time
Number
of Calls
Heavy Rescue
47R1
4.3
4.0
4.1
Ladder Tower
47T1
NA
4.6
4.6
Pumper
47E1
5.2
17
5.6
5.2
20
Pumper
47E2
5.7
28
4.2
12
5.3
40
Pumper
47E3
6.5
18
4.5
6.0
23
Shift Commander
4703
4.4
5.1
13
5.0
16
5.7
67
4.7
39
5.3
106
Total
Observations:
For outside fire calls, the average response time of the first arriving unit was 5.7 minutes.
For outside fire calls, Pumper 47E2 was the first unit on scene most often and had an
average response time of 5.7 minutes.
For structure fire calls, the average response time of the first arriving unit was 4.7 minutes.
For structure fire calls, Shift Commander 4703 was the first unit on scene most often and
had an average response time of 5.1 minutes.
page 81
Table D-20: Average Response Time for Structure and Outside Fire Calls by
Second Arriving Unit
Unit Type
Outside Fire
Structure Fire
Total
Second
Arriving Response Number Response Number Response Number
Unit
Time
of Calls
Time
of Calls
Time
of Calls
Heavy Rescue
47R1
5.4
6.0
5.9
Ladder Tower
47T1
5.6
4.3
4.9
14
Pumper
47E1
7.2
5.1
11
5.5
14
Pumper
47E2
4.6
5.5
5.2
Pumper
47E3
7.4
5.6
5.9
Shift Commander
4703
0.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
13
5.1
38
5.4
51
Total
Observations:
For outside fire calls, the average response time of the second arriving unit was 6.0 minutes,
which was 0.3 minutes longer than the first arriving unit.
For structure fire calls, the average response time of the second arriving unit was
5.1 minutes, which was 0.4 minutes longer than the first arriving unit.
page 82
Figure D-14: Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of Response Time of First

Arriving Unit for Structure and Outside Fire Calls
Figure D-15: Frequency Distribution Chart of Response Time of First Arriving

Unit for Structure and Outside Fire Calls
page 83
Table D-21: Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of Response Time of First

Arriving Unit for Structure and Outside Fire Calls
Response
Time
(minute)
0-1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
9 - 10
10 - 11
Outside Fire
Structure Fire
Cumulative
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
1.5
4
10.3
10
16.4
10
35.9
18
43.3
13
69.2
15
65.7
5
82.1
9
79.1
4
92.3
5
86.6
3
100.0
2
89.6
0
100.0
3
94.0
0
100.0
4
100.0
0
100.0
Observations:
For structure fire calls, the average response time of the first arriving unit was 4.7 minutes.
82.1 percent of the time, the first arriving units response time was less than 6.0 minutes for
structure fire calls.
90 percent of the time, the first arriving units response time was less than 6.9 minutes for
structure fire calls.
For outside fire calls, the average response time of the first arriving unit for outside fire calls
was 5.7 minutes.
65.7 percent of the time, the first arriving units response time was less than 6.0 minutes for
outside fire calls.
90 percent of the time, the first arriving units response time was less than 9.2 minutes for
outside fire calls.
page 84
Attachment I: Workload of Support Units

Unit Description
A Squad of Personnel
Deputy Fire Chief
Fire Chief
Recall Personnel
Support
Number
of Runs
3
4
16
4
9
Annual
Hours
3.6
11.7
40.1
6.4
23.5
page 85
Attachment II: Property and Content Loss Analysis for Structure and
Outside Fire Calls
Call Type
Structure fire
Outside fire
Total
Property Loss
Content Loss
Number of
Number of
Loss Value
Calls
Loss Value
Calls
$141,920
14
$4,450
5
$49,500
4
$0
0
$191,420
18
$4,450
5
Note: This analysis only includes calls with property loss or content loss greater than 0.
Observations:
Out of 50 structure fire calls, 14 calls (28 percent) had recorded property loss, with total
recorded loss value of $141,920. The largest recorded property loss was $65,000, which
occurred at 140 Palmer St., on March 30, 2014.
Out of 84 outside fire calls, 4 had recorded property loss.
page 86
Attachment III: Actions Taken Analysis for Structure and Outside Fire
Calls
Action Taken
Fire control or extinguishment, other
Extinguishment by fire service personnel
Contain fire (wildland)
Remove hazard
Fires, rescues & hazardous conditions, other
Ventilate
Information, investigation & enforcement, other
Investigate
Investigate fire out on arrival
Standby
Action taken, other
Total
Number of Calls
Outside
Structure fire
fire
2
10
33
48
0
1
1
0
0
2
3
0
0
8
2
11
7
2
1
1
1
1
50
84
Observations:
A total of 35 structure fire calls were controlled or extinguished, which accounted for 70
percent of structure fires in the WFDs jurisdiction.
A total of 59 outside fire calls were controlled or extinguished, which accounted for 70
percent of outside fires in the WFDs jurisdiction.
page 87
Attachment IV: False Alarm Calls by Description

Description
Smoke detector activation, no fire unintentional
Alarm system activation, no fire unintentional
Smoke detector activation due to malfunction
False alarm or false call, Other
Second alarm
Detector activation, no fire unintentional
Unintentional transmission of alarm, Other
System malfunction, Other
Alarm system sounded due to malfunction
Sprinkler activation due to malfunction
CO detector activation due to malfunction
Malicious, mischievous false call, Other
Sprinkler activation, no fire unintentional
Fire alarm
Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO
Unknown problem
Bomb scare no bomb
Extinguishing system activation
Heat detector activation due to malfunction
Number
of Calls
140
68
43
41
37
36
34
23
18
18
14
14
13
8
6
3
1
1
1
page 88

Watertown, NY Fire Department Study

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Watertown, NY Fire Department Study

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Fire Services

Operations and Data Analysis

Center for Public Safety Management

474 K Street, NW, Suite 702

International City/County Management Association

Center for Public Safety Management

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

ICMA/CPSM Project Contributors

Thomas J. Wieczorek, Director

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Organizational Analysis ................................................................................................................. 24

Operational Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix I: Data and Workload Analysis ...................................................................................... 47

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Workload by Individual UnitCalls and Total Time Spent ......................................................................... 62

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

professional medical centers and practices. 2

Watertown is quite attractive to a variety of

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Figure 1: City of Watertown Chart of the Organization

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Recommendations and Considerations

One of the most important elements of strategic planning is performance measurement,

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Community risk and vulnerability assessment are essential elements in a fire

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

As with any agreement or memorandum of understanding in place in a local government

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

No additional operational (shift work) staffing be added at this time.

No further reduction in operational (shift work) staffing at this time.

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Figure 2: Staffing and Deploying Fire and EMS Departments

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Watertown Fire Department

Figure 3: WFD Table of Organization

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Figure 4: Proposed WFD Table of Organization

Captain: E1, E2, E3,

Captain: E1, E2, E3,

Captain: E1, E2, E3,

Captain: E1, E2, E3,

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Figure 5: WFD Station Locations and Apparatus Deployment

Table 1: Fire Calls by Call Type

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Table 2: False Alarm Call Types

Smoke detector activation, no fire unintentional

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Table 3: Actions Taken Analysis for Fire Calls

Fire control or extinguishment, Other

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Emergency Medical Services

Low-priority EMS calls: Rescue apparatus from station 1 (this is citywide).

Table 5: EMS Calls by Call Type

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Population, Demand for Services, and Operational Workload

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York

Fire Services Operations and Data Analysis, Watertown, New York