Title
Recommendation to Receive the Final Report and Recommendations from the Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover Study for the Alameda Fire Department. (Fire)
Body
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jennifer Ott, City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In July of 2022, the City of Alameda (City) entered into a service provider agreement with AP Triton, LLC (Triton) to conduct a Community Risk Assessment (CRA) and Standards of Cover (SOC) Deployment Analysis for the Alameda Fire Department (AFD) utilizing the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) model. Triton completed this analysis by adopting industry best practices, National Fire Protection Association guidelines and standards, and general concepts from CPSE. The final report was completed in April 2024 and utilizes information from City departments, an on-site evaluation, interviews with key stakeholders, and a public survey. Exhibit 1 provides a summary of the report and Exhibit 2 includes the complete final report.
AFD will use the report's information to set/update performance standards, determine optimal apparatus and staffing patterns, assess workload and unit utilization, gauge service delivery performance, support internal department strategic planning and policy development, establish service objectives, and plan for future facility needs. This report is intended to be a starting point for AFD as it strives for excellence and continuous improvement. The next step is for AFD to analyze the findings further and develop an implementation strategy.
BACKGROUND
In June 2022, AFD issued a request for proposals (RFP) to complete a comprehensive analysis of community risk and AFD’s ability to address the risk. After assessing responses to the RFP, AFD retained Triton. Their scope of work was to conduct a CRA/SOC to define appropriate levels of service based on a comprehensive analysis of historical performance, expectations, existing and projected community risk factors, hazards, population growth, topography, and the density and vertical growth of the City. The CRA/SOC will assist the City and AFD in determining whether the current service levels are appropriate for the risks that need to be protected in the City and plan for future facility needs.
The study follows the CPSE Standards of Coverage model, 6th Edition, which develops written procedures to determine the community risk, distribution, and concentration of a fire and emergency service agency’s fixed and mobile resources. CPSE is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) corporation. It is a primary resource for the fire and emergency profession to continuously improve services, resulting in a higher quality of life for communities. CPSE has successfully helped public safety agencies worldwide to streamline and improve the services they provide for their communities through its numerous programs and services.
Triton completed the analysis by adopting industry best practices, National Fire Protection Association guidelines and standards, and general concepts from the CPSE. The report was completed over a 19-month period and included information from City departments, an on-site evaluation, interviews with key stakeholders, and a public survey. The report underwent an extensive technical review involving a comprehensive data validation process. It is intended to be a starting point for AFD as it strives for excellence and continuous improvement.
AFD will use the report's information to set/update performance standards, determine optimal apparatus and staffing patterns, assess workload and unit utilization, gauge service delivery performance, support internal department strategic planning and policy development, establish service objectives, identify coverage gaps, and plan for future facility needs. This document is instrumental in fortifying AFD’s overall efficacy and ensuring a proactive stance on community safety and emergency response.
The information contained in the report is a compilation of operational and administrative data for the AFD at a point in time. Operational incident information included is through December 31, 2022, while administrative data was updated through June 30, 2023. This document is meant to be a living document to aid response and risk direction and define baseline performance. Still, periodic updates will be required to remain effective. The recommendations presented are from a neutral, third-party perspective, and staff will review which are relevant for action by the City or AFD and develop an implementation plan.
DISCUSSION
The final report contains an executive summary and four sections. Section I includes the community risk assessment, which provides an overview of the hazards and risks the Alameda community faces daily. Section II is an overview of AFD efforts to mitigate the risks identified in Section I, along with an analysis of past performance. It discusses the organization, staffing, finances, equipment, facilities, and a detailed description of services provided between 2019 and 2022. Section III is Triton’s conclusions and recommendations as they apply to the community risk assessment and standards of cover. Finally, the Appendix provides details of the risk classifications, stakeholder and community information review, and a list of figures and references. The following describes the purpose of each section of the final report and highlights key information. Exhibit 1 presents a summary of the report and Exhibit 2 provides the complete final report.
Section I: Community Risk Assessment
Section I provides an overview of the community and a technical review of the community demographics, risk classifications, land use, assets protected, community threats, and critical infrastructure. Classification of risk is one of the more complex processes. Risks are grouped using the CPSE methodology, including responses to fire, medical, technical rescue, and hazardous materials. These are then categorized by the severity of the risk. They are scored by probability, consequence, and impact. These scores were then calculated to allow AFD to visualize the magnitude of each risk category and classification.
Generally, AFD faces hazards similar to most other agencies of the same size, response requirements, and demographics. However, a few items associated with risk were significant and specifically highlighted as unique to Alameda, such as a high risk of earthquakes, low risk of tsunamis, and potential challenges associated with obtaining mutual aid resources due to limited roadway access points onto the island and the uncertainty of these access points being available for travel during a disaster. Exhibit 1 highlights more detailed findings of these risks and Exhibit 2 provides the complete Section 1 of the final report.
Section II: Standard of Cover & Deployment Analysis
The standard of cover and deployment analysis is dedicated to the technical evaluation of how AFD is deployed and how it has performed. This section provides an overview of AFD, evaluates the staffing resource deployment, reviews the financial assets available, evaluates the facilities and equipment, and analyzes historical performance. In addition, this section reviews what AFD identified as its needed response to specific risk categories and incident types based on AFD’s own critical task analysis and current resource response matrix for incidents. In conjunction with the Community Risk Assessment section, AFD will use this information to identify gaps in performance and potential improvements to service delivery. Key findings from Section II include:
• Limited structural seismic systems were noted at Stations 1 and 4 and should be evaluated further
• AFD resources are operating within industry standards for Unit Hour Utilization (UHU)
• Alameda Point lacks coverage as indicated by the Insurance Services Office (ISO) standard of 1.5-mile travel distance and 4-minute travel model
• The records management system in the Fire Prevention Bureau is inadequate to track occupancies, inspections, and permits
• There are opportunities to increase ambulance transport revenue
• Station 2 being over 100-years-old, struggles to meet industry standards and AFD needs
• The City has been challenged to stay in compliance with their apparatus replacement policy due to production challenges from vendors
• The City lacks a specialized equipment replacement fund
• AFD has not adopted response time expectations
• The Training Center facility is inadequate for office and training space needs
Section III: Conclusions & Recommendations to Policymakers
The analysis conducted in Sections I and II culminates in Section III of the final report, which consists of key conclusions and recommendations, including a brief description, the outcomes expected, if adopted, and an estimated cost where available. The recommendations are grouped into “Policy and Operational Changes” and “Capital and Long-term Projects.” Some recommendations have already been addressed. AFD plans to analyze the recommendations further and develop an implementation strategy. A summary list of all recommendations is as follows:
Policy and Operational Recommendations
§ Conduct an In-depth study of the ambulance transport fee schedule and update it as needed.
§ Identify all commercial properties and target hazards.
§ Mandate training and policy for fire loss calculations.
§ Formally adopt emergency response goals.
§ Review incident data annually.
§ Develop a schedule to inspect all commercial occupancies.
§ Transition to a fire-based record management system for the fire prevention bureau.
§ Create and fund a comprehensive improvement and replacement plan for facilities and equipment.
Capital and Long-term Projects
§ Follow City policy regarding new and reserve apparatus replacement. This can be challenging with the current multi-year wait time to receive replacement apparatus.
§ Remove the current training center and add a station/training center building on the former Station 5 site at Alameda Point.
§ Continue to improve and update the water system at Alameda Point.
§ Refurbish, remodel, or replace Station 2.
§ Improve parking at the Emergency Operations Center (EOC).
Stakeholder and Community Surveys
Appendices B and C of the report are the documented details of the stakeholder interviews and community surveys. The stakeholder interviews were conducted in March 2023, in conjunction with site visits to AFD facilities. These interviews were conducted to uncover any areas of the study that may have been missed during the information gathering and analysis phase of the project. The stakeholders included City elected officials, community members, AFD operations and administrative staff, department heads, Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) members, business owners and the Chamber of Commerce, International Association of Firefighters, Local 689 (IAFF), Alameda Fire Chiefs Association (AFCA), the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager, Alameda County Emergency Medical Services, Medical Director, Alameda Unified School District, Alameda Family Services, and Fire Dispatch staff.
Additionally, AFD opted for a community survey to be added as part of the evaluation. This survey was designed to give AFD some feedback on public opinion. It was intended to provide insight for AFD but did not influence the technical aspect of this report. The survey was completely anonymous and confidential, with 779 responses received. The survey results are grouped and analyzed with unedited comments in Appendix C of the report. This information was gathered to ensure that AFD maintains strategic and operational goals aligned with public priorities. The following highlights a key summary of the feedback received in the survey:
§ The survey’s most important service delivery priority was fire suppression; the least important was community events.
§ The survey’s most important first responder quality was a highly trained workforce. At the same time, the least was involvement in the local community.
§ Similarly, the most critical planned improvement to the public was the technical competency of the workforce. The least important was expanding the types of services offered.
§ Nearly 84% of respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied with AFD’s services. Only 3% replied as somewhat dissatisfied or dissatisfied.
§ The number one expectation of the public for response time was four to five minutes, while three percent or less expected more than eight minutes.
§ Over 75% of the respondents asked that information regarding emergency preparedness be communicated through social media, while only 10% listed the newspaper.
Conclusion
Development of the CRA/SOC is a significant component of AFD’s commitment to provide the City with the highest level of service moving forward. A key element of that commitment is utilizing the information provided in this technical report to ensure AFD maintains and improves community risk reduction and emergency response. The CRA/SOC report presented a detailed picture of AFD's performance, a “report card” of how AFD currently functions, and whether AFD aligns with its mission and objectives. The report has established a starting point for AFD to pursue improved performance and address current and anticipated future challenges impacting service delivery.
AFD and other City departments already addressed some of the findings and recommendations in the report. As stated earlier, this report captured a point in time of data to complete the analysis. City operations did not stop when information collection ceased in June 2023, so we can already show progress with some items identified in the analysis.
AFD will continue to analyze many of the items identified in this report. Some of the recommendations have significant costs associated with them, which need to be further discussed within the City organization, community, and City Council to chart a path forward. To assist in that process, AFD intends to create an implementation strategy to address many of the findings within the CRA/SOC, including actionable tasks by priority and completion time.
ALTERNATIVES
This report is for informational purposes. Staff recommendation is to receive the report and provide feedback to staff.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The report contains several recommendations with costs outside the AFD budget that will be analyzed further as part of the development of the implementation strategy. Any proposed next steps with fiscal impacts to the City will be brought forward through future policy discussions and budget processes. There is no cost associated with receiving this informational report.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The report analyzed the following priorities that were established in the City’s 2023 Strategic Plan section titled Enhance Community Safety & Services:
• CS21 - Explore the potential for a new or upgraded fire training facility.
• CS22 - Upgrade and replace older Fire Hydrants throughout the City.
• CS23 - Determine service needs for a new fire station at Alameda Point.
• CS24 - Expand disaster preparedness.
• CS25 - Evaluate Alameda Fire Dept. facilities for security, access control and seismic resiliency.
• CS26 - Discuss results and plan implementation of the Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item does not constitute a “project” as defined in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 and therefore no further CEQA analysis is required.
CLIMATE IMPACT
There are no identifiable climate impacts or climate action opportunities associated with the subject of this report.
RECOMMENDATION
Receive the Final Report and recommendations from the CRA/SOC study for AFD.
Respectfully submitted,
Nicholas Luby, Fire Chief
Financial Impact section reviewed,
Margaret O’Brien, Finance Director
Exhibits:
1. Executive Summary: Alameda Fire Department Community Risk Assessment/Standards of Cover
2. Full Study Report: Alameda Fire Department Community Risk Assessment/Standards of Cover