Station Methodology 1

Station Methodology 1
Developing a Methodology for When to Add a Fire Station.
David G. Kilbury
Cape Coral Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Management Services
Cape Coral, Florida
August, 2008
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of
others is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where
I have used the language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another.
Signed: _______________________________________________________.
Abstract
This research project developed a defendable methodology on when to
add a fire station. The problem was no defendable methodology existed on when to add a
fire station, should the actual need be challenged. Failure to research this project
prevented the organization from identifying when to add a new fire station; which if
unnecessarily delayed could lead to increased risk of injury and death to the public, fire
fighters, and property loss from fire. The purpose of this project was to develop a
methodology or identify key indicators that could defend when to add a fire station if
challenged by elected officials or citizens. The project answered three research
questions: What national standards exist on when to add a fire station; What has occurred
in the past or present to identify a community’s need to add a new fire station; and What
methodologies or key indicators can be identified on when to add a fire station?
Research was conducted by literature review, correspondence, collecting and analyzing
data from NIFRS, and dispatch records. The findings found no national standard
currently exists; lengthening response times, ISO, and population growth were factors
used by others to add a fire station; and data that determined the capability and capacity
of service delivery for the organization were identified. Recommendations included a
maximum threshold related to number of alarms, availability, response times, and
multiple incidents per 24 hours; in addition to adding apparatus and enhanced use of
modern technology to determine an organizational methodology that could be defendable
to adding a future fire station.

Table of Contents
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………….Page: 3
Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………..Page: 4
Introduction …………………………………………………………………...Page: 5
Background and Significance ………………………………………………...Page: 6
Literature Review ……………………………………………………………..Page: 8
Procedures ... ………………………………………………………………….Page: 21
Results ………………………………………………………………………...Page: 27
Discussion …………………………………………………………………….Page: 36
Recommendations …………………………………………………………….Page: 43
References …………………………………………………………………….Page: 49
Appendices
Appendix A:……………………………………………………………………Page: 53
Appendix B:……………………………………………………………………Page: 54
Appendix C:……………………………………………………………………Page: 55
Introduction
During a recent City Manager staff meeting involving department head’s in the
City of Cape Coral, Florida; the Financial Services Director asked the Fire Chief of how
he determined when a new fire station was needed within the community? The Financial
Services Director continued to question the Fire Chief on the matter and asked; can you
defend the need of a fire station if you are challenged by an elected official or a city
resident? The Fire Chief realized that he had more theory than fact to answer the
questions posed by the Financial Services Director which created the basis for this
research project within this organization. This research project will focus on a very
narrow portion of construction of a fire station; when is it needed?
The problem is the Cape Coral Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Management
Services (CCFR&EMS) has not developed a methodology or identified a defendable
approach of when to add a fire station in the City of Cape Coral, Florida. Failure to
research this topic may prevent the organization from correctly identifying when to add a
new fire station; which if unnecessarily delayed could potentially lead to an increased
risk of injury and death from fire, to the public and fire fighters as well as an increase in
property loss from fire. The purpose of this research project is to develop a methodology
or identify key indicators that the CCFR&EMS can use and defend the need of when to
add a fire station if challenged on the actual need by elected officials or citizens.
Using the action research approach, this project will focus on answering the
following three research questions. What national standards or information exists to
assist fire departments in recognizing the need of when to add a fire station in their
community? What have other fire departments used in the past or present to identify the
need to add a new fire station to their community? What methodologies or key indicators
can be identified or developed to assist in making the decision of when to add a fire
station?
Background and Significance
The CCFR&EMS is a professional career fire department with 206 employees, of
which, 175 are assigned to the Operations Division that currently staff ten fire stations
located throughout the city. The Operations Division consists of 1-Division Chief, 6-
Battalion Chiefs, 35-Lieutenants, 41-Engineers, and 80-Firefighters. The current
frontline emergency response apparatus fleet consists of 5-Rescue Companies, 8-Engines
Companies, and 3-Truck Companies. The CCFR&EMS provides a vast array of
emergency and non-emergency services which include fire suppression, BLS, non-
transport ALS, Special Operations/Urban Search and Rescue, Tactical SWAT Medic,
Hazardous Materials Team, Rescue Swimmer Program, Dive team, Fire Boat Operations,
Emergency Management, Community Emergency Response Teams, Fire Prevention,
Public Education, and Plans review.
Located in Southwest Florida, the City of Cape Coral incorporated in August
1970, and its population continues to grow rapidly. With more than 172,000 residents,
Cape Coral is one of the fastest growing areas in Florida. According to Public
Information Officer Connie Barron, (personal communication, April 3, 2007) Cape Coral
has 215-square miles within it’s boundaries making it the third-largest city
geographically in the State of Florida and is the eleventh-largest city based on population.
The City of Cape Coral is the largest city in Southwest Florida and is unique, in that;
within the city’s boundaries is a vast network of over 400-miles of man made canals
leading to the Gulf of Mexico. One of the significant challenges with the City of Cape
Coral is that it was developed as a pre-platted community. A pre-platted community is
where a large native section of land was purchased for the sole reason of development;
cleared of almost all natural vegetation and developed with roads and as many buildable
land parcels for investors to purchase. Stroud (1999) lists one of the most serious
problems that amenity-seeking populations bring to pre-platted communities as they
move into undeveloped areas as being the over-taxing of local public services. Stroud,
continues that the magnitude of the problems and the potential for rapid population
growth combine to make pre-platted lands a sleeping giant of growth management. The
City of Cape Coral has experienced this very problem.
Beginning in the early part of 2004 through late 2006, Cape Coral experienced
unprecedented growth and continued to be one of the fastest growing areas in the United
States. In fact, Wingfield (2008) ranked Cape Coral as the fourth fastest growing U.S.
city with a population of more than 100,000 and predicts by 2012 the population will
grow by more than 13 percent. During this explosive growth in Cape Coral all areas of
governmental service had been challenged to keep pace with service demands According
to the Public Information Officer Connie Barron, (personal communication, June 3, 2008)
the City of Cape Coral had a population of about 127,000 residents in early 2004; today
the population is estimated at 172,000 residents. During this same time period, the
CCFR&EMS constructed five new fire stations to attempt to keep pace with new service
demands associated with the tremendous growth throughout the city. The need for fire
stations was obvious due to the tremendous growth that the city experienced.
Today the explosive growth from 2004 -2006 in the City of Cape Coral is vastly
different. One could say Cape Coral is encountering a polar-opposite situation related to
growth as one of the biggest housing and mortgage crisis meltdowns in United States’
history continues to unfold and worsens. The current financial situation facing the City
of Cape Coral is bleak. Liberatore (2008, June 03), announced that based on the Lee
County Property Appraiser’s figures the City of Cape Coral’s taxable property values in
the past year have dropped 26.6 % from 2007 values. With even tougher economic times
forecasted in the immediate future; elected officials and the general public will be less
willing to expend limited governmental funds on projects such as fire stations without
defendable justification of their actual need. Developing a methodology to create a
defendable justification for future fire stations is the major focus of this research project.
Finally, this research project was selected based on the direct relevance to the
fourth and final course required in the Executive Fire Officer Program (EFOP) series.
The fourth course of the EFOP; Executive Leadership requires Executive Fire Officers to
develop strategies to meet the future needs of personnel and/or the organization. In
addition, this project potentially addresses four of the five United States Fire
Administration’s (USFA) operational objectives to reduce the loss of life from fire to the
age groups below 14; above 65; firefighters; and appropriately respond in a timely
manner to emergent issues.
Literature Review
In reviewing the literature for this project, three general areas of concentration
were investigated relevant to this project; past practices or studies; national standards or
agencies that provide information that can assist on when to add a fire station; and other
factors that can contribute to the knowledge on when to add a fire station. It is
acknowledged here that much has been written and published on the topic of where to
add a fire station within a community and for this reason the subject was purposefully
excluded from this project except where specifically relevant.
Early into the literature review it was discovered there were a very limited
number of previous studies that deal directly with the concept of when to add a fire
station. This adds justification for the need to conduct this project on developing a
methodology of when to add a fire station. One particular study was found to have
experienced a situation similar to the City of Cape Coral. Scheel (1990) describes that
the City Manager and Planning Commission of the City of Greely, Colorado asked the
Fire Chief to list the criteria he used in determining when to build a fire station. At the
time, the organization was simply using the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule from the
Insurance Services Organization (ISO). The City Manager and Planning Commission
were not satisfied with this method and directed a more in-depth reasoning for
justification. In the Greely, Colorado study, several areas were discussed that assisted in
the final formula that assisted the in decision on when to add a fire station. Scheel (1990)
reported that by analyzing commercial and industrial property; analysis of fire
department operating costs; other relative factors; and computing community benefit
points of existing fire stations, they were able to create what was termed a Minimum
Threshold for proposing a new fire station in the Capital Improvement Plan.
One study conducted by Harmer (1993) attempted to establish criteria for when to
add a fire station for the Tallahassee Fire Department by looking at criteria used by other
fire service agencies on when to construct a new fire station. In this project, two Florida
locations of Sarasota and Palm Beach Counties were reviewed in their attempts to
establish several different areas of criteria used in adding a new fire station. In an
interview with a Kansas Fire Chief, Harmer describes that this particular Fire Chief used
what he termed a political comfort index of the elected officials in proposing a new fire
station to be constructed (1990).
In a more recent project on this subject, the work conducted by Watson (2008)
takes a different approach for the City of Rialto, California. This study focused more on
the concerns of the department’s service delivery due to the lengthening response times.
The two reasons given in this project for the lengthening of response times in the City of
Rialto was two-fold. First, the geographic expansion of the city was causing greater
travel distances and secondly, the increase of population was increasing the number of
alarms for service. In reviewing press releases and articles related to the opening of new
fire stations across the United States; the majority of fire departments listed growth and
response times as the main justification and reasoning for building new fire stations.
The city council of Oceanside, California decided to add an eighth fire station
according to Tribbey (2006), which listed response-time studies behind the national
average and a call volume exceeding 10,000 alarms each year. In Hartville, Ohio a fire
station will be added to improve fire and EMS response times according to Armon
(2007). Willer-Allred, (2008) reported that Moorpark, California added a third fire
station because of more emergency calls generated by increased development and a
growing population. One press release from the City of Orlando, Florida (2006,
December 14) listed tremendous growth while focusing on enhancing it’s infrastructure
with the addition of three new fire stations within the city as the reasoning for opening
the newest stations. What was slightly different in this press release was the additional
comment that these new fire stations would lay the foundation to attain the City’s first
ISO rating of Class-1. Two major themes that continued to re-occur in the literature
review of when to add a fire station was the listing of response times and the rating
schedule of the ISO. With so many fire service agencies repeating that response times
and ISO recommendations as the common theme on when to add a fire station in their
community; further review of literature directly related to national standards or agencies
was reviewed.
In the United States, influences from both the public and private sectors have
tremendous persuasion on the decisions that shape the United States Fire Service. The
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), ISO, International Association of Fire
Chiefs, International Association of Professional Fire Fighters, International City/County
Management Association (ICMA), Southern Building Code, United States Congress,
State government and even the local governmental bodies such as councils or district
governing boards are just some of those that make decisions for the United States Fire
Service. With so many irons in the fire, how can one standard exist to guide the United
States Fire Service? The simplistic answer to this is that no one standard, agency, or
guideline will have the final answer for everything. In searching out a national standard
or agency that explains when to add a fire station; none was found. However, that does
not mean that their influence is absent either.
One respected and recognized authority that can assist on developing a
methodology on when to add a fire station is the NFPA. There are two NFPA Standards
that will have a direct bearing on this research project. Chapter Four of 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; specifically addresses the maximum allowable elapsed time for emergency
incidents related to turnout time; arrival of the first Engine Company at a fire and the
remainder of the 1st alarm assignment; arrival of basic care to an emergency medical
incident; and the arrival of advanced life support provided by fire departments to
emergency medical incidents (2008). This standard is a major driving force on fire
service agencies throughout the United States to strive for achievement; it is seen as both
a blessing and a curse to fire departments gauging their abilities to provide emergency
services. In addition, Chapter 7 of NFPA Standard 1221: Standard for the Installation,
Maintenance, and use of Emergency Services Communications Systems; is relevant to
this project as well, in that it addresses operating procedures in the maximum allowable
elapsed timed for answering, processing, and answering emergency 911 for calls for the
dispatching of fire companies to the emergency incidents (2008). Even with the
recognized respect and authority of the NFPA; it is not without controversy.
Granito (2003) explains that NFPA 1710 which lists the delivery requirements for
both staffing and service delivery of fire departments was controversial from the
beginning and was fiercely debated before final passage. Even after the passage of
NFPA 1710, it was appealed by a number of different organizations; only to be rejected
by the NFPA Standard Council and issued in August, 2001. The International
Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and the International Association of Professional
Firefighters (IAFF) had starkly different interpretations of this new standard and
published their organization’s view of NFPA 1710 in the latter part of 2002. Regardless
of the differing interpretations of these organizations, today NFPA 1710 has become a
major focal point for fire departments to gauge their service delivery to the now widely
accepted national standard.
The second respected and recognized authority to mention that can assist on
developing a methodology on when to add a fire station is ISO. Though ISO would be
considered to be a private organization that assists the United States Insurance Industry; it
directly relates to the operations and service delivery of fire departments at a local level.
According to Hickey (2002) one of ISO’s principle roles in the property insurance
industry is the administration of the 1998 Edition of the Fire Suppression Rating
Schedule (FSRS) document which continues as an insurance industry tool used to
evaluate a jurisdiction’s fire defense system to provide structural fire suppression.
However, before a community can even receive an ISO Public Protection Classification
(PPC) the community must at least have the minimum facilities and practices related to
fire protection according to ISO; which are: Organization, Membership, Training, Alarm
Notification, Apparatus, and Housing for fire apparatus (2008). Hickey continues that
one should be aware and recognize that only about eighteen percent of an average fire
department’s responsibilities are covered by the scope and content of the FSRS (2002).
However, ISO does offer a great number of criteria recommendations for fire
departments to achieve that can assist in the creation of a methodology of when to add a
fire station.
Two sets of criteria from ISO’s FSRS that will assist in the creation of a
methodology for when to add a fire station is the distribution of fire companies within a
community. According to Hickey (2002), the first criteria, and very important to
property owners seeking fire insurance coverage, is the case were no credit is given for
the PPC when a fire apparatus is located greater than five road miles which would be
classified as a Class-10; which is considered as having no fire protection. The second
criteria related to a community’s PPC is the distance that built-upon areas of a city should
have a first-due Engine Company within 1.5 miles and a Truck Company within 2.5
miles to receive the maximum credit earned (2002). ISO uses a formula of travel
distance for both Engine and Truck Companies at 35 MPH for grading the FSRS.
In a contrasting view, the International Fire Fighter (2008, May/June) reports that
the PPC program of ISO is an analysis of data collected through its FSRS and is not, in
and of itself, a comprehensive assessment of a entire fire department’s service delivery,
mobile resource deployment, and staffing levels. In fact, they report that ISO’s FSRS is
not an industry standard; it is only an index calculated through a standardized data
collection tool. One other concern noted by the International Fire Fighter was the fact
that ISO does not consider any portion of a fire department’s emergency medical services
at any level; which makes up about 70-80 percent of the total calls for a modern fire
department (2008, May/June). The FSRS examines components related to an all-hazards
response system, including handling and receiving alarms, fire department apparatus, 1st
alarm personnel availability, training and water supply and gives an overall score to the
community with the lower the number representing a more favorable evaluation of a
community’s fire risk and protection. When a community receives a lower ISO score,
government administrators frequently associate a low index score with a high-functioning
all-hazard response system. The assessment criteria most mishandled is the assessment
of apparatus distribution. ISO looks for the percentage of total coverage area within 1.5
miles of a staffed and available Engine Company and 2.5 miles of a staffed and available
Ladder Truck Company or Service Unit Company. ISO ratings still only examine
coverage based on these distance factors – not time-based capabilities as recommended
by NFPA 1710. The International Fire Fighter (2008) charges that, “ISO classifications
were never designed to address the time critical elements behind fire department system
design” (p. 21). This project however will address both of the NFPA and the ISO criteria
in developing a methodology for when to add a fire station. Recognizing the literature of
the ISO and NFPA will be a major guiding factor in this study; the literature search
continued for when to add a fire station and discovered the subject of planning and
technology as very relevant.
Planning for the future in the fire service is not an easy task. Tradition in the fire
service has deep routes and attempting to try new things or create new ideas will often be
met with resistance. This resistance to change in the fire service is described by R. J.
Coleman (2006):
Many people think that talking about the future is dangerous because they
cling to traditional solutions. They think that by anticipating change they
are making a prediction that specific events are going to occur – events
that the fire service must resist.
In the pursuit of developing a methodology or identifying key indicators on when
to add a fire station might be seen as a daunting task; however utilizing effective planning
techniques and modern technology can assist in this process. In the past, the City of Cape
Coral conducted a comprehensive fire station location study and has identified the desired
future site locations and has even begun purchasing land parcels for many future fire
station locations. This was done through good, sound planning using much of the criteria
already mentioned within this project. The new challenge of when to add a fire station is
now the next obstacle to identify in our planning process. Freeman (2002) suggests that
fire station planning is a critical component of managing local fire protection services.
Sound planning can be done in various ways with historical data, realistic computer
modeling, and private consultants. In summarizing the comments of Duggan (2008),
strategic planning is the process by which fire service leaders decide how future
resources will be allocated or deployed in the delivery of services by using sophisticated
computer-based models, statistical information, and outside consultants. Duggan
continues that Information Technology (IT) can facilitate new levels of communication
and can help integrate services that provide the foundation for quality service delivery
and innovation (2008). Developing a plan that is both comprehensive, yet understandable
to those not in the fire service is important as well. With the recent economic downturn
in the United States causing tighter budgets and the ever-present theme of do-more-with-
less, the expansion or addition of new fire department facilities within communities is
likely to see greater challenges from elected officials and the public tax-payer. Granito
(2008) states, “It is critical that the comprehensive plan determine and set goals and
objectives for the fire protection system and fire department in terms that are
understandable to the citizens being protected” (p. 12-20). The best method of educating
the public and elected officials in understanding the need for new fire department
facilities is through proper planning. One major planning tool used in the fire service that
many in the United States fire service quite possibly have never heard of is the Integrated
Risk Management Plan (IRMP) used extensively throughout the United Kingdom (UK).
In an email reply from Rupert Gilbey (personal communication, June 18, 2008),
who is Editor of the publication Fire Risk Management from The Institution of Fire
Engineers (IFE) located at Moreton in Marsh, Gloucestershire, UK; states that every fire
service in the UK produces an annual IRMP that sets out the resources, equipment,
initiatives and other fire safety prevention and response needs specific to their local
communities. This IRMP also incorporates a computer software toolkit that the entire UK
fire services utilize in the development of their individual annual plans. In the latest
edition of the Fire Protection Handbook from the NFPA on planning for public fire-
rescue protection, the IRMP is discussed. Granito (2008) references the 2003 work of
Chief Fire Officer Paul Young who summarized the Integrated Risk Management and
Firefighter Safety in the United Kingdom in a paper as:
Mandated Integrated Risk Management in the UK Fire and Rescue Service
means that suppression resources are to be allocated on the basis of risk
rather than the number of buildings in an area. The means assessing the
risks faced, taking preventative action, and deploying the right resources
in the right places at the right time. Far too few resources were devoted to
residential areas, where most fire deaths occur, and too many resources
were devoted to business districts where fewer deaths occur. Fire and
rescue authorities must create local plans for fire and other emergency
incidents based on local risks. There is much greater flexibility in
managing risk in this way, rather than under the old national
standardization of response. (12-3)

The structure of the United States Fire Service is different in the design from the
UK, but similar in the service provided. Utilizing such a planning process here in the
United States could assist fire departments in all areas of service delivery. One key
component in all planning processes and assists in making the plan more understandable
to all stakeholders is the use of modern technology.
One promising technology that has assisted the fire service in many areas of
operation is the use of digital imagery and mapping technology for a location-based
application that combine to form a Global Information System (GIS). The biggest benefit
of this technology for the fire service is the ability to layer different selectable layers of
information onto the map such as hazards, permits, water supply, response times, and
population density. GIS can perform complex incident analysis to display trends,
illustrate patterns, and identify areas of high call volume according to Duggan (2008).
GIS can be used to perform complex travel time modeling of fire apparatus to different
areas within a community. This project will look to incorporate such technology into the
development of the methodology or the identification of the key indicators.
Computer software is one other very important technology and is constantly being
revised and tailored to the fire service. Today, almost every fire department is using
some sort of computer software program in its operation whether it is fire prevention,
support, operations or even dispatching. In reviewing the literature for computer
software that might be of assistance to the development of this research project, one
software program stands out that is worth mentioning due to its rapidly expanding use in
major fire departments throughout the United States. Deccan International® has
developed several software programs that are beginning to be widely used by major fire
departments located throughout North America. These software products actually have
the ability to calculate the probability of emergency calls in real-time. According to
Mark (2007), the Surrey Fire Service located in British Columbia, uses one such software
program which employs what is known as Bayesian inference to probability calculations
– a simple mathematical formula that determines the probability of an event occurring
based on past incidences of the event (2007). This type of software would have value in
forecasting a fire department’s call volume and locations within a community to assist in
determining resources. In fact, the Fire Department of Tucson, Arizona utilizes Deccan®
software. In response to a question on this project to the United States Fire
Administration’s Training, Resources, and Data Exchange Network (TRADENET)
website; Dave Ridings (email communication, June 18, 2008) responded that Tucson Fire
Department utilizes Deccan® software which assists greatly in determining the need for
new stations, or additional units for existing stations. The key indicators used in this
software product are response models; responses times, and call volumes. Tucson Fire
Department is using this software to adapt to the local community needs and their
changing dynamics, such as economic conditions, budget demands, and demographic
shifts. Combined with regular evaluation of the response models; Tucson is experiencing
increased operational efficiency and maximization of scarce fire department resources
which include new, infill, or relocated fire stations. This particular software is mentioned
for two reasons; first, the relevance it would have to this city in being able to easily
identify key indicators for future decisions on adding facilities and resources; and
secondly the increasing popularity of use by established and recognized fire departments.
In reviewing the list of fire department clients on the Deccan Corporate website currently
using their software products; the list is well over one-hundred and recognized as major
fire departments such as; New York City Fire Department (FDNY), Miami-Dade County,
San Jose, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Hollywood, Dallas, Denver, Montreal, Orlando, Orange
County, CA and many more (2006). In fact, this software sounds similar in function to
that used by the UK Fire Service in the IRMP mentioned previously. Rupert Gilbey
(personal communication, June 18, 2008), stated that each fire service in the UK uses the
government risk-modeling software called; Fire Services Emergency Cover (FSEC).
This software calculates all the data related to response, resources, and locations to
develop the IRMP.
Many tools exist that can lead a fire department in the direction to develop their
own local methodology which adds value and justification to this research project. The
future of the fire service will certainly be challenged when requesting additional
resources or facilities. In fact, Granito (2003) discussed these challenges where only one
year after the September, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, many were calling
for large budget cuts, including New York City. The recognition by elected officials and
the public that varying degree and volume of risk must be assumed by communities is
growing. This concept of acceptable risk threatens the historical approach of justifying
budgets in fire departments throughout the United States. Granito (2003) discusses the
challenges for the next generation of fire service leaders when he states,
The next generation will need to conduct all-hazard assessments, negotiate
with officials and citizen groups, and be prepared to think innovatively to
acquire needed resources. And the ‘needed resource’ list will need
defending, no matter the esteem in which the fire departments are held. (p.
1108)
In the final thoughts of Granito for the next generation, he lists three questions that will
be the most important to the United States Fire Service. What services to provide in
addition to the traditional one; what represents adequate service levels; and how to pay
for such services?
In summarizing the literature review for this research project there was no clear-
cut methodology discovered for communities to presently use in justifying the need for
adding a fire station within their community; which therefore gives significance for
moving forward in conducting this research project. Strategic thinking using innovative
approaches while utilizing modern technology will be vital to the success of not only this
research project, but the future of the fire service as well. This is the main paradigm of
the Executive Fire Officer Program where creative solutions are developed by innovation.
Coleman (2006) summarizes this challenge best by stating,
To effectively manage into the future, a fire officer must be capable of
strategic thinking. Strategic thinking allows a person to make his or her
vision of the future a reality by anticipating things that could help create
that reality. (p. 448)
Procedures
This research project utilized the action research approach to answer three
questions. What national standards or information exist to assist fire departments in
recognizing the need of when to add a fire station in their community? What have other
fire departments used in the past or present to identify the need to add a new fire station
to their community? What methodologies or key indicators can be identified or
developed to assist in making the decision of when to add a fire station? The procedures
for conducting this project included data collected from the literature review, historical
data of computer-aided dispatch software, the City of Cape Coral’s Geographical
Information Service (GIS), and the goals, policies and procedures of the CCFR&EMS.
The literature review began on the campus of the National Fire Academy in
Emmitsburg, Maryland in April, 2008. In Florida, the literature review continued using a
computer search of national standards, internet articles and the previous research of
others specifically related to criteria of adding fire stations within a community. The Lee
County (FL) Public Library was visited to conduct inter-library loans on needed subject
materials and previous research of others from various learning institutions throughout
the country.
The procedure to answer the first research question of what national standards or
information exist to assist fire departments in recognizing the need of when to add a fire
station in their community was conducted by the literature review and discussions with
other fire service professionals. The two main documents utilized in this research project
for answering the first research question came from NFPA 1710 and the ISO. To assist
in answering the first two research questions, an email was sent to Mr. Robert Campbell
who is the program manager for the United States Fire Administration’s TRADENET
located at the National Fire Academy campus. In the email to Mr. Campbell I asked to
include a submission for the next TRADENET edition that would be distributed. On
June 4, 2008 my question was number five on the TRADENET distribution emailing
from the USFA (see Appendix A).

This TRADENET website submission allowed for networking with various other
fire service professionals from around the United States to submit responses related to
this question that would have otherwise been unable to be consulted or contacted. One
such expert in the fire service responded to this TRADENET submission. This individual
was Paul Rottenberg of FireStats®, LLC of Nevada City, California that specializes in
software that produces statistics of a fire department’s operation. Mr. Rottenberg’s reply
is further discussed in the results section of this study. The second fire service expert to
acknowledge in this study is Dr. John A. Granito, Director of Higher Education Research
Center Initiative at Oklahoma State University; as well as, a nationally recognized fire
service author and fire-rescue consultant. Dr. Granito’s reply is further discussed in the
results section of this study as well.
The procedure to answer the second research question of what other fire
departments have used in the past or present to identify the need to add a new fire station
to their community was conducted by a comprehensive literature review and discussions
with other fire service professionals through email correspondence. Again, the use of the
TRADENET (see Appendix A) website provided many email responses of what other
fire service professionals had experienced related to adding a new fire station.
The procedure to answer the third and final research question and the main-thrust
of this project was more complex. The research project procedure process involved
seven specific steps that took approximately two months to conduct and compile related
data. The first step involved identifying the total first-due response areas within the city
from each of the existing ten fire stations in Cape Coral using travel speed to a total
distance reached within the road networks at the 240-second time mark. This was
conducted and corresponds to the language as written in the recommendations of NFPA
1710. This map already existed in the City of Cape Coral’s GIS division that is as close
as possible to meeting the travel speed and distance component (see Appendix B).
The second step in the research process involved researching data from the
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) software. Due to the limitations of the current software
utilized by the CCFR&EMS; this was not as easy as expected. The historical CAD data
was manually reviewed to establish an estimate of time to determined the average
number of various alarm incidents each apparatus responds to in a 24-hour time period
(08:00 AM – 08:00 AM). The CAD data was reviewed from May 1, 2006 to June 1,
2008 to identify and establish the average time of apparatus responding to alarm
incidents. During the time period of this study there were 35,609 alarm incidents.
The third step in the research process was to establish the average apparatus time
that was spent on the scene of the various alarm incidents in a 24-hour time period. This
average establishes the time that the apparatus is unavailable to respond to another alarm
incident due to being already committed to an existing incident.
The fourth step in this process was to add the times of the data collected in step
two and three together to determine the average total time in a 24-hour period that the
apparatus is unavailable to respond to an alarm incident. There is one limitation to note
here related to this project. This limitation involves the other time factors that should be
included here for determining additional time that an apparatus is unavailable for
responding to an alarm due to training, refueling, restocking, staffing reduction,
mechanical breakdowns, departmental meetings and other similar but unknown
occurrences. There is no current method or accurate calculation for recording the time an
apparatus spends on these activities for a 24-hour time period that prevent the unit from
responding to an alarm. For this reason, an average time of sixty minutes was included to
account for these unknown time occurrences; but it is acknowledged that this estimated
time figure is probably lower than the reality of actual time these events prevent the
response of an apparatus within a 24-hour time period.
The fifth step involved in this research process was determining the percentage of
time that an apparatus should be available to respond to an emergency alarm. This was
conducted by subtracting the figure in step-four that an apparatus is unavailable to
respond to an emergency alarm within the 24-hour time period.
The sixth step in this research process involved determining the response times
for the second, third, fourth and fifth due apparatus in order to make up the remainder of
the 1st alarm for each of the fire station’s typical first-due response zones. This was done
by researching the computer software program Visual Fire® used by the CCFR&EMS
for completing the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NIFRS). For a specific
incident to be considered for inclusion in this step it had to meet three specific criteria.
The first specific criterion was that the Incident Type had to be a building fire coded as:
111 on the NIFRS report. The second specific criterion required that the building fire
must have occurred in the target date from May 1, 2006 to June 1, 2008. The third
specific criterion was that the building fire had to be significant enough to require the full
1st alarm assignment to reach the scene; a working fire. The current standard 1st alarm
response established by the CCFR&EMS to a reported structure fire is a minimum of one
Truck Company, three Engine Companies and one Rescue Company. The initial
response also calls for both Shift Battalion Chiefs and the on-call Staff Chief to respond
as well. For the purpose of this project, only the fire suppression apparatus will be
considered for inclusion on determining response times needed within this study. This
will provide the plus or minus travel variations that would be encountered for some
stations being closer to certain addresses and farther away to others considering their
travel routes to respective structure fire alarm incidents. Out of 35,609 incidents, there
were 166 incidents reported with a NIFRS’ code 111 (building fire) from May 1, 2006 to
June 1, 2008. Of these 166 incidents, only 81 incidents met the three specific inclusion
criteria for this project. These 81 incidents were analyzed to determine the total response
times for each fire station zone for the full 1st alarm arrival and average the these times
for the arrival of the first through fifth arriving apparatus (1st due - 5th due) to a building
or structure fire incident. A limitation to be noted here is that on many incidents the
arrival on scene of a Staff Chief or Battalion Chief may have arrived in a shorter time
than recorded here; the time reflected in this step only reflects the dispatched fire
suppression apparatus that make up the 1st alarm assignment.
The seventh step in the research process was to research how many dispatched
alarms the CCFR&EMS could expect to receive in 24-hours on average X = single
apparatus alarm incidents in a 24-hour time period; Y = 1st alarm assignments (480-
seconds to arrive at incident); Z = 2nd alarm assignments; XX = 3rd alarms assignments;
and YY= multiple/simultaneous alarm incidents occurring during an active confirmed
structure fire incident from May 1, 2006 to June 1, 2008. This data will provide if the
resources of the city neared depletion at any time during the study’s period. To retrieve
this specific data a combination of NIFRS software data retrieval and a manual inspection
of checking each of the 81 alarms for simultaneous alarms within sixty minutes of the
structure fire being dispatched. One limitation to note here is coverage and moving of
fire apparatus from one fire station district to cover another fire zone district was not
considered nor included as a simultaneous alarm. The only alarms considered for
inclusion in this step consisted of either a fire or medical related emergency incident
within the sixty minutes immediately following the dispatching of the eighty one
confirmed structure fires identified within this study.
The previous seven steps determine the total capacity of the CCFR&EMS. In this
project, capacity is defined as what the CCFR&EMS can adequately handle with existing
resources within each fire station’s response district before needing to add an additional
fire station location or adding an additional fire apparatus to an existing fire station site.
This procedure will identify when the CCFR&EMS cannot reach 90% of the first-due
alarm dispatches in 240-seconds of travel time; which will identify the capability has
been exceeded and therefore identify the need to add a station (distance issue) or add an
additional apparatus to an existing fire station (apparatus is already at an incident too
often).
The final limitation to note in this research project is the possibility of human
error in the correct input of dispatch times, software malfunctions, incorrect calculations,
and other conditions that might have been overlooked or misunderstood to reach the data
conclusions within this study. Every effort was made to be as exact and accurate as
possible in the calculations and data information included within this research study.
Results
The first research question was answered through extensive literature review and
discussions with other fire service professionals. The first research question asked; what
national standard or information exists to assist fire departments in recognizing the need
of when to add a fire station in their community? Two documents utilized in this
research project were instrumental in assisting to answer this question; NFPA 1710 and
ISO recommendations. To further assist in answering the first research question, the
responses from the TRADENET submission were utilized. The first individual who
responded to this author’s TRADENET submission was a reply via email on from Paul
Rottenberg (personal communication, June 5, 2008 at 10:52 PM) of FireStats®, LLC of
Nevada City, California that specializes in software that produces statistics of a fire
department’s operation. Mr. Rottenberg’s reply;
There is no standard; there are no guidelines; there is no guidance from
anywhere. Every community is on their own. The best indicators that I
have found are a combination of the following factors: Engine Company
Reliability, Engine Company Availability, Total Department Reliability,
Incidence and levels of resource draw downs, community expectations,
Mutual/auto aid requirements/expectations, and life safety/exposures.
There is no guidance from anywhere on how these values should be
weighted. Simply measuring them, however, is the first step in trending.
Once you can show how they change over time, you can start to get a
sense of the rate of change and the need to start planning for new
resources even if you don’t yet know exactly when to add those resources.
The second fire service expert that this author corresponded with related to this
research project was Dr. John A. Granito, who is Director of Higher Education Research
Center Initiative at Oklahoma State University, as well as, a nationally recognized fire
service author and fire-rescue consultant. Dr. Granito (personal communication, June 9,
2008 at 11:52 AM) had recommended several specific literature publications that might
assist in this research effort; specifically The Fire Protection Handbook, NFPA 1710,
NFPA 1221, and criteria from ISO, as well as, his professional suggestions to investigate
within the CCFR&EMS organization. In conclusion of the first research question based
on the literature review and the two fire service experts provided specifically that no
national standard or policy currently exists for when a community should add a fire
station.
The second research question of what other fire departments used in the past or
present to identify the need to add a new fire station to their community was conducted
by a comprehensive literature review and discussions with other fire service professionals
through email correspondence. The use of the TRADENET (see Appendix A) website
was again used to seek information from other fire service professionals related to what
their respective communities used for criteria to determine when to add a new fire station
within their community. The limited responses related to this second research question
from various fire service professionals were of a common theme; which was the result of
population growth, NFPA 1710 time standards, or increased construction or population.
None of the responses identified a methodology other than the information just
mentioned. Two previous EFOP research studies were reviewed related to this project.
Harmer’s (1993) project titled: Establishing criteria for when to build a new fire station;
did include valuable criteria for their community, but lacked the ability to adapt to a
defendable methodology this study was seeking. The second relevant EFOP study used
to answer the second research question by Scheel (1990), titled Threshold concept: when
to build a fire station; also was of limited value to developing a methodology that could
be adapted within the City of Cape Coral. Based on the research conducted, the specific
answer to question two is that little information exists on what other fire departments
have used in the past or present to identify the need to add a new fire station to their
community other than the three previously mentioned in the literature review of the ISO
Fire Suppression Rating Schedule, NFPA 1710 response times and population and
construction growth.
The specific answer to the third and final research question involves the seven-
step process previously described within this project. The first step in answering question
three involves the current station location and fire zone map currently utilized in the City
of Cape Coral (see Appendix B). This map represents the fire station location and first-
due response zones that fire apparatus currently cover in the year 2008 for total distance
and travel time of 240-seconds as stated in NFPA 1710.
The results of the second step in question three was to determine the average
number of various alarm incident responses each apparatus makes in a twenty-four hour
period. Each apparatus is listed with the average number of alarms responded to within a
twenty-four hour time period based on the last twenty-four months from May 1, 2006 to
June 1, 2008 (see Table A). There were a total 35,609 alarm incidents that occurred
during May 1, 2006 to June 1, 2008.
Table A
Average Calls per Day, per Apparatus for Previous 24-months.
Apparatus Alarms Alarms per Day
Rescue-1 4271 5.85

Truck-1 982 1.34
Rescue-2 4987 6.83
Engine-2 3271 4.49
Rescue-3 3175 4.36
Engine-3 1391 1.91
Engine-4 2605 3.57
Truck-4 637 0.87
Rescue-5 2743 3.76
Engine-5 1766 2.42
Rescue-6 4325 5.94
Engine-6 1681 4.04
Engine-7 363 0.49
Squad-8 3446 4.73
* Truck-9 281 3.90
**Rescue-10 232 0.73
* Opened: 3/21/2008
** Opened: 8/21/2007
The results of the third step in question three was to determine the average
apparatus on-scene time in which the unit is unavailable. Each apparatus is listed with
the average apparatus on-scene time based on the last twenty-four months from May 1,
2006 to June 1, 2008 (see Table B).

Table B
Average Apparatus Time Spent On-Scene (Minutes: Seconds)
Apparatus Unit Number Time On-Scene
Rescue-1 21.00
Truck-1 25.22
Rescue-2 19.33
Engine-2 24.15
Rescue-3 22.31
Engine-3 26.49
Engine-4 22.42
Truck-4 26.21
Rescue-5 20.49
Engine-5 26.03
Rescue-6 22.16
Engine-6 26.59
Engine-7 31.52
Squad-8 24.53
*Truck-9 20.29
**Rescue-10 24.01
* Opened: 3/21/2008
** Opened: 8/21/2007
The results of the fourth step of question three was to multiply the totals for each
apparatus in step two (number of alarms) and step three (average time on-scene)
respectively. This formula provides the average total time an apparatus is unavailable to
take an alarm within the twenty four hour (1440 minutes) period. Each apparatus listed
represents the average number of calls and average time on-scene within a twenty-four
hour time period based on the last twenty-four months from May 1, 2006 to June 1, 2008
(see Table C). In addition to the above formula, an additional sixty minutes has been
added to each apparatus for those times an apparatus is unavailable to respond to an
alarm due to training, refueling, restocking, staffing reduction, mechanical breakdowns,
departmental meetings and other similar but unknown occurrences.
Table C
Average Time Unavailable per 24 hours (Minutes: Seconds)
Apparatus Due to Alarm Other Total Unavailable Percentage
Rescue-1 123:03 60 183:03 12.71%
Truck-1 34:00 60 94:00 6.53%
Rescue-2 133:31 60 193:31 13.42%
Engine-2 108:52 60 168:52 16.70%
Rescue-3 98:13 60 158:13 10.98%
Engine-3 26:49 60 86:49 6.01%
Engine-4 81:04 60 141:04 9.79%
Truck-4 22:55 60 82:55 5.73%
Rescue-5 78:19 60 138:19 9.60%
Engine-5 63:02 60 123:02 8.54%

Rescue-6 132:16 60 192:16 13.34%
Engine-6 109:02 60 169:02 11.74%
Engine-7 15:37 60 72:37 5.03%
Squad-8 117:43 60 177:43 12.32%
*Truck-9 13:03 60 73:03 5.07%
**Rescue-10 19:42 60 79:42 5.52%
* Opened on:
** Opened on:
The results of the fifth step of question three is to determine the average
percentage of time that an apparatus should be available to take an alarm. In reviewing
the data under the current response system at the CCFR&EMS it was determined that an
apparatus should be available to take an alarm eighty five percent of the time within a
twenty four hour period. This 85% represents a total of 1224 minutes (20 hours, 24
minutes) that an apparatus should be available for an alarm. The maximum acceptable
time to be unavailable for an alarm is fifteen percent of the time which represents 216
minutes (3 hours, 36 minutes) per twenty four hours. The current percentage of time
each fire apparatus is unavailable to respond is located in the far-right column of the table
(see Table C).
The sixth step in the results of question three was to determine the response times
for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th due apparatus’ in order to make up the full 1st alarm
response to a working structure fire response for each fire station zone. The average of
the arrival times (hours: minutes: seconds) for a full 1st alarm structure fire response for
each station is represented for the twenty-four months from May 1, 2006 to June 1, 2008
(see Table D).
Table D
Average Time of Arrival for Structure Fire Responses (Hour: Minutes: Seconds)
Fire Zone 1st Due 2nd Due 3rd Due 4th Due 5th Due
Station 1 0:05:18 0:05:55 0:08:32 0:09:20 0:10:29
Station 2 0:06:04 0:07:08 0:09:24 0:11:55 0:13:50
Station 3 0:06:21 0:07:31 0:10:17 0:11:54 0:14:06
Station 4 0:05:37 0:06:38 0:07:38 0:09:14 0:12:18
Station 5 0:07:09 0:07:31 0:09:12 0:11:07 0:13:15
Station 6 0:07:12 0:07:39 0:09:31 0:10:05 0:13:59
Station 7 0:09:52 0:09:52 0:11:32 0:14:22 0:16:12
Station 8 0:06:07 0:08:03 0:08:51 0:09:33 0:11:55
Station 9 0:05:24 0:06:16 0:06:53 0:07:49 0:08:54
Station 10 0:09:08 0:09:24 0:13:00 0:17:24 0:17:35
The results in the seventh step of this research project discovered how many
dispatched alarms the CCFR&EMS could expect to receive in 24-hours on average X =
single apparatus alarm incidents in a 24-hour time period; Y = 1st alarm assignments
(480-seconds to arrive at incident); Z = 2nd alarm incidents; XX = 3rd alarms incidents;
and YY= multiple/simultaneous alarm incidents dispatched during active structure fire
incidents from May 1, 2006 to June 1, 2008.

The results of the research discovered the number of single apparatus alarm
incidents to occur in a 24-hour period department-wide was an average of 49.5 alarm
incidents (X = 49.5 incidents per 24 hours). The total number of full 1st alarm
assignments that arrived on scene of a structure fire incident within the NFPA 1710
recommendations (90%) of 480 seconds was 11% (Y = 11% of 1st alarm assignments
arrived within 480 seconds). The total number of structure fire incidents to require a 2nd
alarm response (upgraded) within the study’s time period was 2 incidents (Z = 0.02%
required a 2nd alarm). There were no incidents discovered during the research that
required a structure fire incident to upgrade to a 3rd alarm response (XX = zero incidents
escalated to 3rd alarm). The results of the final component of this step of how many
multiple or simultaneous alarm incidents occurred during active structure fire incidents
were 67 out of the recorded 81; or 87.2% of the time. The range of multiple or
simultaneous incidents to occur during a structure fire incident during the time period of
this study was a recorded peak of six simultaneous incidents to a low of no other
simultaneous incidents occurring. Taking this data and averaging the multiple or
simultaneous incidents the CCFR&EMS can expect to receive on average 2.73
simultaneous alarm incidents during the immediate sixty minutes following the dispatch
of a working structure fire incident (YY = 2.73 multiple or simultaneous incidents will
occur during a structure fire incident).
Discussion
The most significant finding gleamed from this project that one would
immediately notice from this study is the very poor performance of the CCFR&EMS
response times related to the arrival of the full 1st alarm assignment to a structure fire
based on the current language of NFPA 1710. The NFPA has established the following
time allowances recommendations for fire departments in 1710: 4.1.2 as one minute (60
seconds) for turnout; four minutes (240 seconds) for arrival of the first-due Engine
Company and 8 minutes (480 seconds) or less for the remainder of the full 1st alarm
assignment to arrive at a structure fire 90% of the time (2008). During this project, that
goal was reached only 11% of the time compared to the recommended 90% established
by the NFPA. Several reasons are known for why Cape Coral is unable to achieve a
better response time percentage; which gives further understanding as to why a national
standard for when to add a fire station does not currently exist; every community is
different.
Many might view the very poor performance to meeting the recommendations of
NFPA 1710 as startling. Without understanding the complexities and uniqueness of the
City of Cape Coral, one would understandably be concerned by the response times
discovered within this project. However, the poor NFPA 1710 performance has been
common knowledge within the CCFR&EMS for some time. The biggest challenge to the
City of Cape Coral meeting the NFPA 1710 response time is the fact that it is a pre-
platted subdivision community. In the report by Stroud and Spikowski (1999), it
discusses one of the biggest challenges to pre-platted communities such as Cape Coral; is
the ability to provide governmental services over these large developed areas. Most
communities begin from a municipal core-centered location and expand outward from its
core over time through controlled, zoning and land use development planning. Cape
Coral was developed as a land boom investment concept in its entirety in the late 1960’s
and investors were allowed to purchase lots anywhere within the 215-mile expanse of the
city and build on them. For this reason, there is no logical way for the CCFR&EMS to
meet the NFPA 1710 standard because many homes have been constructed everywhere
throughout the city and are simply located too far away from an existing fire station
location. In addition, times increase due to the vast network of canals throughout the city
requires excess travel routes for fire apparatus to reach certain areas of the city. With the
State of Florida’s comprehensive land use laws now required related to planning and
growth on communities state-wide, a community such as Cape Coral would never be
allowed to be developed and constructed in the way it was in the late 1960’s. For this
reason, the challenges related to planning and growth in Cape Coral is unparalleled
compared to most other communities dealing with planning and growth issues. Armed
with this knowledge, the CCFR&EMS understandably may fall short of meeting the
NFPA 1710 standard for many years to come. However, that is not to say that NFPA
1710 is not of value; it is simply unrealistic to meet the standard under the current
language. By establishing where we are now related to NFPA 1710, the CCFR&EMS
can establish the first step in establishing a methodology using trending of how we are
performing in fire service delivery as was stated by Paul Rottenberg (personal
communication, June 5, 2008 at 10:52 PM).
Harmer’s (1993) research listed two Florida fire departments and the
methodology they utilized for when to add a fire station in their communities. The first
of these two Florida communities is Palm Beach County where they use five different
indicators for when to add a new fire station. The first is the population of the station’s
response area produces more than an average of 3 alarms per day; the second is an
escalation of annual alarm activity and travel time; development has caused areas not to
be reached within 5 minutes; the number of alarms in a specific area geographic area is
over 8 minutes that can be identified as excessive and increasing in number; and the last
is an area to be annexed that does not have satisfactory fire protection.
The second Florida community mentioned in Harmer’s project (1993) is Sarasota
County. Sarasota’s fire station methodology differs in that it only looks at travel distance
rather than time. Sarasota County identifies three categories of risk as High, Medium,
and Low Risk areas within their responsibility. Medium and Low Risk is where the risk
is lower due to population densities. High Risk areas are to have a fire station within 1.5
miles; 3 miles for Medium Risk; and 5 Miles for Low Risk areas. Sarasota County
appears to have a similar issue with the population being diversely populated
geographically as is found within Cape Coral; which makes it difficult to achieve the
NFPA 1710 recommendations. However, Sarasota County appears to be attempting to
base their fire station methodology on the recommendations of ISO that looks at distance,
rather than response times. “ISO classifications were never designed to address the time
critical elements behind fire department system design” International Fire Fighter (2008).
In the research conducted by Scheel (1990), the Greeley, Colorado Fire
Department looked at the population compared to the square feet of commercial
occupancies and how fire department operating costs compared to single-family
equivalents determined when to add a fire station. Though the method proposed and
developed has value and benefits to the community of Greeley; it would be difficult to
implement in the City of Cape Coral if the methodology was challenged due to the fact
that the square footage of occupancies to population does not directly justify the need to
add a fire station. In fact, Hickey (2002) reports that since 1980, the construction of new
structures with modern building and fire codes have for the most part reduced the number
and significance of fires. The Greenly, Colorado approach also fails to address the issue
of fire risk in it’s methodology, as Granito (2008) mentions in the summary by Paul
Young’s paper; Integrated Risk Management and Firefighter Safety in the United
Kingdom that discovered far too few resources were devoted to residential areas where
the greatest number of fire deaths were occurring; while most fire suppression resources
were found to be devoted to the business districts which had far fewer fire deaths.
The research project conducted by Watson (2008) is certainly more in line of
what the City of Cape Coral would need as a defendable methodology. Watson continues
that the increase of both population and geography of Rialto, California directly
contributed to lengthening fire department response times (2008). The advantage that the
community of Rialto has when compared to Cape Coral, is that it is expanding from a
core-centered community concept and continual growth is expanding outward rather than
everywhere throughout a large pre-platted community.
The CCFR&EMS is still lacking in achieving all of the recommendations of the
ISO recommendations of the maximum distance that any occupancy should be located
from a fire station. The distance recommendation from ISO that a fully staffed Engine
Company be a maximum of 1.5 miles and that a fully staffed Ladder Truck be 2.5 miles
is required for maximum credit on the FSRS grading schedule (2008). However, the City
of Cape Coral has recently improved on the ISO FSRS grading schedule. Prior to 2008,
the City of Cape Coral had a split ISO grading of a 4/9 throughout the city. In late
February 2008, the City of Cape Coral went through a comprehensive ISO re-evaluation
and was recently notified by ISO that we are now graded as a “3” city-wide on the ISO
FSRS grading scale; which is a vast improvement over the previous rating. This
improved rating was a three year process to achieve this improved rating. Based on this
recent ISO improvement, it might be more realistic and practical for the CCFR&EMS to
place greater emphasis and resources on improving the response times related to NFPA
1710 for establishing a methodology of when to add a fire station.
My interpretation of the data from this study’s results is not as bleak as some in
the fire service might interpret. In looking at the specific results of the research data one
can begin to formulate a fire station methodology based on existing averages of response
times, number of alarms, and length of time an apparatus is unavailable for an alarm for
the CCFR&EMS. Utilizing the seven step research process assists with determining the
total capacity of the CCFR&EMS. Reviewing the research data in Table A, the average
alarms a single apparatus can expect per 24-hour period is 3.25 alarms per apparatus. For
those CCFR&EMS fire stations that have two primary response apparatus’ at their
respective fire station, this average is doubled between the two apparatus to expect 6.5
alarms total per 24 hours for that specific fire station. The average time for an apparatus
to spend on the scene of an incident is approximately twenty four minutes per call. When
combining the average of number of calls, time on scene, and total time an apparatus is
unable to respond, the CCFR&EMS can expect each apparatus to be unable to respond to
emergencies equal to approximately 2.5 hours for each 24 hour time period (0800 –
0800). This equates to an overall average of ten percent of the time an apparatus will be
unavailable for an alarm. What are the organizational implications of the research
findings within this study?

The implications for this study allow for the very preliminary foundation of the
development of a methodology for adding future fire stations for the CCFR&EMS that
will be defendable when challenged; based on the capacity and capability of fire fighting
resources of the CCFR&EMS organization. The preliminary foundation of this
methodology from the research data establishes that currently an apparatus can be
expected to be available for an alarm 90% of the time (21.5 hours or 1296 minutes) per
24 hours. The next key indicator for a fire station methodology based on the data is that
an apparatus can be expected to be responding to 3.25 alarms per day. The next key
indicator is the arrival times for apparatus at a confirmed structure fire incident. To
average these times by combining all of the apparatus would not be of value due to the
vast differences in travel distances for each station. Therefore, the average time of arrival
for the 1st-due apparatus through the 5th-due apparatus for each station will be the best
method to provide response time indicators that will have organizational significance for
establishing a methodology on adding a new fire station or additional apparatus at
existing fire stations based on an increasing response times in the future. The
organizational implications on the research data related to incidents that were upgraded to
2nd and 3rd alarms were of no statistical significance to this study. Research data that is
of organizational significance, relates to the number of multiple or simultaneous alarm
incidents that occurred during a structure fire which indicates the CCFR&EMS can
expect three additional alarms to occur within sixty minutes immediately following the
dispatching of a working structure fire. The combination of this research data establishes
the current capability of the CCFR&EMS and identifies when these resources are nearing
depletion into the future (capacity).

In summarizing the findings of this research project it is understandable that with
the complexities and uniqueness of every community throughout this country would be
difficult to fit into a widely acceptable methodology or formula for justifying the
construction of a new fire station for every community. However, with the
recommendations established by the respective authorities of the NFPA and ISO, each
community should be able to begin establishing models or trends within their
organizations related to response times and distances that can assist them in developing a
methodology for their respective community as was stated by Paul Rottenberg (personal
communication, June 5, 2008 at 10:52 PM). The findings in this study allow the
CCFR&EMS to begin tracking specific data to identify how the organization is
performing over time. Explosive growth in the past few years made it obvious that the
City of Cape Coral needed to add fire stations to keep pace with the growth. Now faced
with the housing market crisis and the slowing of both the local and national economy;
elected officials and the general public will demand answers when they challenge the
need for a future fire station. This project has laid the foundation to answer these
challenging questions.
Recommendations
The recommendations related to this study are provided to assist in establishing a
methodology or identification of key indicators on when to add a fire station within the
City of Cape Coral. By collecting the data from the NIFRS, CAD, correspondence with
others in the fire service, and review of the literature, the following recommendations are
provided for consideration. The seven recommendations offered on when to add a future
fire station in the City of Cape Coral are based on the research data findings that were
discovered during this research project.
The first recommendation offered on developing a methodology of when to add a
future fire station would be when on average, a single apparatus is responding to seven
alarms or more within a 24 hour period. For fire stations that currently have two primary
response fire apparatus assigned this figure increases to an average of fourteen alarms per
24 hours. This average would be based on any previous consecutive twelve month time
period. This recommendation is based on the data discovered and previously presented
(see Table A, B, and C). Though the location of a future fire station was not a component
of this study, it is acknowledged here that for the recommendation provided here to be of
value; the location of the future fire station must be located so that it will reduce the
resources that have exceeded their capacity of the specific fire station or unit identified.
The second recommendation for establishing a methodology or identifying key
indicators on when to add a fire station is when an apparatus unit is unavailable for an
alarm for more than fifteen percent of the time (216 minutes) of a 24 hour shift for any
previous consecutive 12 month period. This recommendation is directly related to data
previously presented (see Table C). It is obvious from the data presented that some fire
stations are nearing capacity; while other fire stations have capability for further increase
in alarm volume and frequency well into the future.
The third recommendation for a methodology on when to add an additional fire
station is when the arrival times for each apparatus at each fire station zone has increased
by ten percent for any previous consecutive 12 month time period related to the arrival of
the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th due based on the data in Table D. Currently, all CCFR&EMS
apparatus are exceeding the recommendations of NFPA 1710 and has been
acknowledged previously in this project. By identifying an increase of ten percent from
current capability on apparatus response times, an increase of more than ten percent
would identify that the capability and capacity are being exceeded. For future reference,
the ten percent time increase calculations have been performed and can be reviewed in
the appendix section of this project (see Appendix C).
The fourth recommendation on developing a methodology of when to add a fire
station in the City of Cape Coral is when the number of simultaneous and multiple
incidents occurring during a working structure fire exceeds five or more calls ninety
percent of the time for any previous consecutive twelve month period. This
recommendation is based on the findings discovered and previously discussed in the final
component of the research project (YY). Currently, the dispatching of the 1st alarm
assignment to a structure fire depletes a minimum of five apparatus from the sixteen
currently available throughout the City of Cape Coral. The occurrence of five additional
simultaneous or multiple alarms during a confirmed structure fire incident will exceed
both the capability and capacity of the CCFR&EMS to near depletion of its resources.
The fifth recommendation offered is not necessarily when to add a new fire
station but rather the consideration of assigning an additional Engine Company to any
existing fire station that only has one primary response apparatus that reaches the trigger
benchmarks previously mentioned in this project. This recommendation is based on the
fact that the current location is correct; however the assigned resources at the particular
fire station are exceeding its capacity. Simply adding an additional Engine, Truck, or
Rescue Company to an existing fire station location might greatly improve the response
times when the addition of a fire station is not necessarily required.
The sixth recommendation of this research project would be to combine the
comprehensive abilities of the City of Cape Coral’s GIS Division to a computer software
product that would allow for the most comprehensive historical and future forecasting
predictions in a visual city layered map that shows the critical data to the elected officials
and the general public on accurately presenting and defending the need for a future fire
station or additional fire apparatus to be placed into service at existing fire station
locations.
The seventh and final recommendation of this project is the purchase and
installation of Deccan® International computer software product that would allow for a
comprehensive and detailed analysis of service delivery data that would allow greater
forecasting ability related to CCFR&EMS call volumes and incident locations within our
community to assist in determining and allocating current and future fire apparatus and
facility resources.
In summary of this research project every community is unique and finding a
methodology that will work universally for when to add a fire station is neither practical
nor realistic. Currently, the established criteria from the NFPA and ISO can assist any
community in meeting recommendations that will assist in developing a defendable
methodology. The City of Cape Coral does not currently meet the full recommendations
of NFPA 1710 or ISO; and probably will not be able to achieve these recommendations
well into the future. However, the recommendations of these two fire service
organizations have allowed the City of Cape Coral to gauge their ability to provide
services compared to these two standards. By the collection of this research data and the
establishment of trends that are currently occurring within Cape Coral related to response
times and distances, it allows the CCFR&EMS organization to identify when response
times are escalating or lengthening which might indicate the CCFR&EMS resources are
in need of additional resources in the form of additional fire apparatus or fire station
facilities. This research project has provided a solid foundation of a preliminary
methodology that can defend the need of additional fire apparatus and future fire station
facilities.
Further research is needed in this area in the future to determine how the
organization is performing compared to the methodology and key indicators identified
and recommended within this study. Will the recommendations of this project be
implemented? This remains to be seen. This project focused on a very specific area of
when to add a fire station; that being the development of a methodology or identify key
indicators. The project listed the research data in a straight-forward non-biased approach.
Overall, the CCFR&EMS performs very well and is well respected by both the elected
officials and the residents it serves. By no means should this project been seen as the
CCFR&EMS is performing poorly; rather this project should be seen as a gauge to
indicate how the organizational resources are handling calls for service and when the
need to add resources can be defended and justified as it relates to future fire stations and
additional apparatus. Future research should continue on developing methodologies and
other specific criteria that can be identified related to population, density, hazard risks,
and other related factors that can assist other communities on when to add a fire station
within their respective community. When seriously challenged by others for the need of
future fire stations, or any other relevant subject matter; only through comprehensive
research and analysis can the Executive Fire Officer reach defendable conclusions and
recommendations while furthering the field of knowledge and advancement of the fire
service as a whole.
References
Armon, R. (2005, August 26). Hartville, Ohio will add fire station. Akron Beacon
Journal via Associated Press. Retrieved electronically on April 25, 2008 from:
http://cms.firehouse.com/web/online/News/Hartville--Ohio-Will-Add-Fire-
Station/46$44847.
City of Orlando. (2006, December 14). Orlando fire department break ground on new
fire stations [Press release]. Retrieved electronically on April 25, 2008 from:
http://cityoforlando.net/executive/communications/news/06_12_13_fire.htm.
Orlando, Fl: Author.
Coleman, R. J. (2006). The future of the fire service. In M. J. Buckman III, (Eds.), Chief
fire officer’s desk reference. Fairfax, VA: International Association of Fire
Chiefs.
Deccan International. (2008). Decision-support software solutions for fire and EMS.
Corporate Website. San Diego, CA: Author. Retrieved electronically on June 19,
2008 from: http://www.deccanintl.com/client_list2.asp
Duggan, B. P. (2008). Information management and computer technology. In Cote, A. E.
(Ed), Fire protection handbook: (20th Ed, Vol. II.), (pp. 12-79 – 12-83). Quincy,
MA: National Fire Protection Association
Freeman, M. P. (2002). Organizing and deploying resources. In D. Compton & J.
Granito (Eds.), Managing fire and rescue services (Rev. ed.), (pp. 105 – 137).
Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.

Granito, J. (2008). Planning for public fire-rescue protection. In Cote, A. E. (Ed), Fire
protection handbook: (20th Ed, Vol. II.), (pp. 12-3 – 12-20). Quincy, MA:
National Fire Protection Association
Granito, J. (2003). The next generation. In R. C. Barr, & J. M. Eversole (Eds.), The fire
chief’s handbook (6th ed.), (pp. 1095 – 1109). Tulsa, Oklahoma: PennWell.
Harmer, T. (1993, July). Establishing criteria for when to build a new fire station. (Call
no. 23166). [Applied Research Project]. Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire
Academy, Executive Fire Officer Program.
Hickey, H. E. (2002). Fire suppression rating schedule handbook. Louisville, KY:
Chicago Spectrum Press.
Insurance Services Office. (2008). ISO mitigation online. Retrieved
electronically on June 18, 2008 from:
http://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/2000/ppc2002.html
International Fire Fighter. (2008, May/June). ISO classification: A valuable or
misleading measure? (Vol. 91, No. 3, p. 20 - 21). Journal of the International
Association of Fire Fighters. Washington, DC: Author.
Liberatore, B. (2008, June 03). Historic drop hits county: city braces for $26 million less
in next year’s budget. The News-Press, pp. A1, A4.
Mark, K. (2008, April). Calculating probability to improve emergency coverage. Fire
fighting in Canada. Retrieved electronically on June 16, 2008 from:
http://www.firefightingincanada.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view
&id=1951
National Fire Protection Association (2007). Standard for the installation, maintenance,
and use of emergency services communications systems. (NFPA Standard 1221).
Retrieved electronically on June 9, 2008 from:
ttp://www.nfpa.org/codesonline/nfc.asp.
National Fire Protection Association (2007). Standard for the organization and
deployment of fire suppression operations, emergency medical operations, and
special operations to the public by career fire departments. (NFPA Standard
1710). Retrieved electronically on May 21, 2008 from:
ttp://www.nfpa.org/codesonline/nfc.asp.
Scheel, D. (1990, November). Threshold concept: when to build a fire station. (Call no.
17143). [Applied Research Project]. Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy,
Executive Fire Officer Program.
Stroud, H., & Spikowski, W. (1999). Planning in the wake of Florida land scams.
Journal of Planning Education and Research. Vol. 19, No. 1, 27 – 39. Retrieved
electronically on June 4, 2008 from: http://spikowski.com/landscam.htm.
Tribbey, C. (2006, March 28). Oceanside opens eighth fire station. North County Times.
Retrieved electronically on April 25, 2008 from:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/03/29/news/coastal/16_14_593_28_06.txt.
Watson, M. (2008, February). When is the right time to add a fire station? (Call no.
41584). [Applied Research Project]. Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy,
Executive Fire Officer Program.

Willer-Allred, M. (2008, January 31). Third Moorpark fire station studied. Ventura
County Times. Retrieved electronically on April 25, 2008 from:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jan/31/third-moorpark-fire-station-
studied/.
Wingfield, B., Pentland, W. (2008, January 30). America’s fastest-growing large and
small metros. Forbes.com. Retrieved electronically on June03, 2008. from
http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/30/economy-cities-alabama-biz-cx_bw_0130
econcities_ slide_3.html?partner=aol.
Appendix A
Copied from USFA’s TRADENET issued on June 4, 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
#4
I am looking for any input, preferable forms, that are in use for Annual Officer
Evaluations. We are currently using a very general form to do all evaluations and I am
hoping to institute some changes in the way our officers are evaluated which will review
and evaluate the specific roles and responsibilities that Officers have.
Please contact me via e-mail or fax
Lt. John Payne

Training Lieutenant
Bremerton Fire Department
Bremerton, Wa
john.payne@ci.bremerton.wa.us
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
#5
I am conducting research for my ARP and seeking any information from fire departments
that have developed a methodology or identified key indicators of “when” to add an
additional fire station in their community. What is or was the “trigger” that resulted in
the decision to add the fire station? Much has been published on “where” to place a fire
station within a community, I am seeking the “when to add” knowledge or experience
one may have related to adding a fire station.
David G. Kilbury
Battalion Chief of Special Operations
Cape Coral Fire, Rescue & Emergency Management
P.O. Box 150027
Cape Coral, Florida 33915-0027
Office: (239) 242-3619
Fax: (239) 242-3310
dkilbury@capecoral.net
Appendix B
1st-Due Response Map

Appendix C
Increase of 10% for All Times based on Comparison to Table D
Time of Arrival for Structure Fire Responses
(Hour: Minutes: Seconds)
Fire Zone 1st Due 2nd Due 3rd Due 4th Due 5th Due
Station 1 0:05:50 0:06:30 0:09:23 0:10:16 0:11:32
Station 2 0:06:40 0:07:51 0:10:21 0:13:07 0:15:13
Station 3 0:06:59 0:08:16 0:11:19 0:13:05 0:15:31
Station 4 0:06:10 0:07:18 0:08:24 0:10:10 0:13:32
Station 5 0:07:52 0:08:16 0:10:07 0:12:14 0:14:34
Station 6 0:07:55 0:08:25 0:10:29 0:11:05 0:15:23
Station 7 0:10:51 0:10:51 0:12:41 0:15:48 0:17:49
Station 8 0:06:44 0:08:51 0:09:44 0:10:30 0:13:07
Station 9 0:05:56 0:06:54 0:07:34 0:08:36 0:09:47
Station 10 0:10:03 0:10:20 0:14:18 0:19:08 0:19:21
Times Indicate Capacity and Capability being Exceeded

Station Methodology 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Station Methodology 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Station Methodology 1

Developing a Methodology for When to Add a Fire Station.

Cape Coral Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Management Services

Cape Coral, Florida

I have used the language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another.

This research project developed a defendable methodology on when to

challenged by elected officials or citizens. The project answered three research

methodologies or key indicators can be identified on when to add a fire station?

Research was conducted by literature review, correspondence, collecting and analyzing

of service delivery for the organization were identified. Recommendations included a

maximum threshold related to number of alarms, availability, response times, and

modern technology to determine an organizational methodology that could be defendable

to adding a future fire station.

Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………..Page: 4

Background and Significance ………………………………………………...Page: 6

Literature Review ……………………………………………………………..Page: 8

Procedures ... ………………………………………………………………….Page: 21

narrow portion of construction of a fire station; when is it needed?

Services (CCFR&EMS) has not developed a methodology or identified a defendable

following three research questions. What national standards or information exists to

Background and Significance

The CCFR&EMS is a professional career fire department with 206 employees, of

Battalion Chiefs, 35-Lieutenants, 41-Engineers, and 80-Firefighters. The current

frontline emergency response apparatus fleet consists of 5-Rescue Companies, 8-Engines

Companies, and 3-Truck Companies. The CCFR&EMS provides a vast array of

Emergency Management, Community Emergency Response Teams, Fire Prevention,

Public Education, and Plans review.

Located in Southwest Florida, the City of Cape Coral incorporated in August

Coral is that it was developed as a pre-platted community. A pre-platted community is

problems that amenity-seeking populations bring to pre-platted communities as they

City of Cape Coral has experienced this very problem.

defendable justification of their actual need. Developing a methodology to create a

manner to emergent issues.

excluded from this project except where specifically relevant.

reported that by analyzing commercial and industrial property; analysis of fire

station to be constructed (1990).

station because of more emergency calls generated by increased development and a

community; further review of literature directly related to national standards or agencies

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), ISO, International Association of Fire

Chiefs, International Association of Professional Fire Fighters, International City/County

Management Association (ICMA), Southern Building Code, United States Congress,

not mean that their influence is absent either.

One respected and recognized authority that can assist on developing a

Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations,

Maintenance, and use of Emergency Services Communications Systems; is relevant to

recognized respect and authority of the NFPA; it is not without controversy.

NFPA 1710, it was appealed by a number of different organizations; only to be rejected

Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and the International Association of Professional

accepted national standard.

Schedule (FSRS) document which continues as an insurance industry tool used to

evaluate a jurisdiction’s fire defense system to provide structural fire suppression.

classified as a Class-10; which is considered as having no fire protection. The second

and of itself, a comprehensive assessment of a entire fire department’s service delivery,

not an industry standard; it is only an index calculated through a standardized data

department (2008, May/June). The FSRS examines components related to an all-hazards

government administrators frequently associate a low index score with a high-functioning

coverage based on these distance factors – not time-based capabilities as recommended

technology as very relevant.

cling to traditional solutions. They think that by anticipating change they

that the fire service must resist.

In the pursuit of developing a methodology or identifying key indicators on when

modeling, and private consultants. In summarizing the comments of Duggan (2008),

resources will be allocated or deployed in the delivery of services by using sophisticated