HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2021-03-08 Item 3 - Document - 2021 Fire Department Report: Operational and Administrative Analysis
OPERATIONAL AND
C
ADMINISTRATIVE
E
N
ANALYSIS
T
E
R
TUKWILA FIRE DEPARTMENT
F
O
Final Report-February 2021
R
P
U
B
L
I
C
S
A
F
E
T
Y
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
CENTER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY MANAGEMENT, LLC
E
475 K STREET NW,
N
-969-1360
T
,
Exclusive Provider of Public Safety Technical Services for
L
International City/County Management Association
L
C
THE ASSOCIATION & THE COMPANY
The International City/County Management Association is a 103-year-old nonprofit professional
association of local government administrators and managers, with approximately 13,000
members located in 32 countries.
Since its inception in 1914, ICMA has been dedicated to assisting local governments and their
managers in providing services to its citizens in an efficient and effective manner.
ICMA advances the knowledge of local government best practices with its website
(www.icma.org), publications, research, professional development, and membership. The ICMA
Center for Public Safety Management (ICMA/CPSM) was launched by ICMA to provide support
to local governments in the areas of police, fire, and emergency medical services.
ICMA also represents local governments at the federal level and has been involved in numerous
projects with the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security.
In 2014, as part of a restructuring at ICMA, the Center for Public Safety Management (CPSM)
was spun out as a separate company. It is now the exclusive provider of public safety technical
represents ICMA in its dealings with the federal government and other public safety professional
associations such as CALEA, PERF, IACP, IFCA, IPMA-HR, DOJ, BJA, COPS, NFPA, and others.
The Center for Public Safety Management, LLC, maintains the same team of individuals
performing the same level of service as when it
government technical assistance experience includes workload and deployment analysis using
our unique methodology and subject matter experts to examine department organizational
structure and culture, identify workload and staffing needs, and align department operations
with industry best practices. We have conducted 341 such studies in 42 states and provinces
and 246 communities ranging in population from 8,000 (Boone, Iowa) to 800,000 (Indianapolis,
Ind.).
Thomas Wieczorek is the Director of the Center for Public Safety Management.
Leonard Matarese serves as the Director of Research & Program Development. Dr. Dov Chelst is
the Director of Quantitative Analysis.
iii
CENTER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY MANAGEMENT
PROJECT CONTRIBUTORS
Thomas J. Wieczorek,
Director
Leonard A. Matarese,
Director, Research & Project Development
Dov Chelst,
Ph.D. Director of Quantitative Analysis
Michael Iacona,
Senior Manager Fire and EMS
Sarah Weadon,
Senior Data Analyst
Xianfeng Li,
Data Analyst
Dennis Kouba,
Senior Editor
iiiiii
CONTENTS
Tables ............................................................................................................................. v
Figures .......................................................................................................................... vii
Section 1. Executive Summary .................................................................................... 1
Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Section 2. Scope of Project .......................................................................................... 5
Section 3. Organization and Management ................................................................ 6
Governance and Administration .............................................................................................................. 6
Tukwila Fire Department Overview ........................................................................................................... 7
Staffing and Deployment ........................................................................................................................ 11
Fire Station Facilities .................................................................................................................................. 16
Apparatus and Fleet Management ....................................................................................................... 19
Capital Equipment ............................................................................................................................... 22
Radio Interoperability and Coverage .................................................................................................... 23
Section 4. Analysis of Planning Approaches ............................................................ 24
Fire Risk Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 24
Hazard Analysis and Community Risk Assessment ............................................................................ 25
Hazardous Materials Response ............................................................................................................... 28
Target Hazards and Fire Preplanning ..................................................................................................... 30
Accreditation ............................................................................................................................................ 32
Section 5. Operational Response Approaches ........................................................ 33
Tukwila Response Protocols ..................................................................................................................... 34
Fire Response ......................................................................................................................................... 34
EMS Response and Transport ............................................................................................................... 45
Mutual Aid/Automatic Response ....................................................................................................... 47
Workload Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 48
Section 6. Response Time Analysis ............................................................................ 54
Measuring Response Times ...................................................................................................................... 55
Tukwila Response Times ............................................................................................................................ 56
Section 7. Performance Measurement ..................................................................... 68
Section 8. Essential Resources ................................................................................... 72
Fire Prevention and Code Enforcement ................................................................................................ 72
Washington Surveying and Rating Bureau (WSRB) ............................................................................... 77
Education and Training Programs .......................................................................................................... 78
iiiiiiiii
Emergency Management.......................................................................................................................82
Emergency Communications Center (911) .......................................................................................... 85
Section 9. Considerations for Revenue Enhancements and Reduction in Overtime
...................................................................................................................................... 87
Fire Department Revenue Enhancements ............................................................................................ 87
Considerations for Reduction in Overtime Expenditures ..................................................................... 90
Section 10. Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 93
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 93
Aggregate Call Totals and Runs ............................................................................................................. 94
Calls by Type.......................................................................................................................................... 94
Calls by Type and Duration ................................................................................................................. 97
EMS Calls by Response Mode and Duration ..................................................................................... 99
Calls by Month and Hour of Day ....................................................................................................... 101
Units Arriving to Calls ........................................................................................................................... 103
Workload: Runs and Total Time Spent .................................................................................................. 106
Runs and Deployed Time All Units .................................................................................................. 106
Workload by Unit ................................................................................................................................. 110
Analysis of Busiest Hours ......................................................................................................................... 114
Call Locations, Aid Given and Received ............................................................................................ 116
Response Time ......................................................................................................................................... 120
Response Time by Type of Call .......................................................................................................... 121
Response Time by Hour ...................................................................................................................... 124
Response Time Distribution ................................................................................................................. 126
EMS Response Time by Response Mode .......................................................................................... 129
Attachment I: TFD Response Area Maps ............................................................................................. 130
Attachment II: Dispatch Criteria ........................................................................................................... 132
Attachment III: Actions Taken ............................................................................................................... 134
Attachment IV: Additional Personnel ................................................................................................... 135
Attachment V: Fire Loss .......................................................................................................................... 136
Attachment VI: Historical Trends in Service ......................................................................................... 137
Trends in Call Volume ......................................................................................................................... 138
Trends in Workload .............................................................................................................................. 141
Trends in Station Availability............................................................................................................... 142
Trends in Response Time ..................................................................................................................... 144
Trends in Mutual Aid ........................................................................................................................... 146
iviviv
TABLES
TABLE 3-1: TFD Fire Stations, Response Units, and Assigned Personnel ............................................... 12
TABLE 3-2: Program Assignment Duties ................................................................................................... 13
TABLE 3-3: Station Locations, Year Built, and Size .................................................................................. 16
TABLE 3-4: TFD Inventory of Frontline Apparatus ................................................................................... 21
TABLE 3-5: Fire Pumper Life Expectancy by Type of Jurisdiction ......................................................... 22
TABLE 5-1: Recommended Leave-Time Reductions Needed to Operate One Peak-Period FD
CARES Unit Without Additional Staffing: ................................................................................................. 38
TABLE 5- ........................ 38
TABLE 5-3: Calls by Type ........................................................................................................................... 39
TABLE 5-4: Content and Property Loss Structure and Outside Fire ................................................... 41
TABLE 5-5: Total Fire Loss Above and Below $20,000: ........................................................................... 41
TABLE 5-6: Calls by Call Type and Number of Arriving Units ................................................................. 44
TABLE 5-7: EMS Calls by Response Mode and Duration ....................................................................... 47
TABLE 5-8: Mutual Aid Responses (Runs) Given and Received ........................................................... 47
TABLE 5-9: Mutual Aid Response by Agency ......................................................................................... 48
TABLE 5-10: Call Workload by Unit ........................................................................................................... 49
TABLE 5-11: Annual Runs and Deployed Time by Call Type................................................................. 50
TABLE 5-12: Station Availability to Respond to Calls ............................................................................. 51
TABLE 5-13: Top 10 Hours with the Most Calls Received ....................................................................... 52
TABLE 5-14: Frequency Distribution of the Number of Calls ................................................................. 52
TABLE 5-15: Frequency of Overlapping Calls ......................................................................................... 52
TABLE 6-1: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type ............................................... 57
TABLE 6-2: Tukwila 90th Percentile Response Times ............................................................................... 58
TABLE 7-1: The Five GASB Performance Indicators ............................................................................... 69
TABLE 8-1: TFD Fire Prevention Division Activity Statistics, 20142019 .................................................. 72
TABLE 8-2: Fire Investigations, 20142019 ................................................................................................ 74
TABLE 10-1: Call Types ............................................................................................................................... 94
TABLE 10-2: Calls by Type and Duration ................................................................................................. 97
TABLE 10-3: EMS Calls by Response Mode and Duration ..................................................................... 99
TABLE 10-4: Calls by Call Type and Number of Arriving Units ............................................................. 103
TABLE 10-5: Annual Runs and Deployed Time by Run Type ............................................................... 106
TABLE 10-6: Average Deployed Minutes by Hour of Day ................................................................... 108
TABLE 10-7: Call Workload by Unit ......................................................................................................... 110
TABLE 10-8: Total Annual Runs by Run Type and Unit ......................................................................... 111
TABLE 10-9: Daily Average Deployed Minutes by Run Type and Unit .............................................. 112
TABLE 10-10: Frequency Distribution of the Number of Calls ............................................................. 114
TABLE 10-11: Top 10 Hours with the Most Calls Received ................................................................... 114
TABLE 10-12: Frequency of Overlapping Calls ..................................................................................... 115
TABLE 10-13: Station Availability to Respond to Calls ......................................................................... 115
vvv
TABLE 10-14: Calls and Workload by Location....................................................................................117
TABLE 10-15: Structure Fire and Outside Fire Runs by Location.........................................................117
TABLE 10-16: Aid Given Calls, by Call Type .......................................................................................... 118
TABLE 10-17: Aid Received Calls, by Call Type .................................................................................... 118
TABLE 10-18: Aid Received Calls, by Responding Agency ................................................................ 119
TABLE 10-19: Mutual Aid Response, by Agency .................................................................................. 119
TABLE 10-20: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type ......................................... 121
TABLE 10-21: 90th Percentile Response Time of Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by
Call Type .................................................................................................................................................. 123
TABLE 10-22: Average and 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit at Tukwila, by Hour
of Day ....................................................................................................................................................... 124
TABLE 10-23: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time, First Arriving Unit, EMS .............................. 127
TABLE 10-24: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time, First Arriving Unit, Outside and Structure
Fires ........................................................................................................................................................... 128
TABLE 10-25: Average Response Times of First Arriving TFD Unit, by Response Mode ..................... 129
TABLE 10-26: 90th Percentile Response Times of First Arriving TFD Unit, by Response Mode .......... 129
TABLE 10-27: Dependence of EMS Type on CBD Code ..................................................................... 132
TABLE 10-28: Dependence of Response Mode on CBD Code ......................................................... 133
TABLE 10-29: Actions Taken Analysis for Structure and Outside Fire Calls ........................................ 134
TABLE 10-30: Workload of Administrative Units .................................................................................... 135
TABLE 10-31: Total Fire Loss Above and Below $20,000 ...................................................................... 136
TABLE 10-32: Content and Property Loss Structure and Outside Fires ............................................ 136
TABLE 10-33: Calls by Year and Grand Call Type ................................................................................ 138
TABLE 10-34: EMS Calls by Year and Type ............................................................................................ 139
TABLE 10-35: Fire Calls by Year and Type ............................................................................................. 139
TABLE 10-36: Unit Runs and Workload by Year .................................................................................... 141
TABLE 10-37: Station Availability to Respond to Calls by Year ........................................................... 142
TABLE 10-38: Comparison of 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving TFD Unit, by Response
Mode and Year ....................................................................................................................................... 145
TABLE 10-39: Aid Given Runs by Year and Agency ............................................................................ 146
TABLE 10-40: Aid Received Runs by Year and Agency ...................................................................... 146
vivivi
FIGURES
FIGURE 3-1: City of Tukwila Table of Organization .................................................................................. 7
FIGURE 3-2: Tukwila Fire Department Table of Organization ............................................................... 10
FIGURE 3-3: City of Tukwila Fire Department Stations ........................................................................... 17
FIGURE 4-1: Community Risk Matrix ......................................................................................................... 25
FIGURE 5-1: Low-Risk ResponseExterior Fire Attack .............................................................................. 33
FIGURE 5-2: Moderate Risk ResponseInterior Fire Attack .................................................................... 34
FIGURE 5-3: Full-Force ResponseUtilizing an Aerial Device ................................................................. 34
FIGURE 5-4: MDPS Response Matrix ......................................................................................................... 37
FIGURE 5-5: Location of Structure Fires, 2019 ......................................................................................... 40
FIGURE 5-6: 2019 Structure Fires with a Loss of $20,000 or More .......................................................... 42
FIGURE 5-7: Calls by Number of Units Arriving EMS ............................................................................. 43
FIGURE 5-8: Calls by Number of Units Arriving Fire .............................................................................. 44
FIGURE 6-1: Fire Propagation Curve ....................................................................................................... 55
FIGURE 6-2: Tukwila Station Locations with Travel Projection of 240 Seconds ................................... 60
FIGURE 6-3: Tukwila Station Locations with Travel Projection of 360 Seconds ................................... 61
FIGURE 6-4: Tukwila Station Locations with Travel Projection of 480 Seconds ................................... 62
FIGURE 6-5: Tukwila Station Locations with Composite Travel Projections ......................................... 63
FIGURE 6-5: Location of TFD Fire Calls ..................................................................................................... 64
FIGURE 6-6: Location of TFD EMS Calls .................................................................................................... 65
FIGURE 6-7: Location of TFD Other Calls ................................................................................................. 66
FIGURE 6-8: Location of TFD Responses with Total Response Time 1of 0 Minutes or Greater .......... 67
FIGURE 10-1: EMS Calls by Type ............................................................................................................... 95
FIGURE 10-2: Fire Calls by Type ................................................................................................................ 95
FIGURE 10-3: EMS Calls by Response Mode ........................................................................................... 99
FIGURE 10-4: Calls per Day by Month ................................................................................................... 101
FIGURE 10-5: Calls per Hour by Time of Day ......................................................................................... 102
FIGURE 10-6: Calls by Number of Units Arriving, EMS .......................................................................... 104
FIGURE 10-7: Calls by Number of Units Arriving, Fire ............................................................................ 104
FIGURE 10-8: Average Deployed Minutes by Hour of Day ................................................................ 109
FIGURE 10-9: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by EMS Call Type ................................. 122
FIGURE 10-10: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Fire Call Type ................................ 122
FIGURE 10-11: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit at Tukwila, by Hour of Day ................ 125
FIGURE 10-12: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time, First Arriving Unit, EMS ........................... 126
FIGURE 10-13: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time, First Arriving Unit, Outside and Structure
Fires ........................................................................................................................................................... 127
FIGURE 10- ................................................. 130
FIGURE 10- .............. 131
FIGURE 10-16: Calls per Day by Year and Grand Call Type .............................................................. 138
FIGURE 10-17: Calls per Hour by Year and Time of Day ..................................................................... 140
viiviivii
FIGURE 10-18: Availability to Respond to Calls by Station and Year................................................142
FIGURE 10-19: Comparison of Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Hour of Day.......144
FIGURE 10-20: Trend in 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving TFD Unit, by Response Mode
.................................................................................................................................................................. 145
viiiviiiviii
SECTION 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Center for Public Safety Management, LLC (CPSM) was retained by the City of Tukwila to
conduct an Operational and Administrative Analysis for its fire department, including a detailed
review of department operations, workload, staffing, fire stations, fire apparatus, and
deployment practices. This analysis includes a thorough review of the organization structure;
training; performance measures; prevention activities; and interactions with King County Medic
One, Tri-Med Ambulance, and mutual aid and regional partners within Zone 3 of the King
County Emergency Management zone system. Specifically, CPSM was tasked with providing
recommendations and alternatives regarding fire department operations, potential revenue
enhancements, and ways to contain overtime use in the future.
During the study, CPSM analyzed performance data provided by the Tukwila Fire Department
(TFD) and also examined first-hand the d
deploy resources utilizing traditional approaches, which are rarely reviewed. To begin the
review, project staff asked for certain documents, data, and information. The project staff used
this information/data to familiarize themselves with the d
operations. The provided information was supplemented with information obtained during a
series of virtual interviews that focused on the performance of the department and which was
used to compare that performance to national benchmarks. CPSM will typically utilize
benchmarks that have been developed by organizations such as the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA), Center for Public Safety Excellence, Inc. (CPSE), the ICMA Center for
Performance Measurement, as well as others.
Project staff conducted its virtual interviews on September 14-15 and September 22, 2020, for the
purpose of obtaining information on fire department and agency-connected support
operations, interviewing key department staff, city officials and regional partners. Supplemental
telephone conference calls as well as email exchanges were conducted so that CPSM staff
could affirm the project scope, and elicit further discussion regarding this analysis.
The Tukwila Fire Department operates under a very traditional fire department organizational
structure; its equipment, deployment practices, and responding apparatus are designed
primarily for structural fire protection. The TFD operates within the expansive King County urban
service network, interacting with a number of service agencies that partner in the delivery of fire
and EMS services.
We found TFD employees to be highly skilled; they provide a full range of services in the Tukwila
metropolitan area and adjacent areas of King County. The city and the fire personnel with
whom CPSM interacted are truly interested in serving the city to the best of their abilities. In
addition, the collaboration between TFD, the contracted ambulance service (Tri-Med), King
County Medic One, Valley Communications Center, and other agencies within Zone 3 of King
County Emergency Management zone system, provides for a well-integrated and excellent
service delivery. As is the case with many other fire service agencies, the department is
challenged to appropriately staff and deploy the needed resources while at the same time
containing costs. Though these aspects of service delivery are challenging, they are not
insurmountable. CPSM will provide a series of observations and recommendations that we
more efficientcost-effective
believe can allow TFD to become and in managing its full range of
service responsibilities.
111
RECOMMENDATIONS
The TFD provides an excellent range of services to its citizens, local businesses, employees,
shoppers, and visitors to the area. The department is well-respected in the community and by
city leadership. As with many established fire departments that have been and are experiencing
a dramatic shift in their service responsibilitieswith fewer actual fires and more EMS and
service-related requeststhe ability of the department to adapt or modify its service delivery
strategies to reflect these changes can lag or be resisted internally. Change is never easy but
can only be instituted when clear direction is provided, there is a firm commitment from the
departm leadership, and the political directives of the city leadership is unwavering.
Thirty-seven
recommendations are listed below and in the applicable sections within this report.
The recommendations are based on best practices derived from the NFPA, CPSM, ICMA, the
U.S. Fire Administration, the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM), and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Considerations for Revenue
In addition, CPSM has included in this study a section titled
Enhancements and Overtime Reductions.
Beginning on page 87, we provide eight
considerations for enhancing revenue, and nine recommendations for ways to reduce overtime
expenditures.
The following recommendations are listed in the order in which they appear in the report.
Section 3
1.The city should modify the status of future Pipeline positions and move these positions to a
part-time, on-call status. Work limitations should be applied so that the city can limit benefits
and pension contributions. Pipeline positions should be paid on an hourly basis and should be
utilized to fill daily staffing vacancies on an as-needed basis. (See pp. 9.)
2.In future negotiations with the IAFF, the city should pursue the elimination or a reduction in the
number of Kelly Days awarded to each employee, which would equate to a corresponding
increase in the number of hours worked in the average workweek fire firefighters. (See p. 9.)
3.
for fire personnel and consider the exclusion of any leave time as hours worked when
determining overtime eligibility. (See pp. 910.)
4.TFD should consider the expansion of program management duties for field personnel and
utilize these assignments to enhance career development and consider these duties as a
factor in the promotional process. (See pp. 1213.)
5.TFD should expand the training requirements, certifications, and college degree prerequisites
for the Captain and Battalion Chief promotional processes. (See p. 14.)
6.TFD should redefine its application of employee performance reviews and utilize these
appraisals as a key component when considering employee promotions, step increases,
JATC progression, and merit reviews. (See pp. 1415.)
7.The City of Tukwila should conduct periodic audits of the TeleStaff payroll and scheduling
process utilized by the Fire Department. (See p. 15.)
8.The Tukwila Fire Department should institute a Quality Assurance-Quality Improvement
(QA/QI) review process for its fire incident reporting. (See pp. 1516.)
222
9.Tukwila should evaluate its ability to provide fire and EMS services from a configuration of
three fire stations backed by the use of roving units, automatic response, and the co-
utilization of resources from its neighboring jurisdictions. (See pp. 16-18.)
10.Tukwila should consider the use of dynamic deployment and roving aid cars to improve
service area coverage and reduce overall response times. (See pp. 1819.)
Section 4
11.The Tukwila Fire Department should conduct a formal fire risk analysis that concentrates on
the c-box occupancies, high-rise
structures, industrial processing, and institutional properties. (See pp. 2427.)
12.The Tukwila Fire Department should implement a prefire planning process for all target
hazards and high-risk properties; this planning should be reviewed and updated on a regular
basis. (See pp. 3031.)
13.The Tukwila Fire Department should begin to enter its prefire/incident plans on all response
apparatus MDTs to enable real-time retrieval of this information. (See p. 32.)
14.Tukwila should consider the completion of the CPSE Fire Accreditation process for its Fire
Department in the near future. (See p. 32.)
Section 5
15.The Tukwila Fire Department should continue to utilize a 12-person minimum staffing
contingent that utilizes an aid car in conjunction with its other fire resources and its automatic
response arrangements. (See pp. 3435.)
16.TFD should work with the Valley Communications Center Dispatch Center to implement
response protocols that alter the TFD response mode when calls are determined to be minor
or non-emergency in nature. (See pp. 3536.)
17.TFD should work with the Valley Communications Center Dispatch Center, King County EMS,
and neighboring agencies to develop a Tukwila FD-CARES program. (See pp. 3637.)
18.The city, TFD leadership, and IAFF Local 2088, should work cooperatively to find ways to
reduce employee leave accruals and leave use so as to generate additional capacity to
operate one peak-period Tukwila FD-CARES unit (12 hours daily) in the city. (See p. 38.)
19.The City, TFD leadership, and IAFF Local 2088 should work cooperatively to develop guidelines
for use of sick leave along with a monitoring and intervention program aimed at reducing
excessive use of sick leave use. (See pp. 3839.)
Section 7
20.TFD should implement a series of performance measures that enable ongoing review of
service outcomes. The process of developing these measures should utilize input from TFD
members, the Fire Union, the community, the Mayor and City Council, and City
Administration. (See pp. 6871.)
Section 8
21.The Tukwila Fire Department should institute an in-service fire company inspection program
that promotes responder familiarization, code enforcement, and fire prevention efforts. (See
pp. 7475.)
22.The Tukwila Fire Department should re-evaluate the use of the two 40-hour
Captain/Inspectors and re-assign the duty of determining fire cause and origin and
333
estimating fire loss to the responding company officer and Battalion Chief in-charge. (See
pp. 7475.)
23.The City of Tukwila should evaluate the use of an out-sourced service provider in fulfilling the
fire code compliance requirements for periodic inspections of automatic fire protection
systems in the city. (See p. 75.)
24. The City of Tukwila should consider the use of non-firefighter personnel (Fire Safety Specialists)
instead of certified Fire Captains/Inspectors to conduct fire safety inspections and code
enforcement duties. (See p. 76.)
25.The City of Tukwila should consider the re-classification of the Fire Marshal/Battalion Chief
position to a non-represented position designated as a Program Manager in charge of Fire
Prevention activities. (See pp. 7677.)
26.The Tukwila Fire Department should institute a comprehensive public education program that
targets senior and at-risk populations along with school-age children. (See p. 77.)
27.The Tukwila Fire Department should adopt a minimum training criterion (individual hours of
and completion of these training requirements on a regular basis. (See p. 79.)
28.to institute
written and practical skills testing as part of the dSee
p. 80.)
29.TFD should institute annual physical fitness testing in accordance with NFPA 1583 for all
emergency response personnel, including chief officers. (See p. 80.)
30.TFD should institute annual medical physicals in accordance with NFPA 1582 for all
emergency response personnel, including chief officers. (See p. 81.)
31.TFD should institute an employee safety and injury avoidance program aimed at reducing
the number of line-of-duty injuries and lost time. (See pp. 8182.)
32.TFD should implement the use of the after-action reviews (AARs) after major incidents or
events. These will serve as a training exercise and can improve service delivery and
employee safety. (See p. 82.)
33.The City of Tukwila should re-assign the duties of the Battalion Chief of Emergency
Management to a professionally trained Emergency Manager who is classified as a Senior
Program Manager and exempt from overtime. (See pp. 8283.)
34.The City of Tukwila should update its Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP).
(See p. 83.)
35.The City of Tukwila should increase the number of city officials and support staff who are
trained and capable of using the WebEOC software in the event of a major disaster or EOC
activation. (See p. 84.)
36.The City of Tukwila should develop a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) for its essential
municipal functions. (See p. 84.)
37.TFD should monitor its average call durations and unit availability for BLS calls and determine if
the move from the automatic dispatching of a Tri-Med ambulance is adversely affecting
system efficiency. (See pp. 8586.)
444
SECTION 2. SCOPE OF PROJECT
The scope of this project was to provide an independent review of the
services provided by the Tukwila Fire Department (TFD) so that the Mayor
and city officials, including TFD leaders, could obtain an external
perspective regarding the cityfire and EMS delivery system. This study
provides a comprehensive analysis of the TFD, including its organizational
structure, workload, staffing, overtime, deployment, training, fire
prevention, planning, and emergency communications (911). In addition,
CPSM will provide its insights to help the department determine the
appropriateness of the level of response and alternative delivery systems that can be utilized in
meeting both current and projected demand while containing its costs. Local government
officials often commission these types of studies to measure their department against industry
best practices. In this analysis, CPSM provides recommendations where appropriate, and offers
input on a strategic direction for the future.
Key areas evaluated during this study include:
Fire department response times (using data from the citymputer-aided dispatch system
and the TFD records management systems).
Deployment, staffing, and overtime.
Agency interaction with Medic One, Tri-Med Ambulance, and neighboring mutual aid and
joint response partners.
Organizational structure and managerial oversight.
Fire and EMS workloads, including unit response activities.
TFD support functions (training, fire prevention/code enforcement, and 911 dispatch).
An evaluation of the capacity of the organization to best position itself in meeting anticipated
demand.
§ § §
555
SECTION 3. ORGANIZATION AND
MANAGEMENT
GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
Tukwila is located in western King County, Washington, immediately south of the City of Seattle
and just east of the Sea-Tac International Airport. Tukwila is located in the center of the Seattle
Metropolitan Area, along Interstate 5, which is the predominant north-south thoroughfare in the
western United States between Canada and Mexico. Tukwila
freeways, railroads, and rivers has made the area an important center of business. It is estimated
that nearly 45,000 people work in Tukwila.
Southcenter, is located in the city. Also in Tukwila are a number of Boeing facilities and several
Internet and corporate datacenters including those of Microsoft, Internap, the University of
Washington, Savvis, AboveNet, HopOne, and Fortress Colocation. The city encompasses a land
area of approximately 9.6 square miles and in 2019 had an estimated population just above
20,000.
Tukwila is an incorporated municipal government; it operates under a Mayor/Council form of
government. The Mayor is selected at-large, to a four-year term and serves as the cChief
Administrative Officer. The Mayor hires and fires the City Administrator, the Fire Chief, and Police
Chief and is responsible for seeing that the laws and ordinances of the city are enforced. The
Mayor presides over City Council meetings but does not vote except in the case of a tie. The
Mayor may veto ordinances, but a majority plus one of the City Council can override the
-large. Each year in
January, the Council elects a Council President who serves in this role for one year. The City
Council serves as the legislative body for the city, responsible for enacting laws that govern the
city, adopting a biennial budget, and appropriating funds to provide city services.
Tukwila is typical of many cities and towns across the United States in that it operates its own
public works department, parks and recreation, and several internal functions including finance
and human resources. Tukwila operates its own police department and fire department.
Emergency 911 dispatch services are provided throughout city government and neighboring
agencies by Valley-Com 911.
§ § §
666
FIGURE 3-1: City of Tukwila Table of Organization
TUKWILA FIRE DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The Tukwila Fire Department (TFD) is a career fire department comprised of 66 personnel, of
which 54 are uniformed fire rescue personnel assigned to emergency operations and 12 support
personnel who are assigned to administrative, fire prevention, and training positions.
The department is led by a Fire Chief who has overall responsibility for managing the
d-to-day operations and providing administrative oversight. The Fire Chief is
assisted by a Deputy Chief and two Battalion Chiefs (Fire Prevention and Emergency
Management). The department also has an Assistant to the Chief and an Administrative
Technician, who provide administrative support within the department. The Operations Division is
777
made up of54-linepersonnel who are assigned to the fourfire stations that are operational
throughout the city.
The Operations Division is divided into three work groups (A, B, & C Shifts) each with 18 budgeted
and ipeline positions (unbudgeted firefighter assignments) who staff the fire stations to
provide emergency response. Each shift is supervised by a Battalion Chief who works a 48-hour
shift and answers to the Deputy Chief. Each of the fire stations is supervised by a Fire Captain.
The Fire Prevention section of the department includes a Fire Marshal/Battalion Chief, two
Inspector/Captains, a Project Coordinator/Plans Reviewer, and an Administrative Tech (currently
vacant). The department assigns two Fire Captains as Training Instructors. These two training
Captains are assigned under a contractual arrangement with the South King County Fire
Training Consortium; they provide various fire and EMS training to multiple agencies in the South
King County area. At the time of the CPSM interviews, the department was transitioning its
Battalion Chief/Emergency Manager from his emergency management duties to a new role as
Logistics and Support officer. The emergency management function was being re-assigned to
a new Emergency Manager (non-uniformed) was being recruited to
assume these duties.
The Operations Division is responsible for providing the d
functions for a wide array of fire, rescue, and emergency medical services. From its four fire
stations, the department staffs one ladder truck and three engines. The Battalion Chief is
assigned to a BC/Command vehicle while on duty. These units are operational 24 hours per day,
7 days a week.
TFD operates with three-person staffing on each of its engines and the ladder truck. The daily
minimum staffing is set at 12 personnel. Each shift is assigned 18 personnel, which
accommodates up to six personnel to be off for various leave types (vacation, sick, Kelly Day,
compensatory time, disability, FMLA, etc.). In April 2020, the daily minimum staffing level was
reduced from 13 on-duty personnel to its current level of 12. This change was instituted as a result
reduce overtime expenditures,
which was often needed to maintain the minimum staffing level at 13 -personnel. Now, when the
on-duty staffing drops below 12 personnel, overtime is utilized to supplement staffing. When the
department operates at 12 personnel, one engine (Engine 352) is taken out of service and a
two-person aid car is placed into service to replace the engine. In this configuration, the
department operates two engine companies, one ladder company, a two-person aid car, and
a BC/Command unit.
The TFD relies heavily on its joint response agreements with neighboring agencies in Zone 3 of the
King County Emergency Management zone consortium. This arrangement is a very functional
and is a progressive method through which multiple agencies provide joint response from the
closest available fire and EMS resources throughout the area.
Best Practice
participation in and utilization of the Zone 3 consortium as a .
Pipeline positions
In 2015 the city authorized the department to utilize additional, un-budgeted
to supplement on-duty staffing. These positions were intended to provide the personnel needed
for coverage of shift vacancies and forestall use of overtime staffing. Pipeline positions are
trained firefighters who have tested and qualified to be hired through the firefighter recruitment
and selection process. These individuals have also completed the Firefighter Recruit Academy
offered through the Fire Training Consortium. CPSM believes that the Pipeline positions are a
viable method for reducing overtime costs and recommends that their use should be expanded
and modified in an effort to increase savings.
888
Recommendation: The city should modify the status of future Pipeline
positionstodefine thesepositions aspart-time, on-call. Work limitations
should be applied so that the city can limit benefits and pension
contributions. Pipeline positions should be paid on an hourly basis and should
be utilized to fill daily staffing vacancies on an as-needed basis.
(Recommendation No. 1.)
CPSM believes that the TFD can utilize upwards of nine pipeline positions to cover daily
vacancies at significantly less cost than that of covering vacancies with full-time firefighters on
an overtime status. The current wage provided to full-time firefighters equates to upwards of $58
per hour plus benefits. CPSM believes that the use of Pipeline positions working in a part-time, on-
call basis will reduce these costs by nearly half.
During the one-year period of this study from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, the
TFD responded to 5,754 incidents, of which nearly 77 percent were EMS-related (when canceled
and mutual aid calls are excluded). All personnel are cross-trained as both EMTs (emergency
medical technicians) and firefighters and are able to provide emergency medical care as well
as structural and wildland fire fighting. The department provides basic life support services (BLS),
from all fire stations.
two-tiered EMS delivery system
TFD operates in what is often termed a . In this arrangement, TFD
is the first responder and then, depending on the nature of the call (Advanced Life Support or
Basic Life Support), a secondary agency is dispatched. When a call is determined to be ALS, as
determined by the call-screening process done at Valley Com, the department responds along
with a King County EMS (Medic One) paramedic unit. If the call is determined to be BLS in
nature, the department is again dispatched as the first responder and if needed a private
ambulance provider (Tri-Med Ambulance Service) is dispatched if a transport is anticipated.
Kelly Days
Operations personnel work a three-platoon system in which personnel are on duty for 48
consecutive hours followed by 96 hours off. This schedule would normally equate to a 56-hour
workweek if averaged throughout the year (or 2,912 hours annually). In Tukwila, however,
through a negotiated agreement with the IAFF Firefighters Local 2088, line fire personnel receive
credit for one Kelly Day in each 24-day work cycle, or a total of 14 Kelly-Days each year (336
total hours). A Kelly Day is a 24-hour day in which an employee is off with pay.
This off-duty time is designed to reduce the number of hours in the average workweek. In
Tukwila, the frequency of Kelly Days (one every 24 calendar days) effectively reduces the
average workweek to 49.5 hours (2,576 hours annually). Considering that TFD currently
employees 54 personnel who each receive 14 Kelly Days annually, the total amount of lost time
annually attributable to Kelly Days is estimated to be 18,144 hours (54 personnel X 336 Kelly Day
hours). As a result, two personnel are off every day because of the Kelly Day credit. CPSM
believes that with a reduction in the number of Kelly Days, and a renegotiated increase of the
average firefighter workweek, the city can increase substantially the available workforce and
thus reduce the amount of overtime required to maintain minimum staffing.
Recommendation: In future negotiations with the IAFF, the city should pursue
the elimination or a reduction in the number of Kelly Days awarded to each
employee, which equates to a corresponding increase in the number of
hours in the average workweek fire firefighters. (Recommendation No. 2.)
999
The Kelly Day concept is not unique to the Tukwila system. CPSM has observed a number of fire
departments nationally which utilize the Kelly Day credit to reduce the number of hours worked
during the payroll cycle. Overtime guidelines relating to municipal fire personnel are specified in
7(k) exemption,
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the which allows municipal fire
personnel to work up to 53 hours each week before an overtime premium is required. FLSA only
1
requires overtime pay when the actual hours worked are in excess of the designated workweek.
FLSA does not require that this calculation include time not worked, such as vacation time, sick
leave, Kelly Days, or holidays (federal or otherwise). Tukwila operates on a 24-day FLSA cycle
2
and FLSA overtime is paid for all hours worked in excess of 182 hours. TFD personnel do not
exclude any leave time as time worked in the calculation for FLSA overtime eligibility.
when considering overtime eligibility for fire personnel and consider the
exclusion of any leave time as hours worked when determining overtime
eligibility. (Recommendation No.3.)
The following figure illustrates the current organizational structure within the Tukwila Fire
Department.
FIGURE 3-2: Tukwila Fire Department Table of Organization
1. See 29 USC §207(k).
2. U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, Overtime Pay: General Guidance.
101010
STAFFING AND DEPLOYMENT
Individual unit staffing and minimum daily staffing levels are perhaps the most contentious
aspects of managing fire operations in the U.S. There are a number of factors that have fueled
the staffing debate. Aside from FAA requirements for minimum staffing levels at commercial
, there are no state or federal requirements for the staffing of structural fire apparatus.
airports
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued a standard that has
-in/Two-
been termed the provision. This standard affects most public fire departments
across the U.S., including the TFD. Under this standard, firefighters are required to operate in
interior structural firefighting.
teams (of no fewer than two personnel) when engaged in The
environment in which interior structural firefighting occurs is further described as areas that are
immediately dangerous to life or health (an IDLH atmosphere) and subsequently require the use
of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). When operating in these conditions, firefighters
are required to operate in pairs, and they must remain in visual or voice contact with each other
and must have at least two other employees located outside the IDLH atmosphere. This assures
two in
that the "" can monitor each other and assist with equipment failure or entrapment or
two out
other hazards, and the "" can monitor those in the building, initiate a rescue, or call for
back up if a problem arises.
3
This standard does not specify staffing on individual apparatus, but rather specifies a required
number of personnel be assembled on-scene when individuals are in a hazardous environment.
There is, however, a provision within the OSHA standard that allows two personnel to make entry
into an IDLH atmosphere without the required two back-up personnel outside. This is allowed
when they are attempting to rescue a person or persons in the structure before the entire team
is assembled. The Washington State Legislature under WAC 296-305-05002 has adopted the
4
-in/Two-oons. Under Washington guidelines, when a
5
known rescue is involved and immediate action is warranted, three personnel (2-in/1-out), can
attempt to carry out the rescue.
6
A second factor that contributes to the staffing debate is the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 1710 publication, Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression
Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career
Fire Departments (2020 Edition Sec., 5.2.2). This standard specifies that the staffing level on
a minimum of four on-duty
responding engine and ladder companies be established at
personnel NFPA 1710 guideline is
. Unlike the OSHA guideline, which is a mandatory provision, the
advisory
, meaning that communities (including Tukwila) are not required to adhere to this NFPA
guideline. NFPA 1710 also provides guidance regarding staffing levels for units responding to EMS
incidents; however, the provision is less specific and does not specify a minimum staffing level for
EMS response units. Instead, EMS staffing requirements shall be based on
the minimum levels needed to provide patient care and member safety.
7
The difficulty that many agencies have arises from their co-utilization of fire companies and EMS
companies in responding to both fire and EMS calls. Working fires involving hazardous
environments are labor intensive and more personnel are needed to effectively manage these
incidents. EMS calls are typically managed with fewer personnel, and the majority of EMS calls
3. OSHA-Respiratory Protection Standard, 29CFR-1910.134(g)(4).
4. Ibid, Note 2 to paragraph (g).
5 https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=296-305-05002
6 Ibid, (4).
7. (NFPA) 1710, Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical
Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments (2020 Edition Sec., 5.3.3,2,2).
111111
can be handled with a single rescue company of two fire personnel. In the call-screening
process, those calls that require additional personnel are typically identified at the dispatch level
and additional personnel can be assigned when needed. In addition, in two-tiered EMS delivery
systems, an additional ambulance with two personnel is typically deployed.
TFD operates four primary fire suppression companies that are staffed daily (three engines and
one ladder). In addition, one Battalion Chief/Command unit is in-service daily. This would
typically provide a minimum daily staffing of 13 personnel. However, as mentioned above, the
minimum staffing level was reduced recently to 12 personnel and at this staffing level a two-
person aid car (ambulance) is placed into service at Station 54 in lieu of engine staffing.
All TFD fire stations operate with a single crew that consists of a Fire Captain and two firefighters
(with one firefighter assigned as the driver/vehicle operator). All response personnel are cross-
trained and certified as Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs). Station 51 houses the city-
duty Battalion Chiefs.
The following table identifies the primary response units operating from each of the stations and
the personnel assigned.
TABLE 3-1: TFD Fire Stations, Response Units, and Assigned Personnel
Station # Response Units Minimum Assignment
1 Engine 3
51
1 BC/Command 1
2
52 1 Engine/Aid Car*
3
53 1 Engine
54 3
1 Ladder
4 Stations 5 Response Units 12 on-duty personnel
*Note:
When minimum staffing drops to 12-personnel, a two-person aid car (352) replaces E-52.
Program Management Assignments
Many agencies often assign the oversight of program management duties to those staff officers
and chief officers who are assigned to 40-hour assignments. CPSM believes it is critical that many
of the program management duties required in the operation of a modern fire and EMS
organization be delegated to and under the direction of field personnel.
TFD has made several assignments of support duties to line personnel and this is commendable.
However, these assignments are selective and not all officers have been assigned program
management duties. The ability to properly manage key organizational duties is beneficial from
a career development perspective. In addition, the assumption of program management duties
and the effectiveness with which an individual performs in these assignments, can be a viable
consideration in the promotional process. The following table lists a variety of program
management duties that could be considered for assignment to field personnel.
121212
TABLE 3-2: Program Assignment Duties
Program DescriptionAssignment Level
Promotional Testing Battalion Chief
Performance Appraisals Battalion Chief
Haz Mat/Technical Rescue Battalion Chief
Employee Recognition/Awards Battalion Chief
CISM/EAP Battalion Chief
Sick Leave/Absenteeism Review Battalion Chief
Budget Committee Battalion Chief
Payroll / Executive Time Auditing Battalion Chief
Police Department Liaison Battalion Chief
EMS Protocols Captain
Station Maintenance/Upkeep and Supplies Captain
Fire Reporting QA/QI Captain
Hose Testing Captain/FF
Hydrant Testing Captain/FF
Radio Programming Captain/FF
Mapping Captain/FF
Fire Pre-incident Planning Captain
Infectious Disease Control Captain/FF
EMS Supplies/Decon/Bio Disposal Captain/FF
911 Liaison Captain
Station Response Area Designation Captain
Response Protocols Captain
Fire Investigations Captain/FF
Safety/Rehab/Risk Management Captain
SOP/Ops Committee Captain/FF
Fitness Committee Captain/FF
Shift Training Coordinator Captain
Recruit Training/Proctoring Captain
Public Information Officer Captain/FF
Driver Training/EVOC Captain/FF
Fleet Maintenance/Repair Record Keeping Captain/FF
Internal Communications/Newsletter Captain/FF
Social Media/FD Web Page Captain/FF
FF/EMS Recruitment Committee Captain/FF
Car Seat Installation Captain/FF
Smoke Detector Replacement Captain/FF
Recommendation: TFD should consider the expansion of program
management duties for field personnel and utilize these assignments to
enhance career development and consider these duties as a factor in the
promotional process. (Recommendation No. 4.)
131313
Communicating in the Department
The ability to communicate work assignments, conduct training sessions, discuss new program
initiatives, or merely to update employees on departmental programs or the strategic direction
of the organization requires ongoing outreach, specifically from the Fire Chief, chief officers, and
training instructors in the organization. There are a number of communication tools currently
available that can be used to conduct video conference calls, virtual meetings, training
sessions, and information exchanges among multiple work settings (for example, see Zoom
Microsoft TEAMSto
use and often are available at no charge.
The TFD Fire Chief conducts -In with the on-coming shifts on a regular basis. This
interaction frequently is extended to the Mayor, City Administrator or other key officials when
needed. Training session and administrative updates are frequently carried out in this forum.
CPSM recognizes the utilization of these electronic communication tools in keeping the
Best Practice
organization informed and well-trained as a .
Officer Promotional Process
Essential to the sustainability of any organization is the career development and professional
growth of the workforce. Fire service organizations are extremely regimented in their oversight of
personnel issues. As is the case in Tukwila, these processes are guided by civil service rules,
collective bargaining agreements, and internal personnel guidelines. The fire service
promotional process is very competitive, and because of this highly competitive forum, it
provides an ideal opportunity to develop individual skills and to institute organizational
philosophies.
The ability to direct the learning effort in developing the needed skill sets is a key function that
can be orchestrated through the promotional testing process. This factor is essential in the
development of the future workforce and in creating or perhaps changing the culture of an
organization. Within the promotional and testing process, management can identify and utilize
the source materials for testing and establish the prerequisite training criteria for promotional
eligibility. It is important that the department establish prerequisites that encompass components
such as colleg
project management experience, supervisory training, computer applications, fitness and
performance appraisals.
The TFD promotional process for Captain and Battalion Chief has very limited requirements of a
basic certification for EMT, Washington State License, and a Fire Instructor-1 Certificate.
There are no prerequisite requirements for supervisory training; knowledge of Incident Command
and Fire Inspections; or computer or technical training. Though a community college degree
and core coursework in Fire Sciences is recommended, the degree requirements for both
Captain and Battalion Chief can be waived with additional years of job experience or
participation in in-service training activities.
Recommendation: TFD should expand the training requirements,
certifications, and college degree prerequisites for the Captain and Battalion
Chief promotional processes. (Recommendation No. 5.)
Performance Review Process
The annual employee performance review is closely aligned with the promotional process and
equally effective in career development, professional growth, and performance remediation.
The City of Tukwila and the department do utilize an annual performance review process, but
141414
the methodologies utilized in the departmentarelargely ineffectivefor their intended purposes.
Performance appraisals are not considered in the Captain and Battalion Chief promotional
process, nor are these reviews considered when merit or step increases are awarded.
Correspondingly, the individual performance review has limited application in progressing the
nearly 40 months of training and development involved in the Journeyman Apprenticeship
Training Curriculum (JATC), which is delivered through the Training Consortium.
CPSM believes that the performance review process can be an effective supervisory process
when used effectively. It provides a formal communication and documentation between the
supervisor and an employee in establishing goals, monitoring performance, and identifying
areas requiring improvement.
Recommendation: TFD should redefine its application of employee
performance reviews and utilize these appraisals as a key component when
considering employee promotions, step increases, JATC progression, and
merit reviews. (Recommendation No. 6.)
When re-engineering the use of the performance review process, it is extremely important that
all supervisors are properly trained in their use and clear guidelines are developed for both
supervisors and subordinates.
Payroll and Scheduling Management
Workforce TeleStaff
TFD utilizes the software package to assist in the management of its payroll
process. TeleStaff is an automated payroll and scheduling system that tracks the various leave-
categories and authorizes any additional pay and overtime. The TeleStaff system is interfaced
with the cinvolves time-sheet entries and authorizations by both
employees and supervisors to enable processing. The system utilizes a number of checks and
reviews by supervisors and fire management staff along with oversight by the city Finance
Department to ensure that all leave time is entered and any additional pay is paid.
Most fire departments, including Tukwila, have a complex series of rules and conditions in which
leave time is authorized and additional pay is applied. The TeleStaff system is a software
package that is customized to address the payroll criteria established and utilized for the specific
organization. The TeleStaff system is very effective and quite versatile in its application. While
TeleStaff has a built-in number of authorizations, situations do arise in which an omission occurs or
an overpayment is made. As with any financial process in a government setting, a periodic
audit should be incorporated to ensure proper financial oversight. In Tukwila an audit of the Fire
being done. CPSM believes that
periodic audits of TeleStaff are warranted.
Recommendation: The City of Tukwila should conduct periodic audits of the
TeleStaff payroll and scheduling process utilized by the Fire Department.
(Recommendation No. 7.)
Incident Reporting
Every response that is carried out by the Tukwila Fire Department is documented by a written
incident report.
EMS calls utilize a patient care report that documents the date, time, personnel involved, and
actions taken in treating the patient, along with any related patient information (blood pressure,
respirations, level of consciousness, signs and symptoms, injuries etc.). Fire reports identify the
date and time of the incident, the occupancy type or location of the incident, the situation
151515
found, personnel involved,and the actions taken. These incident reports serve as the official
public record and also provide statistical information that is used to capture key information
regarding department activities including workload, response times, fire loss estimates, patient
transports, etc. All EMS reports undergo a comprehensive review for Quality Assurance (Q/A)
and Quality Improvement (Q/I). These reviews are done by King County and the c
Medical Director.
Fire reports do not have the same level of review. Reports are typically done by the first arriving
officer and input is added by the Incident Commander (Battalion Chief) and other officers
regarding their actions taken and their involvement with the incident. TFD does not have a
formal quality review process for its fire reporting.
Recommendation: The Tukwila Fire Department should institute a Quality
Assurance-Quality Improvement (QA/QI) review process for its fire incident
reporting. (Recommendation No. 8.)
FIRE STATION FACILITIES
Fire department capital facilities are exposed to some of the most intense and demanding uses
of any public local government facility, as they are occupied and in use 24 hours a day and 7
days a week. The Tukwila Fire Department operates out of four fire stations with five staffed
8
primary emergency response apparatus. Department administrative offices are in the old
Tukwila Station 51, located at 444 Andover Park East. The following table shows the location,
year built, and size of department facilities.
TABLE 3-3: Station Locations, Year Built, and Size
Building Address Year Built Size/Sq. Ft.
Fire Station #51 17951 Southcenter Pkwy. 2020 11,000
Fire Station #52 15447 65th Ave. South 2021* 14,650
Fire Station #53 4202 South 115th St. 1995 6,109
Fire Station #54 4237 South 144th St. 1961 4,000
*Note:
Station 52 was under construction during development of this report and has an expected
completion date in 2021.
The following figure is a graphic depiction of the location of the cityfour fire stations and the
municipal boundaries for Tukwila.
§ § §
8. Compton and Granito, eds., Managing Fire and Rescue Services, 219.
161616
FIGURE 3-3: City of Tukwila Fire Department Stations
The TFD serves an estimated population of 20,347 people and a total service area of 9.6 square
miles. The average service area for each fire station is approximately 2.4 square miles.
In a FY 2011 ICMA Data Report, ICMA tabulated survey information from 76 municipalities with
populations ranging from 25,000 to 100,000 people. In this grouping the average fire station
service area was 11 square miles. The median service area for this grouping was 6.67 square
9
miles per fire station.
10
9. Comparative Performance Measurement, FY 2011 Data Report - Fire and EMS, ICMA Center for
Performance Measurement, August 2012.
10. Ibid.
171717
In addition, the NFPA and ISO have established different indices in determining fire station
distribution. The ISO Fire Suppression Rating Schedule, Section 560, indicates that first-due engine
companies should serve areas that are within a 1.5-mile travel distance.The placement of fire
11
stations that achieves this type of separation creates service areas that are approximately 4.5
square miles in size, depending on the road network and other geographical barriers (rivers,
lakes, railroads, limited access highways, etc.). The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
references the placement of fire stations in an indirect way. It recommends that fire stations be
placed in a distribution that achieves the desired minimum response times. NFPA Standard 1710,
Section 4.1.2.1(3), suggests an engine placement that achieves a travel time of 240 seconds
(four minutes). -wise linear travel time function,
12
Rand Institute has estimated that the average emergency response speed for fire apparatus is
35 mph. At this speed the distance a fire engine can travel in four minutes is approximately 1.97
miles. A polygon based on a 1.97-mile travel distance results in a service area that on average
13
is 7.3 square miles.
14
From these comparisons, it can be seen that the average 2.4 square-mile service area per
station in Tukwila is much less than the noted references. In addition, Tukwila is in close proximity
and has mutual aid and automatic response agreements with several neighboring fire agencies
(Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority, Renton Regional Fire Authority, South King Fire & Rescue,
King County Fire District #2, Mountain View Fire & Rescue, and Valley Regional Fire Authority).
The City of Tukwila has recently constructed a new fire station #51 (2020) and is actively
constructing a replacement for Fire Station #52 (estimated completion in 2021). CPSM believes
that considering the combined workload of the TFD units, the geographic size of their service
area, and proximity to neighboring mutual aid partners, a consolidation of resources and a
revised deployment strategy that focuses on the EMS workload, utilizes roving units, and expands
the utilization of automatic aid response from neighboring jurisdictions is warranted.
Recommendation: Tukwila should evaluate its ability to provide fire and EMS
services from a configuration of three stations, backed by the expanded use
of automatic response, roving units, and the co-utilization of resources from its
neighboring jurisdictions. (Recommendation No. 9.)
Roving Units
TFD deploys its emergency resources from its fixed fire station locations. Responding units are
notified of an incident and then personnel must start up their vehicle, don any protective
clothing necessary, and respond to the incident. The elapsed time from when a unit is notified
turn-out time.
and ultimately begins its response is termed Turn-out time has been taking
upwards of three minutes for Tukwila units. Many agencies, particularly ambulance and EMS
Roving-Units,Dynamic Deployment,
providers, often instead of
responding from fixed locations. This means that units are mobile or posted at key response
locations in the service area, and respond immediately when dispatched. CPSM believes that
11. Insurance Services Office. (2003) Fire Protection Rating Schedule (edition 02-02). Jersey City, NJ:
Insurance Services Office (ISO).
12. National Fire Protection Association. (2020). 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. Boston, MA: National Fire Protection Association.
13. University of Tennessee Municipal Technical Advisory Service, Clinton Fire Location Station Study,
Knoxville, TN, November 2012. p. 8.
14. Ibid. p. 9.
181818
response times in Tukwila for EMS calls can be reduced by nearly 25percent if theroving
concept and dynamic deployment are utilized.
Recommendation: Tukwila should consider the use of dynamic deployment
and roving aid cars to improve service area coverage and reduce overall
response times. (Recommendation No. 10.)
There are a number of software packages that are utilized at the dispatch center that can assist
agencies in determining key locations for roving units to be deployed.When employed
15
effectively these measures are extremely reliable and can reduce response times dramatically
and improve service area coverage.
Condition of Stations
Fire stations are designed to adequately house apparatus and necessary equipment. Typically,
new fire stations have an anticipated service life of 50 years. However, we note that in many
jurisdictions older facilities are being replaced in a 30- to 35-year time frame. In most cases,
facilities require replacement because of their size constraints, a need to relocate the facility to
better serve changing population centers, the absence of needed safety features or service
accommodations, and the general age and deterioration of the facility.
TFD stations range in age from 59 years of age (Station 54) to its newest station (Station 52) that
was under construction at the time of this study and which is expected to be placed into service
in Spring 2021. As a result of an approved public safety bond initiative in 2016, the Tukwila fire
stations and rolling fleet of fire apparatus are in very good shape and well-positioned to service
the community for the foreseeable future.
APPARATUS AND FLEET MANAGEMENT
Fire departments utilize a wide range of fire apparatus, along with tools and equipment, in
carrying out their core mission. Apparatus generally includes emergency response vehicles such
as engines, tenders/tankers (water supply vehicles), aerial apparatus (ladders), quints, rescue
vehicles/squads, and ambulances. There are also specialized apparatus including wildland
engines and off-road vehicles, along with watercraft that are typically part of the emergency
fleet. Trailers are utilized to carry specialized equipment when needed. These include hazardous
materials response/equipment, decontamination devices and diking materials, structural
collapse equipment, portable air filling stations, scene lighting, foam units, and mass casualty
incident supplies. In addition, a wide range of utility vehicles including command vehicles and
emergency communications units, staff vehicles, and maintenance trucks can be part of the
fleet.
The mission, duties, demographics, geography, and construction features within the community
all play a major role in the makeup of the apparatus and equipment inventory utilized. These
factors, as well as the funding available, must be taken into consideration when specifying and
purchasing apparatus and equipment. Every effort should be made to make new apparatus as
versatile, safe, and multifunctional/capable as is possible as well as practical.
15. See: http://www.bcs-gis.com/uploads/7/4/6/5/74651127/marvlis_brochure_pdf_handout.pdf,
https://www.ems1.com/ems-products/communications/articles/dynamic-deployment-5-persistent-myths-
busted-BYjRSoywCriT7Kmn/
191919
Apparatus maintenance is also an integral part of any fire department, and budget-wise it is
invariably a key component in keeping such large ticket items as apparatus running and
extending their usefulness. It takes a big chunk of a city budget to purchase and subsequently
maintain a fire department fleet.
As fleets age, it is logical and sound planning to conclude that repairs and costs will increase
exponentially. There are two proven ways to mitigate the long-term and short-term costs
associated with repairs and replacements. The primary way is to have a sound, dedicated
preventive maintenance (PM) program that is on a regular cycle for each vehicle in a
saves money but saves lives as well by maintaining the number of viable apparatus ready to
respond to emergencies. The other method is to have a realistic capital improvement plan (CIP)
to acquire new apparatus when an existing vehicle has outlived its usefulness. NFPA 1911, which
sets standards for Guidelines for First Line and Reserve Fire Apparatus, has changed and
adapted over the years to reflect the changes in industry standards, but on one thing it has
been wholly consistent:
ensure that they are reliabl
added)
The standard further states:
worn out. There is also fire apparatus that were manufactured with quality
components, that have had excellent maintenance, and that have responded to a
minimum number of incidents that are still in serviceable condition after 20 years.
factors in determining how well a fire apparatus ages. (Italics added)
NFPA Standard 1915 addresses the minimum expectations for a comprehensive PM program.
The benefits of implementing a PM program in compliance with NFPA 1915 are many. First,
maintaining a vehicle is less expensive than repairing it. Second, vehicles that undergo PM on a
dedicated schedule are more likely to have a longer lifespan. Third, PM reduces the time that a
vehicle is unavailable for use in the community by reducing the chances that it will need repairs
that take it out of service for a lengthy period. Finally, demonstrating adherence to an NFPA
1915-compliant PM program reduces the chance of a maintenance-related untoward event
and possible resulting lawsuits.
The TFD deploys six primary first response units to accomplish its mission. These apparatus are
strategically placed among the 4 fire stations and include three engines, one ladder, one aid
car, and one BC/Command vehicle. The TFD also deploys several special service units and
trailers, fire boats, and reserve apparatus. These units are not staffed on a daily basis; instead,
when necessary, the personnel assigned to that station will operate these units and deploy as
needed. Service vehicles are also assigned to training personnel, fire prevention, and
administrative staff. The following table shows the T front-line inventory.
202020
TABLE 3-4: TFD Inventory of Frontline Apparatus
UnitTypeMakeYearAgeMileage*
Engine 351 Type 1/Engine Pierce Velocity
2019 1 year 1,291
Engine 352 Type 1/Engine Pierce Velocity
2019 1 year 1,246
Engine 353 Type 1/Engine Pierce Velocity
2014 6 years 43,526
Ladder 354 Aerial Ladder Pierce Velocity
2019 1 year 1,291
Ambulance
AID 352 Paraliner Type1 2020 new n/a
BC-543 Command Ford F-250
2016 4 years 40,953
Boat 515 Inflatable Boat Ranger 420
2009 11 years n/a
Boat 516
Police Boat Woodridge 2010 10 years n/a
Boat 520
Fire Boat Woodridge 2010 10 years n/a
Reserve Type 1/Engine Pierce Velocity
2014 6 years
Reserve
Aerial Ladder Pierce 2006 14 years 12,030
Note:
* Mileage as of 10/1/2020.
The dline pumpers range in age from one year to six years. On average, first-
line engines in the fleet are 2.6 years of age. The ladder truck is also new, purchased in 2019. The
aid car was purchased in 2020. In 2016, Tukwila voters approved a public safety bond that
provides apparatus replacement for the TFD for an estimated 15-year period. The city utilizes its
Public Safety Plan to identify the replacement schedule for its fire apparatus. This plan is based
generally on the age and odometer readings in determining the replacement order.
Consequently, the TFD front-line fleet is exceptional.
TFD vehicle repairs and preventive maintenance are provided by the Fleet Services Division,
which operates under the cFleet Services
is doing an exceptional job in maintaining the various apparatus and equipment under their
responsibility. The apparatus service facility/shop is well-equipped, sufficiently sized, clean, and
well-maintained. The Fleet Superintendent oversees the shop and the entire fleet maintenance
system utilizing four mechanics. CPSM highly commends the efficiency and effectiveness of the
fleet management unit given the staff and the corresponding output of services delivered.
NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, 2016 edition, serves as a guide to the
manufacturers that build fire apparatus and the fire departments that purchase them. The
document is updated every five years, using input from the public/stakeholders through a formal
review process. The committee membership is made up of representatives from the fire service,
manufacturers, consultants, and special interest groups. The committee monitors various issues
and problems that occur with fire apparatus and attempts to develop standards that address
those issues. Of primary interest to the committee over the past years has been improving
firefighter safety and reducing fire apparatus accidents.
The Annex Material in NFPA 1901 contains recommendations and work sheets to assist in
decision-making in vehicle purchasing. With respect to recommended vehicle service life, the
following excerpt is noteworthy:
"It is recommended that apparatus greater than 15 years old that have been
properly maintained and that are still in serviceable condition be placed in reserve
status and upgraded in accordance with NFPA 1912, Standard for Fire Apparatus
Refurbishing, to incorporate as many features as possible of the current fire apparatus
212121
standard. This will ensure that, while the apparatus might not totally comply with the
current edition of the automotive fire apparatus standards, many improvements and
upgrades required by the recent versions of the standards are available to the
firefighters who use
16
"Apparatus that were not manufactured to the applicable apparatus standards or
that are over 25 years old should be replaced."
17
In a 2004 survey of 360 fire departments in urban, suburban, and rural settings across the nation,
Pierce Manufacturing reported on the average life expectancy for fire pumpers.The results are
18
shown in the following table.
TABLE 3-5: Fire Pumper Life Expectancy by Type of Jurisdiction
First-Line Annual Miles Total Years of
Demographic Service Driven Reserve Status Service
Urban 15 Years 7,629 10 Years 25
Suburban 16 Years 4,992 11 Years 27
Rural 18 years 3,034 14 Years 32
Note:
Most agencies utilize a combination of funding methods for apparatus replacements. These
include capital replacement funds, bond initiatives, or simply through annual budget
allocations. The key, however, is to develop an ongoing funding mechanism to fund the
replacement of apparatus when their useful lifespan has been met. Tukwila has been diligent in
providing the resources needed to fund its fire fleet replacement program. The current condition
of the fleet is exceptional, and the efforts being made regarding preventive maintenance are
commendable.
Capital Equipment
Fire apparatus are equipped with various types of tools and equipment that are utilized in
providing fire and EMS services. Many of the tools and much of the equipment carried on fire
apparatus are specified in NFPA and ISO guidelines. Fire and EMS equipment includes such items
as hose, couplings, nozzles, various types of ladders, foam, scene lighting, oxygen tanks, AEDs,
defibrillators, stretchers, small hand tools, fire extinguishers, mobile and portable radios, salvage
covers, and medical equipment and supplies. Many of the small tools and equipment are
considered disposable items and are replaced with ongoing operating funds. However, some
pieces of equipment are very expensive, and thus require planning for their useful life and
replacement. The more expensive capital items include:
Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and fill stations.
Firefighting PPE (personal protective equipment).
Hydraulic/pneumatic extrication equipment.
ECG Monitors/Defibrillators/AEDs.
16. NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, 2016 Edition. Quincy, MA.
17. NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, 2016 Edition. Quincy, MA.
18.
222222
Ambulance stretchers.
Thermal imaging cameras.
Mobile/portable and base radios.
Mobile data computers.
Gas monitoring and detection devices.
Watercraft/boats/outboard motors.
Much of the more expensive capital equipment is generally on a ten-year replacement cycle.
Each new apparatus is equipped with these types of capital equipment, which has an
estimated cost of nearly $250,000 for each new engine and ladder purchased. The total cost of
outfitting a department the size of the TFD for the capital items described is estimated to be
more than $2 million. Thus, CPSM estimates that the annual replacement needs for these types of
capital items in the TFD is approximately $150,000 to $200,000.
RADIO INTEROPERABILITY AND COVERAGE
In general, interoperability refers to seamless radio communications between emergency
responders using different communication systems or products. Wireless communication
interoperability is the specific ability of emergency responders to use voice and data
communication in real time, without delay. For example, police, fire, and EMS responding to an
incident are interoperable when all can communicate with one another over individual and
perhaps shared communication channels. Interoperability enables first responders from any
jurisdiction to communicate with one another at larger incidents and enables emergency
planners and personnel to coordinate their radio operations in advance of major events.
19
The TFD has transitioned its radio system to a P-25, trunked system. This system provides complete
interoperability with area law enforcement, King County Medic One, Tri-Med, and surrounding
jurisdictions. It is essential to have unit-to-unit communication between emergency responders
who jointly respond on most calls. Tukwila is part of the Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network,
which is a state-of-the-art land mobile radio communication system providing voice and data
communications to police, fire, and EMS personnel throughout the area. This network is very
effective, well-managed, and provides suitable services for the City of Tukwila and its area
response partners.
§ § §
19. SAFECOM, U.S. De
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/interoperability/default.htm.
232323
SECTION 4. ANALYSIS OF PLANNING
APPROACHES
FIRE RISK ANALYSIS
In most communities, the cost of providing fire and EMS protection has increased steadily in
recent years. This has been fueled in part by rising wages, additional special pay, and escalating
overtime costs. In addition, funding needs have been compounded by increasing health
insurance premiums and spiraling pension contributions. At the same time, the workforce has
become less productive, largely because of the increases in lost time, specifically vacation
leave, Kelly Days, greater usage of sick leave, compensatory time, and increases in other
miscellaneous lost-
training leave, etc.). As a result, many jurisdictions are asking the fundamental question of
whether the level of risk in their jurisdiction is commensurate with the type of protective force
that is being deployed. To this end, a fire risk and hazard analysis can be helpful in providing a
based on
several factors, including:
Needed fire flow if a fire were to occur.
Probability of an occurrence based on historical events.
The consequence of an incident in that occupancy (to both occupants and responders).
The cumulative effect of these occupancies and their concentration in the community.
A community risk and vulnerability assessment are used to evaluate properties in the community
and assign an associated risk as either a high, medium, or low hazard. The NFPA Fire Protection
Handbook defines these hazards as:
High-hazard occupancies:
Schools, hospitals, nursing homes, explosive plants, refineries,
high- rise buildings, and other high life-hazard or large fire-potential occupancies.
Medium-hazard occupancies:
Apartments, offices, and mercantile and industrial
occupancies not normally requiring extensive rescue by firefighting forces.
Low-hazard occupancies:
One-, two-, or three-family dwellings and scattered small business
and industrial occupancies.
20
Plotting the rated properties on a map provides a better understanding of how the response
matrix and staffing patterns can be used to ensure a higher concentration of resources for worst-
case scenarios or, conversely, fewer resources for lower levels of risk.
21
20. Cote, Grant, Hall & Solomon, eds., Fire Protection Handboo k (Quincy, MA: NFPA 2008), 12.
21. Fire and Emergency Service Self-Assessment Manual, Eighth Edition (Center for Public Safety Excellence,
2009), 49.
242424
Hazard Analysis and Community Risk Assessment
Hazard analysis and community risk assessment are essential elements in a fire depa
planning process. The City of Tukwila and the TFD have recognized the need for a
comprehensive community risk and vulnerability assessment but have been unable to
implement this critical planning process. Each jurisdiction must decide what degree of risk is
acceptable to the citizens it serves. This determination is based on criteria that have been
developed to define the levels of risk (e.g., of fire) within all sections of the community. To this
22
end, a comprehensive planning approach that includes a fire risk assessment and hazard
analysis is essential in determining local needs.
The term integrated risk management refers to a planning methodology that recognizes that
citizen safety, the protection of property, and the protection of the environment from fire and
related causes must include provisions for the reasonable safety of emergency responders. This
means assessing the risk faced, taking preventive action, and deploying the proper resources in
the right place at the right time. There are two main considerations of a risk assessment: the
23
probability of an event occurring and the consequence of that event occurring. The matrix in
the following figure divides the risk assessment into four quadrants. Each quadrant of the chart
creates different requirements in the community for commitment of resources.
FIGURE 4-1: Community Risk Matrix
Plotting the rated properties on a map will provide a better understanding of how the response
matrix and staffing patterns can be used to ensure a higher concentration of resources for worst-
case scenarios or, conversely, fewer resources for lower levels of risk.
24
planning process. Although the City of Tukwila and the TFD have identified a number of
22. Compton and Granito, Managing Fire and Rescue Services, 39.
23. Cote, Grant, Hall & Solomon, eds., Fire Protection Handboo k (Quincy, MA: NFPA 2008), 12-3.
24. Fire and Emergency Service Self-Assessment Manual, Eighth Edition, (Center for Public Safety
Excellence, 2009), 49.
252525
potential hazards in the community, a comprehensive community riskand vulnerability
assessment has not been done.
Recommendation: The Tukwila Fire Department should conduct a formal fire
risk analysis that concentrates on the citydowntown, strip commercial
establishments, big-box occupancies, high-rise structures, industrial
processing, and institutional properties. (Recommendation No. 11.)
As a guide in conducting a vulnerability assessment, CPSM has developed the following
template that may be utilized in completing this process.
Community Risk Assessment Template
TASK 1: Establish a Risk Assessment Team
Five to six members with assorted skills.
Team leader.
Data analyst.
Tactical/command expertise.
City planning/growth management.
Financial/economic.
GIS/mapping.
TASK 2: Review and Plot Historical Workload (5 years)
Breakout daily call distribution by type.
Location/occupancy type.
High-volume/frequent use.
Southcenter Mall
Schools.
Adult living center.
Identify high-dollar loss fire events (>$25K).
Location/occupancy type.
Cause & origin/demographic.
Identify high-manpower events (>20 people).
Identify high-time duration events (>2 hours).
Identify events with significant economic impact (>$1 million).
Identify events with multiple injuries or fatalities.
Identify events with significant environmental impacts (which require remediation).
TASK 3: Identify the Community Risks for High-profile Events
Transportation accidents (rail, air, roadway, port).
262626
Occupancies with high OVAP scores (methodology to provide a numeric score that identifies
the comparative risk in a specific occupancy).
Wildfire events.
Large, complex fire (dormitory, assisted living, jail, hospital, etc.).
Processing or manufacturing accident (chemical, radiologic, petroleum, electrical, etc.).
Mass casualty incident.
Weather, flooding, or seismic event.
Terrorist event.
Driven by a community profile or demographic.
TASK 4: Identify Capacity Issues or Incidents in which Insufficient Resources Resulted in a
Negative Outcome
Related to daily activities.
Related to larger/significant events.
Related to incidents requiring the utilization of mutual aid or external resources.
Other incident types.
TASK 5: Identify Additional Service Demands Related to Anticipated Growth of the Service Area
Affecting daily activities.
Related to larger/significant events.
Incidents that required specialized services or a currently unavailable expertise.
TASK 6: Identify Risk Reduction or Prevention Efforts that can Reduce or Eliminate Future
Workload
Related to daily activities.
Related to larger/significant events.
Related to new demand resulting from growth.
Develop cost/outcome analysis.
TASK 7: Identify Additional Training Needs to Better Manage Current or Anticipated Service
Demand
Develop cost/outcome analysis.
TASK 8: Identify Organizational or Tactical Capabilities Needed to Meet Current Shortfalls
Develop cost/outcome analysis.
In addition to examining risks faced by the community at large, the department needs to
Standard for a Fire Department
Occupational Safety and Health Program (NFPA 1500) requires a risk management plan for fire
departments to be developed separately from those that are incorporated in the local
272727
government plan.The TukwilaFire Department does not have a written internal risk
25
management program in place.
A fire department risk management plan is developed and implemented to comply with the
requirements of NFPA 1500. The following components must be included in the risk management
plan:
Risk Identification:
Actual or potential hazards.
Risk Evaluation:
The potential of occurrence of a given hazard and the severity of its
consequences.
Prioritizing Risk:
The degree of a hazard based upon the frequency and severity of occurrence.
Risk Control:
Solutions for eliminating or reducing real or potential hazards by implementing an
effective control measure.
Risk Monitoring:
Evaluation of effectiveness of risk control measures.
26
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESPONSE
Hazardous materials incidents occur with some frequency in Tukwila. Over the last five years, TFD
units responded to on average about 100 hazmat-related calls of varying degree each year.
Incidents ranged from natural gas and propane leaks, carbon monoxide incidents, biological
hazards, combustible and flammable gas spills, chemical hazards, assorted spills and leaks, and
chemical incidents.
Many of the incidents are directly attributable to gasoline and oil spills from vehicles that run
through portions of Tukwila. I-5, I-405/HWY 518, and Hwy 599 run through and are adjacent to the
city. Another concern is the BNSF/Union Pacific rail line, which carries Amtrak trains as well as
high-volume cargo trains through the city on a regular basis. In addition, the SEA-TAC
International Airport is adjacent to Tukwila city limits, and while crash fire rescue is provided by
the airport personnel, TFD has joint response duties for any significant event. The airport is the
28th-busiest airport in the world, and the eighth-busiest airport in the United States. Thirty-four
airlines serve 91 non-stop domestic and 28 international destinations. In 2019, more than 50
million passengers passed through the airport.
The types of hazardous materials at both fixed facilities and passing through on major
transportation thoroughfares in Tukwila present the potential for a more significant event and the
possibility for an event is always present. The presence of the Interstate highways and multilane
highways with an unknown quantity of hazardous materials traveling through the city daily poses
a challenge in developing adequate mitigation measures.
Indeed, the traditional primary risks are those generated by hazmat transportation and fixed
facilities. However, over the years, the type and nature of incidents to which regional hazmat
teams may respond has significantly changed and have become more technically challenging.
Examples include the following:
25. Robert C. Barr and John M. Eversole, eds., , 6th edition (PennWell Books, 2003),
270.
26. NFPA 1500, Standard for a Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program (2007 ed.), Annex
D.
282828
Clandestine labs, criminal and terrorist use of hazmat as weapons, chemical suicides, etc.
Interdisciplinary response scenarios in which the regional hazmat teams interface with their
response partners in the law enforcement, emergency medical, and fire communities.
Scenarios include special events and the use of Joint Hazard Assessment Teams (JHAT),
improvised explosive devices, coordinated/complex attack scenarios, active
shooter/assailant scenarios, and the emergence of virus threats such as Ebola and Zika.
Tourism and economic development initiatives have drawn national sporting events and
festivals to the state. While this is a positive economic development, high-profile and high-
density crowd events raise the threat level, requiring a more sophisticated hazmat
preparedness and response package.
Changes in the U.S. domestic energy infrastructure have impacted the response community,
such as for incidents involving high-hazard, flammable trains with crude oil and ethanol,
increased use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and related facilities, etc.
The increasing use of social media is viewed as both a situational awareness asset and a
potential operations security (OPSEC) vulnerability. The regional hazmat teams can assume a
leadership role in determining future pathways and options on how social media can be
safely and effectively integrated into response operations.
27
Response to hazardous materials incidents is defined in the TFD Operating Guidelines. Tukwila is
compliant with OSHA, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, 29 CFR Part
1910.120 and NFPA 472, Professional Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials
Incidents. Level I incidents can be managed and mitigated effectively by the first response
personnel without a hazardous materials response team or other special unit. These incidents
include:
Spills that can be properly and effectively contained/or abated by equipment and supplies
immediately accessible to TFD.
Leaks and ruptures that can be controlled using equipment and supplies accessible to TFD.
Fires involving toxic materials, and which can be extinguished and cleaned up with resources
immediately available to TFD.
Hazardous materials incidents not requiring civilian evacuation. (Example: A small pool supply
spill that can be diluted with water for clean-up.)
King County Emergency Management Zone 3 has available multiple specialized emergency
response teams that can be utilized in Tukwila. Puget Sound, South King County, and the Renton
Fire Authority, which are all in close proximity to Tukwila, are available through this mutual aid
agreement in providing response to spills involving hazardous materials including chemical,
radiologic, and biological materials. The teams provide hazard identification, response, and
mitigation at a high level of proficiency.
Each TFD first responder maintains a hazardous materials operations-level certification, which
enables them to identify hazards and initiate defensive operations for those situations requiring
Level II and III capability. CPSM recognizes the TFDrticipation in the King County Emergency
Best Practice
Management zone system as a , and we view the current level of response as
being very appropriate for the community.
27. Flippin, P., et al; Virginia Department of Emergency Management Hazmat Program Strategic Review
(VDEM, Richmond, VA, 2016)
292929
TARGET HAZARDS AND FIRE PREPLANNING
The process of identifying target hazards and pre-incident planning are basic preparedness
efforts that have been key functions in the fire service for many years. In this process, critical
structures are identified based on the risk they pose. Then, tactical considerations are
established for fires or other emergencies in these structures. Consideration is given to the
activities that take place (manufacturing, processing, etc.), the number and types of occupants
(elderly, youth, handicapped, imprisoned, etc.), and other specific aspects relating to the
construction of the facility or any hazardous or flammable materials that are regularly found in
the building. Target hazards are those occupancies or structures that are unusually dangerous
when considering the potential for loss of life or the potential for property damage. Typically,
these occupancies include hospitals, nursing homes, and high-rise and other large structures.
Also included are arenas and stadiums, industrial and manufacturing plants, and other buildings
or large complexes.
Standard for Pre-Incident Planning, through its Sample Pre-Incident Plan Field
Collection Card and Facility Data Record in Annex A is quite specific in identifying the need to
utilize a written narrative, diagrams, and predesignated, detailed forms to depict the physical
features of a building, its contents, and any built-in fire protection systems. Information collected
for pre-fire/incident plans includes, but is certainly not limited to, data such as:
The occupancy types.
Floor plans/layouts.
Building construction type and features.
Building fire protection systems.
Utility locations.
Hydrant locations.
Hazards to firefighters and/or firefighting operations.
Hazmat considerations and locations.
Special conditions in the building.
Apparatus placement plan.
Fire flow requirements and/or water supply plan.
Forcible entry and ventilation plan.
Emergency contact information.
-incident plan is one of the most valuable tools available
The information
28
contained in pre-incident fire plans enables firefighters and officers to have a familiarity with the
building/facility, its features, characteristics, operations, and hazards. Thus, they can more
effectively, efficiently, and safely conduct firefighting and other emergency operations. Pre-
incident fire plans should be reviewed regularly and tested by periodic table-top exercises and
on-site drills, especially in the most critical and frequented occupancies.
http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/codes-and-
28
standards/detail?code=1620
303030
Strategically and from an operational standpoint, according to NFPA 1620,pre-incident
planning is a total concept based upon the following:
Situation awareness.
Management commitment.
Education.
Protection.
Prevention.
Emergency organization.
29
CPSM believes that these conceptual considerations are particularly relevant in the case of TFD
and the TFD Fire Prevention Division. TFD does not involve line personnel in in-service company
inspections and the TFD-fire incident planning was discontinued in recent years. CPSM
believes this is detrimental to the necessary tactical efforts that are gained through preplanning
reconnaissance; in addition, the ability to inspect and correct code violation and life-safety
concerns is reduced considerably. All of the organizational tenets above are directly related to
the ability of fire department personnel being able to walk through the structures that present a
hazard or potential heretofore unseen, or new hazards, or special conditions and actually
identify them firsthand.
There are numerous senior assisted living facilities in Tukwila, including Tukwila Village Senior
Living, Sunshine Care, Lords Joy Adult Family Home, Holden at Southcenter, Morning Star, Linden
Lea Lodge, and Careforce.
The city has a number of retail, industrial, and manufacturing establishments including Westfield
Southcenter mall; a number of Boeing facilities; several Internet and corporate datacenters
including Microsoft, Internap, the University of Washington, Savvis, AboveNet, HopOne, and
Fortress Colocation; Consolidated Container Co.; and Farwest Paint Manufacturing. There are
numerous high-rise hotels, multiple schools, the Seattle Light Rail system runs throughout the city,
and there are several major roadways.
Many fire departments establish a uniform and systematic program for the prefire planning for
critical buildings and occupancies by fire company personnel. The purpose of the program is for
fire crews to become familiar with a building
understand its storage and processing activities, and to review any fire suppression or
notification systems and their operability. For instance, familiarization with alarm and notification
systems in nursing homes, manufacturing plants, and schools can greatly mitigate confusion
during the most routine calls and create a more efficient response model for the more serious
calls. This information provides a great benefit during a response to an actual emergency. The
Tukwila Fire Department does not conduct company inspections and the suspension of prefire
planning activities further degrades this important function.
Recommendation: The Tukwila Fire Department should implement a prefire
planning process for all target hazards and high-risk properties and these
plans should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis.
(Recommendation No. 12.)
29. Ibid.
313131
The results of the preplanning process should be systematically documented and subsequently
stored in on-board mobile data terminals (MDTs) for ease of accessibility by company and chief
officers during emergency responses. The department has mobile data terminals (MDTs) in all
first-line apparatus. Currently there is limited use of pre-incident fire plans and those plans that
are accessible have not been updated. CPSM believes that pre-fire incident plans should be
available instantly for responding personnel on apparatus MDTs.
Recommendation: The Tukwila Fire Department should begin to enter its
prefire/incident plans on all response apparatus MDTs in order to enable
real-time retrieval of this information. (Recommendation No. 13.)
The prefire planning process is critical from both an incident planning perspective and for
responder familiarization. The critical aspect in preplanning is to ensure that these plans are kept
up-to-date and that all critical facilities are visited, and contact is made on an annual or bi-
annual basis. These visits should involve the building manager and/or owner/occupant to
generate, update, and maintain this information exchange.
ACCREDITATION
Accreditation is a comprehensive self-assessment and evaluation model that enables
organizations to examine past, current, and future service levels. It is used to evaluate internal
performance and compares this performance to industry best practices. The intent of the
process is to improve service delivery.
The Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) provides an extensive evaluation process, on a
fee basis, to member agencies and which ultimately leads to accreditation. CPSE is governed
by the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI), an 11-member commission
representing a cross-section of the fire service, including fire departments, city and county
management, code councils, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the International Association
of Firefighters.
The CPSE Accreditation Program is built around the following key measurements:
Determine community risk and safety needs.
Evaluate the performance of the department.
Establish a method for achieving continuous organizational improvement.
Local government executives face increasing pressure to "do more with less" and justify
expenditures by demonstrating a direct link to improved or measured service outcomes.
Particularly for emergency services, local officials need criteria to assess professional
performance and efficiency.
CPSE accreditation has national recognition and is widely used throughout the fire service. The
key to its success is that it allows communities to set their own standards that are reflective of
their needs and a service delivery model that is specific to these needs. In addition, it is a
program that is based on ongoing improvement and continuous monitoring. The CPSE
accreditation model may be well-suited for Tukwila.
Recommendation: The Tukwila Fire Department should consider the
completion of the CPSE Fire Accreditation process in the near future.
(Recommendation No. 14.)
323232
SECTION 5. OPERATIONAL RESPONSE
APPROACHES
As mentioned previously, many agencies incorporate the use of prefire plans to provide a
response and tactical strategy for those more critical or complex occupancies in the
community. The following three figures illustrate the critical tasks and resources required on low-
risk incidents, moderate-risk structure fires, and a full-force response involving aerial apparatus,
respectively, and
with ongoing training, these activities improve overall effectiveness and responder safety.
FIGURE 5-1: Low-Risk ResponseExterior Fire Attack
Figure 5-2 represents the critical task elements for a moderate-risk structure fire. Some jurisdictions
add additional response resources to meet and, in some cases, exceed the national
benchmarking provided by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710, Standard for
the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical
Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Departments, 2020 Edition. NFPA
1710 calls for the initial assignment of 16 personnel on a single-family residential structure fire
when an aerial ladder is not utilized. The standard previously recommended 14 personnel on an
initial response to a single family detached structure fire; however, the 2020 revision increased
this recommendation to the current 16-personnel.
Tukwila is unable to assemble this full complement of resources for a single-family residential
structure fire from its on-duty resources. However, TFD typically assigns at least two automatic
response units from neighboring agencies to its residential structure fire response assignment.
Best Practice
CPSM recognizes these joint and automatic response activities as a .
333333
FIGURE 5-2: Moderate Risk ResponseInterior Fire Attack
FIGURE 5-3: Full-Force ResponseUtilizing an Aerial Device
TUKWILA RESPONSE PROTOCOLS
Fire Response
The ability to assemble the necessary resources to effectively manage even a smaller residential
or commercial structure fire is significant. As mentioned above, the NFPA standard (NFPA 1710)
recommends a minimum of 16 personnel as the initial response to a fire at a single-family
residential structure. An actual fire of any significance will require 16 to 20 personnel or more for
extended periods of time. As the incident grows in size and complexity, it is not unusual to see
staffing needs that can exceed 30 to 40 personnel. This would be the case in a fire at a big-box
343434
retail center like a Home Depot or Walmart, a wildfire,or a fire at an apartment complex.
Though these larger incidents do not occur frequently, when they do occur, the ability to
assemble sufficient resources rapidly can significantly impact the outcome.
ction is
perhaps the most difficult assessment faced by policy makers and fire department leadership
across the nation. As communities adjust this level of response, the costs associated with
maintaining this level of readiness will have significant financial implications.
CPSM believes that Tukwila is adequately staffed to manage its current workload. TFD is currently
assigning 18 personnel to all structure fires from its combined on-duty resources and its
automatic response partners. In April 2020, the TFD reduced its minimum on-duty staffing from 13
personnel to 12 personnel. This effort was designed to reduce the escalating overtime
expenditures that the city experienced over the past few years.
The daily staffing levels in Tukwila will frequently change on the basis of the numbers of people
off for both scheduled leave (vacation, Kelly Days, training, etc.) and unscheduled leave (sick
leave, FMLA, bereavement, disability, vacancies, etc.). However, in many instances, the on-duty
staffing level is at 13 or above. When the staffing level drops to 12 personnel, Engine 352 is
reduced to a two-person aid car (ambulance) and Engine 352 is removed from service. In this
configuration the TFD on-duty contingent is 12 personnel who staff one ladder (three people),
two engines (six people), an aid car (two people), and one Battalion Chief (one person). CPSM
believes that this staffing contingent is appropriate for the city of Tukwila, given the heavy
concentration of EMS call volume, the joint response practice for EMS calls with King County
Medic One and Tri-Med Ambulance, and for response on fire calls the utilization of automatic
response partners that are in close proximity to the city.
Recommendation: The Tukwila Fire Department should continue to utilize a
12-person minimum staffing contingent that utilizes an aid car in conjunction
with its other fire resources and its automatic response arrangements.
(Recommendation No. 15.)
Call Response Modes
The key to organizational efficiency and the safety of responding personnel is directly related to
response activities and departmental deployment practices. TFD is doing poorly in its efforts to
reduce the frequency with which its units are responding with lights and sirens to calls that are
minor or non-emergency in nature.
It is important to note that in most emergency delivery systems there are a large number of calls,
in fact most calls, that are not life threatening or do not involve an emergency situation. Some of
these requests are accidental or there is a perceived problem that when investigated is found to
be non-emergency in nature. Many calls are public assist, in which individuals
request assistance through the 911 system because they know the response will be immediate
and there is typically no charge for these services. It is through a combined effort of the 911
dispatch center and the fire department that recognizes these occurrences and scales fire
department response on the basis of the information at hand and the development of
predetermined response procedures that reflect the different nature of the calls.
TFD has taken the necessary steps to adjust the number of units responding when a call is
determined to be non-emergency, though CPSM believes that additional improvements can be
made in this area. However, when it comes to the mode of response (lights and sirens or no lights
and sirens), TFD is not proficient and we believe that significant improvements can be made. This
353535
is even more concerning becausethe Valley Com Center is doing a very good jobin screening
Tukwila calls and making determinations regarding the severity of the call. This information is
provided to TFD responding units; however, TFD has not implemented response guidelines that
result in an altered response.
HOT
TFD is responding to virtually all calls with lights and sirens. A response is when units respond
with lights and sirens; in this mode they may pass red lights and stop signs, and utilize other
COLD
response patterns that expedite their rate of travel. A response is when a unit responds
without its lights and sirens and follows the normal flow of traffic, stopping for red lights, stop
signs, etc. The ability to respond with the fewest number of units and have these units respond in
COLD results in the maximization of resources and improved responder
Emergency response units that are responding with lights and sirens are more susceptible
safety.
to traffic accidents
. Accidents involving fire vehicles responding to emergencies are the second
highest cause for line-of-duty deaths of firefighters. It is estimated that more than 30,000 fire
30
apparatus are involved in accidents when responding to emergencies each year in the U.S.
31
Responding fewer units and having these units respond in a non-emergency mode makes sense
in terms of safety and efficiency.
We have observed a number of systems that, through the call-screening process, have reduced
the frequency of their HOT responses to as low as 20 percent of their total responses (both fire
and EMS). Valley-Com is currently determining if the call is ALS or BLS and also making the
distinction between emergency and non-emergency calls. However, TFD units continue to
respond HOT regardless of the Valley-Com call-screening assessment. CPSM believes that as
many as 3,000 calls a year could be altered to a COLD response.
Recommendation: TFD should work with the Valley-Com 911 Dispatch Center
to implement response protocols that alter the TFD response mode when calls
are determined to be minor or non-emergency in nature. (Recommendation
No. 16.)
Alternatives to EMS Response
In a recent report compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
entitled:
32
HOT responses are inherently dangerous, do not result in changes of patient
revealed that
outcomes, and should be limited to only time-life critical events
. The study goes on to
recommend that HOT responses should be less than 50 percent of all EMS responses.
eliminate the fire
In addition to modifying the response mode, there is also the option to actually
types or public assist calls
in
which a single ambulance response is sufficient. This point is critical, as government entities are
frequently faced with requests for additional EMS response capabilities because of the volume
of EMS call activity. The following figure is a graphic developed by the International Academies
of Emergency Dispatch that provides guidance regarding the mode of response and resources
deployed on the basis of the call-screening and call-prioritization process.
30.
Advancement of Automotive Medicine. October 2012.
31. Ibid.
32. https://www.ems.gov/pdf/Lights_and_Sirens_Use_by_EMS_May_2017.pdf
363636
FIGURE 5-4: MDPS Response Matrix
In many communities, Mobile Integrated Health Care and Community Paramedicine Programs
are sufficiently screening 911 calls so that alternative service providers and transport destinations
(other than hospital emergency departments) are being utilized to improve patient care,
reduce costs and unclog overloaded EMS networks. (See MedStar Mobile Healthcare, Fort
Worth, Texas, and Colorado Springs Fire Department, CARES Program, Colorado Springs, Col.).
King County EMS and its Medic One program have piloted Mobile Integrated Healthcare (MIH),
in the South King County area. Several such programs have been initiated by the Puget Sound
Regional Fire Authority (FDCARES), Shoreline Fire Department, and South King Fire & Rescue.
These programs require a strong relationship with the dispatch center, and this has been
provided through the Valley Com Center.
CPSM believes that a Mobile Integrated Healthcare option can be viable in Tukwila and this
approach will advance the concepts of managing the impacts of low-acuity calls in the system
and addressing the social and behavioral health needs of patients accessing the 911 pre-
hospital care environment.
Recommendation: TFD should work with the Valley Communications Center
Dispatch Center, King County EMS, and neighboring agencies to develop a
Tukwila FD-CARES program. (Recommendation No. 17.)
CPSM believes that the city, TFD, and the Tukwila fire union (Local 2088) can work cooperatively
to help reduce the accruals of various leave categories (Kelly Day, Vacation, Sick-leave and
Disability Leave). This cooperative effort could thus create additional capacity that will enable
peak-period aid car
the implementation and operation of a that can support a Tukwila FD-
373737
CARES program. Such an aid car wouldprovide additionalresponse capabilitieswithout adding
personnel.
Recommendation: The city, TFD leadership, and IAFF Local 2088 should work
cooperatively to find ways to reduce employee leave accruals and leave
use to a sufficient degree that generates additional capacity enabling
operation of one peak-period Tukwila FD-CARES unit (12 hours daily).
(Recommendation No. 18.)
CPSM estimates that if the adjustments to leave accrual and leave usage shown in the following
table can be achieved there will be sufficient capacitywithout the need to hire additional
personnelto operate one 12-hour FD-CARES unit seven days each week, 365 days per year.
TABLE 5-1: Recommended Leave-Time Reductions Needed to Operate One
Peak-Period FD CARES Unit Without Additional Staffing:
Leave Type Accrual/Use Reduction Additional Productivity
Kelly Day 336 Hours to 168 Hours 8,736 Hours
Vacation Reduce Accruals by 25% 3,598 Hours
Sick Leave Use Reduce use by 15% 2,055 Hours
Disability Leave Reduce use by 10% 1,150 Hours
Total 14,389
Hours Needed to Operate FD-
10,950
CARES Unit (Peak Period)
Use of sick leave in the Tukwila Fire Department is very high. On average in 2019, each line
employee utilized 254 hours of sick leave. This equates to more than ten 24-hour shifts off each
year for each employee. On average, TFD employees collectively utilize 38 hours of sick leave
every day. When compared to the other largest departments in the city, the Fire Department is
by far the largest user of sick leave. The following table is a comparison of sick leave use by the
five largest departments in the City of Tukwila.
TABLE 5-2: Comparison of Sick Leave Use by Largest Departments, 2019
Hours of Sick Leave
Department No. of Employees Average Usage
Taken
Fire 66 12,182 185
Recreation 17 1,132 67
Community Development 23 1,516 66
Public Works 31 1.966 63
Police 98 5,741 59
TFD has policies in place that prohibit the improper use of sick leave; however, there is little
internal review or enforcement of this policy. CPSM believes that the TFD should implement
guidelines for its employees that identify excessive absenteeism. Then, with a comprehensive
effort that will require supervisory monitoring and subordinate counseling, the department will be
able to reduce excessive absenteeism.
383838
Recommendation: The city, TFD leadership, and IAFF Local 2088 should work
cooperatively todevelop sick-leave use guidelines anda monitoring and
intervention program aimed at reducing excessive sick leave use.
(Recommendation No. 19.)
Examination of Fire Calls and Responses
The following table shows the aggregate call totals for the 12-month period evaluated. EMS calls
represent the largest percentage of calls for service at almost 77 percent, when canceled and
mutual aid calls are excluded. This predominance of EMS call activity is not unusual when
compared to what we usually observe in many communities. Our experience is that EMS-related
calls typically account for more than 70 percent of call activity; in some communities with a
larger senior demographic, this can go as high as 80 to 85 percent. While fire calls in Tukwila
represent approximately 19 percent of all calls for service, actual fires (structural and outside)
represent only 3.6 percent of the overall call activity. Hazard, false alarms, good intent, and
public service calls represent the largest percentage of the fire calls (81.1 percent). This is also
very typical in CPSM data and workload analyses of other fire departments.
TABLE 5-3: Calls by Type
Calls per Call
Call Type Number of Calls
Day Percentage
Breathing difficulty 274 0.8 4.8
Cardiac and stroke 418 1.1 7.3
Fall and injury 828 2.3 14.4
Illness and other 895 2.5 15.6
MVA 486 1.3 8.4
Overdose and psychiatric 238 0.7 4.1
Seizure and unconsciousness 519 1.4 9.0
EMS Total 3,658 10.0 63.6
False alarm 605 1.7 10.5
Good intent 64 0.2 1.1
Hazard 77 0.2 1.3
Outside fire 145 0.4 2.5
Public service 144 0.4 2.5
Structure fire 61 0.2 1.1
Fire Total 1,096 3.0 19.0
Canceled 426 1.2 7.4
Mutual aid 574 1.6 10.0
Total 5,754 15.8 100.0
61structure fires43
In looking in more detail at the , it was determined that for of these events,
no reported fire damage
there was . This indicates that many structure fires are minor and in
some instances the fire was out upon arrival of the TFD or the fire was contained to a cooking
appliance or a trash receptacle. When we looked at the time spent on structure fire incidents,
we found that for 48 of the 61 structure fires and 127 of the 145 outside fires the call duration for
these incidents was 60 minutes or less (including dispatch and response times). This is indicative
of a relatively minor occurrence. However, there were 13 structure fire calls in which we
393939
observeda duration of greater than one hourand of these,6lasted for more than two hours.
This would indicate a more significant event. The following figure shows the locations of structure
fires in Tukwila during the evaluation period.
FIGURE 5-5: Location of Structure Fires, 2019
There were 18 structure fires in which some degree of fire damage was noted in the incident
report. The total fire loss (structure and contents) for all structural fires in the 12-month evaluation
404040
period was estimated to be $455,879. Fire damage estimates are madeby TFDinvestigatorsand
company officers.
For the calls in which damage was reported (structure and contents), we estimate that the
average damage for each fire was approximately $25,327. We can compare this experience to
average fire loss nationwide for structure fires. NFPA estimates that in 2019 the average fire loss
for a structure fire in the U.S. was $25,500 From this perspective the average fire loss in Tukwila is
33
very consistent with the amount of loss found in many communities across the nation.
Another indication that we use in our analysis of structure and outside fire occurrences is the
frequency in which an individual event results in a combined loss that exceeds $20,000. The
$20,000 demarcation is relevant from two perspectives. First, this is a dollar amount that is
comparable to the national average for fire loss in a structure fire, and second, it indicates a fire
, is representative of a more significant fire event that requires
only five structure fires in
fire department extinguishment. In the period evaluated, there were
which the combined fire loss (structure and contents) exceeded $20,000.
The largest combined
fire loss (structure and contents) for a single event was $200,000.
The average fire loss and the frequency of higher loss fires appears lower in Tukwila than what
would be expected. It is hard to fully determine the reason(s) for the lower number of fires that
resulted in significant fire loss. Much of this must be attributed to the quality of the fire suppression
efforts exhibited by TFD and its mutual aid partners and another factor can be the presence of
automatic fire sprinklers in most residential structures. It is our assessment, however, that the fire
problem is limited in Tukwila and this a very positive aspect in considering the overall risk in the
community.
The following two tables provide an analysis of fire loss in Tukwila during the year-long evaluation
period.
TABLE 5-4: Content and Property Loss Structure and Outside Fire
Property Loss Content Loss
Call Type
Loss Value Number of Calls Loss Value Number of Calls
Outside fire $256,137 46 $55,615 20
Structure fire $331,549 13 $124,330 13
Total $587,686 59 $179,945 33
Note:
Includes only fire calls with a recorded loss greater than $0.
TABLE 5-5: Total Fire Loss Above and Below $20,000:
Call Type No Loss Under $20,000 $20,000 plus
96 46 3
Outside fire
43 13 5
Structure fire
139 59 8
Total
33. Marty Ahrens and Ben Evarts, Fire Loss in the United States during 2019, NFPA September 2020
414141
FIGURE 5-6: 2019 Structure Fires with a Loss of $20,000 or More
Observations:
96 outside fires and 43 structure fires had no recorded loss.
3 outside fires and 5 structure fires had $20,000 or more in loss.
Structure fires:
The highest total loss for a structure fire was $200,000.
The average total loss for structure fires with loss was $25,327.
424242
13 structure fires had content loss with a combined $124,330 in losses.
Out of 61 structure fires, 13 had recorded property loss, with a combined $331,549 in losses.
Outside fires:
The highest total loss for an outside fire was $140,000.
The average total loss for an outside fire with loss was $6,260.
21 outside fires had content loss with a combined $55,615 in losses.
Out of 147 outside fires, 48 had recorded property loss, with a combined $252,137 in losses.
TFD has a moderate workload, the majority of which is EMS-related. TFD has not fully recognized
this fact in its deployment strategies and has only opted to deploy a two-person EMS aid car in
an effort to reduce overtime expenditures. TFD is deploying a single resource to most incidents.
For the 12-month evaluation period, it was determined that on most incidents, whether fire or
EMS, TFD dispatched a single unit. Overall, about 86 percent of all incidents in Tukwila (88
percent of EMS incidents and 78 percent of fire incidents) are handled by a single-unit response.
It should be noted that on EMS calls, TFD typically will respond simultaneously with either a Medic
CPSM believes that
One unit or a Tri-Med unit, and those units are not reflected in this analysis.
TFD should make additional efforts to increase the number of responses (whether fire or EMS) in
which a single TFD unit is dispatched
. The following two figures illustrate the breakout of unit
responses for EMS and Fire call types, respectively.
FIGURE 5-7: Calls by Number of Units Arriving EMS
434343
FIGURE 5-8: Calls by Number of Units Arriving Fire
TABLE 5-6: Calls by Call Type and Number of Arriving Units
Number of Units
Call Type Total Calls
Four or
One Two Three
More
259 1 1 0 261
Breathing difficulty
356 27 19 0 402
Cardiac and stroke
771 18 11 0 800
Fall and injury
846 18 3 0 867
Illness and other
190 184 101 2 475
MVA
220 5 2 0 227
Overdose and psychiatric
483 11 9 0 503
Seizure and unconsciousness
264
3,125 146 2 3,535
EMS Total
495 53 27 18 593
False alarm
44 12 2 2 60
Good intent
44 15 7 7 73
Hazard
101 27 15 1 142
Outside fire
116 12 4 4 136
Public service
35 11 7 8 61
Structure fire
835 40 1,065
129 61
Fire Total
Canceled 78 10 1 1 90
Mutual aid 413 44 19 3 481
4,451 46 5,171
448 226
Total
86.1 8.7 4.4 0.9 100.0
Percentage
Note:
Only calls with arriving units were considered. Therefore, the number of calls is less than that
presented in Table 5-3.
444444
Observations:
Overall
On average, 1.2 TFD units arrived at all calls; for 86 percent of calls only one unit arrived.
Overall, four or more units arrived at 1 percent of calls.
EMS
On average, 1.2 units arrived per EMS call.
For EMS calls, one unit arrived 88 percent of the time, two units arrived 7 percent of the time,
three units arrived 4 percent of the time, and four or more units arrived less than 1 percent of
the time.
Fire
On average, 1.4 units arrived per fire call.
For fire calls, one unit arrived 78 percent of the time, two units arrived 12 percent of the time,
three units arrived 6 percent of the time, and four or more units arrived 4 percent of the time.
For outside fire calls, three or more units arrived 11 percent of the time.
For structure fire calls, three or more units arrived 25 percent of the time.
EMS Response and Transport
EMS calls make up the predominant workload within the TFD system. As already mentioned,
nearly 77 percent of all call activities reviewed in our analysis involves EMS-related responses
(including MVAs). TFD operates in a two-tier EMS delivery system in cooperation with King County
Medic One and Tri-Med Ambulance Service. This deployment model for EMS used in Tukwila is
unique, in that it involved response by a different ambulance service, depending on the type of
call.
For ALS calls, TFD will respond in tandem with a King County Medic One unit. For ALS calls, TFD is
the BLS first responder and Medic One is the ALS provider. In 2019, when a call was determined
to be BLS, a TFD unit was dispatched as the BLS first responder and a Tri-Med ambulance was
dispatched as the BLS transport agency. If a transport is required for an ALS patient, the Medic
One unit provides the transport at no charge. Tri-Med is a private, for-profit, health care provider
that is contracted by the City of Tukwila to provide its BLS transport services. Tri-Med will charge
patients that are transported. The city receives a monthly payment from Tri-Med ($2,000) for its
first responder services and for the replacement of any supplies or medications that are utilized.
Tukwila similarly receives a first responder fee from King County for its services, which amounts to
approximately $500,000 annually,
King County EMS provides clinical oversight and quality review for EMS services delivered in
Tukwila and throughout King County. The King County EMS system is regarded as one of the most
effective pre-hospital care systems in the nation. The system relies on a comprehensive and
patient-specific quality review process in fostering the best patient care practices. The system
utilizes common patient protocols for both ALS and BLS care and all field activities are reviewed
through a robust and comprehensive quality assurance and run review process. The quality
review process is closely tied to on-going training and provider remediation. The level of
oversight and coordination among first responders is exceptional.
454545
The level of care that is provided under this arrangement is very effectiveand is constantly
measured on the basis of patient outcomes. In addition, a national data base comparison (ESO
Index) is utilized by medical control and peer review staff to ensure that treatments are
consistent with national benchmarks. All first response agencies in King County provide
centralized reporting of their on-scene treatments and patient assessments and this information
is reviewed in real time on a regular basis.
The concepts in prehospital emergency medical care are rapidly evolving as more evidence-
based research becomes available on the efficacy and effectiveness of traditional EMS models.
Two of the more widely-held EMS system response beliefs that have been challenged by this
research are:
Faster response times improve patient outcomes.
The more paramedics in an EMS system the higher the level of care.
Four recent studies evaluated the impact of response times on patient outcomes and these
findings consistently point to the fact that there is very little, if any association, between EMS
response times and patient outcomes. Further, a 2008 statement developed by the Consortium
34
of U.S. Metropolitan Municipalities EMS Medical Directors published in Pre-hospital Emergency
Care Journal contains the following:
-emphasis upon response-time interval metrics may lead to unintended, but
35
Evolved EMS systems have revised response configurations based on quality emergency
medical dispatch processes, deemphasizing speed as a proxy for quality service. These systems
liberally use non-lights and siren responses and reserve precious ALS first response resources for
the few calls in which the rapid arrival of an EMS unit may make a life-or-death difference. The
key component in making this distinction is the utilization of an effective and coordinated call
screening and emergency medical dispatching process.
As mentioned previously, Valley Com does an in-depth screening of its EMS calls and on the
basis of this evaluation makes the determination regarding the severity of the call. Three general
categorizations are determined:
ALS.
BLS emergency.
BLS non-emergency.
.
ALS calls account for nearly 18 For those calls that are
determined to be BLS in nature (approximately 82 , a TFD unit
and a Tri-Med ambulance were dispatched.
34. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15995089
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19731155
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12217471
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11927452
35. Prehospital Emergency Care 2008;12:141151
464646
TABLE 5-7: EMS Calls by Response Mode and Duration
Average Duration Percent of
Response Mode Total
(Minutes) EMS Calls
17.7
ALS 649 36.2
69.2
BLS emergency 2,530 24.4
13.1
BLS non-emergency 479 23.4
100%
Total 3,658 26.4
Note
: Here, the duration is the interval between the latest clear and earliest dispatch times.
Mutual Aid/Automatic Response
Local governments use many types of intergovernmental agreements to enhance or
supplement fire protection and EMS services. These arrangements take various shapes and forms
and range from a simple automatic response agreement that will respond a single unit to a
minor vehicle accident or EMS call, to a more complex regional hazardous materials team or a
helicopter trauma service that involves multiple agencies and requires a high level of
coordination.
It is important that fire departments are able to quickly access extra and/or specialized
resources to manage significant events. In addition, because these types of incidents do not
respect jurisdictional boundaries, they often require a coordinated response. Sharing resources
also helps departments reduce costs without impacting service delivery. All of these situations
point to the need for good working relationships with other fire and EMS organizations.
The geographic orientation of the City of Tukwila is elongated; bordering multiple areas of King
County along with the Cities of Seattle, Burien, Renton, SeaTac and Kent. The TFD has a shared
boundary with the Federal Way Fire District, Puget Sound Fire Authority, King County Fire District
South
20, King County Fire District 2, and South King County Fire & Rescue. TFD is a member of the
King County Fire Zone 3
in which participating agencies have adopted a boundary-drop
agreement and cooperate in providing fire and EMS resources throughout the area. As a result
of this arrangement, TFD is actively engaged in both providing and receiving resources
throughout Zone 3. In 2019, TFD units responded to requests for assistance into neighboring
jurisdictions a total of 980 runs. In return, TFD received assistance from outside resources for a
total of 642 runs. The following table is the breakout of mutual aid and automatic response
activities in 2019.
TABLE 5-8: Mutual Aid Responses (Runs) Given and Received
Call Type Given Received
EMS 247 43
MVA (Vehicle Accidents) 194 191
Structure & Outside Fires 163 112
Misc. Fire & Assists 124 243
Canceled Calls 252 53
Total 980 642
Note
: Mutual Aid is measured by the number of unit responses (runs) either given or received.
474747
TABLE 5-9: Mutual Aid Response by Agency
Aid Received
Aid Given
Fire Agency
Calls Runs Calls Runs
Puget Sound RFA 354 427 243 328
Renton RFA 215 272 73 145
Fire District 20 131 153 32 38
Fire District 2 57 71 58 72
North Highline Fire District 29 43 0 0
Fire District 40 3 3 0 0
Seattle 3 5 0 0
South King Fire & Rescue 3 5 21 56
Fire District 25 1 1 0 0
Valley RFA 0 0 2 3
Total796980347642
Note
: FD = Fire Department; RFA = Regional Fire Authority. Total aid received calls is lower than the sum of
aid received calls from each fire agency. This table focuses on counts of calls and runs to which the
appropriate agency responded without worrying about whether a unit arrived.
Workload Analysis
The current workload being handled by the Tukwila Fire Department is considered moderate,
with the busiest unit in the system (L-354) experiencing just over 2,000 runs annually or an
average of 5.5 runs per day (includes any reserve unit that temporarily replaced L-354). CPSM
considers units responding to more than 3,000 calls each year as having a high workload.
Overall, all TFD units combined are responding to approximately 15.8 calls each day.
The TFD operates from four fire stations with five primary response units. Combined, these units
handled 5,754 calls for service in the one-year period covered by this report. These 5,754 calls
generated 7,470 runs or unit responses. On any given call there are multiple unit responses or
., a single structure fire call will generate five runs from TFD units. Ladder 354
was the only TFD unit that had more than 2,000 responses in 2019 (2,011).
However, given the relatively short call durations for both fire and EMS calls (average of 25.3
minutes), the cumulative in-service time associated with this call activity was not exceedingly
high. The following two tables show the annual runs, call types, and deployed time for the
Deployed Minutes per Day,
primary TFD response units. Of note is in Table
5-10, which shows that engine E351, for example, is the busiest unit in the city, and was involved
in emergency response activities a total of 124.7 minutes (2.1 hours) each 24-hour duty day.
484848
TABLE 5-10: Call Workload by Unit
Deployed Total Deployed Total Runs
Station Unit Unit Type Minutes Annual Minutes Annual per
per Run Hours per Day Runs Day
B351 Battalion Chief 28.3 347.5 57.1 738 2.0
51
E351 Engine 24.7 758.6 124.7 1,843 5.0
Total 25.7 1,106.1 181.8 2,581 7.1
B352 Reserve Battalion 492.3 16.4 2.7 2 0.0
Chief
52
E352Engine25.5613.1100.81,4454.0
Total26.1 629.5 103.5 1,447 4.0
Air353 Aid Resupply Trailer 86.54.30.730.0
BOT353 Rescue Boat 75.83.80.630.0
53
E353 Engine 25.7 494.3 81.3 1,156 3.2
R353 Rescue 50.0 4.2 0.7 5 0.0
Total26.0 506.6 83.3 1,167 3.2
A354 Aid Unit 24.3106.117.42620.7
Support Service
B354 26.4 0.9 0.1 2 0.0
Battalion Chief
54
E354 Reserve Engine 27.3 52.2 8.6 115 0.3
L354 Ladder Truck 23.6 746.3 122.7 1,896 5.2
Total23.9 905.5 148.9 2,275 6.2
Total 25.3 3,147.8 517.4 7,470 20.5
§ § §
494949
TABLE 5-11: Annual Runs and Deployed Time by Call Type
Deployed Percent Deployed
Annual Annual Runs
Call Type Minutes of Total Minutes
Hours Runs per Day
per Run Hours per Day
26.4 122.3 3.9 20.1 278 0.8
Breathing difficulty
27.5 238.2 7.6 39.1 520 1.4
Cardiac and stroke
23.4 350.7 11.1 57.7 900 2.5
Fall and injury
23.8 373.1 11.9 61.3 942 2.6
Illness and other
27.3 470.2 14.9 77.3 1,035 2.8
MVA
23.7 100.6 3.2 16.5 255 0.7
Overdose and psychiatric
25.7 246.7 7.8 40.5 575 1.6
Seizure and unconsciousness
25.3 1,901.7 60.4 312.6 4,505 12.3
EMS Total
20.0 297.0 9.4 48.8 891 2.4
False alarm
17.0 30.2 1.0 5.0 107 0.3
Good intent
36.4 87.3 2.8 14.3 144 0.4
Hazard
31.7 121.1 3.8 19.9 229 0.6
Outside fire
49.6 153.8 4.9 25.3 186 0.5
Public service
49.2 114.1 3.6 18.8 139 0.4
Structure fire
28.4 803.5 25.5 132.1 1,696 4.6
Fire Total
Canceled 8.1 73.1 2.3 12.0 541 1.5
Mutual aid 30.5 369.5 11.7 60.7 728 2.0
Other Total 20.9 442.6 14.1 72.8 1,269 3.5
Total 25.3 3,147.8 100.0 517.4 7,470 20.5
Observations:
Overall
Total deployed time for the year was 3,147.8 hours. The daily average was 8.6 hours for all units
combined.
There were 7,470 runs, including 541 runs dispatched for canceled calls and 729 runs
dispatched for mutual aid calls. The daily average was 20.5 runs.
EMS
EMS runs accounted for 60 percent of the total workload (73 percent when canceled and
mutual aid calls are excluded).
The average deployed time for EMS runs was 25.3 minutes. The deployed time for all EMS runs
averaged 5.2 hours per day.
Fire
Fire runs accounted for 26 percent of the total workload.
The average deployed time for fire runs was 28.7 minutes. The deployed time for all fire runs
was 812.3 hours or 2.2 hours per day.
505050
There were 368 runs for structure and outside fire calls combined, with a total workload of
235.1 hours. This accounted for 7 percent of the total workload.
The average deployed time for outside fire runs was 31.7 minutes per run, and the average
deployed time for structure fire runs was 49.2 minutes per run.
When we look at the availability rates of the responding units in Tukwila the pattern observed is
very positive and indicative of a system that is well-managed and maintains an appropriate
number of resources to manage the existing workload. Most systems attempt to achieve an
availability rate of between 85 and 90 percent. This means that on 85 to 90 percent of the calls,
the primary response unit for that area is available to respond. Availability rates are most often
affected by simultaneous call activity, vehicle maintenance, training, meetings, or other reasons
in which a unit is temporarily unavailable to respond to a call in its primary response area.
The following table shows the availability rates for the responding units in the TFD. As can be
seen, TFD units are available to respond to calls occurring in their primary response districts, on
average, 93.5 percent of the time. This is a significant achievement and indicative of an
appropriate number of resources being available to manage the workload.
TABLE 5-12: Station Availability to Respond to Calls
Arriving First Due First Due First Due Percent Percent Percent
Station
Calls Responded Arrived First Responded Arrived First
1,344 1,235 1,222 1,202 91.9 90.9 89.4
51
810 746 734 684 92.1 90.6 84.4
52
813 764 749 698 94.0 92.1 85.9
53
1,702 1,620 1,605 1,590 95.2 94.3 93.4
54
4,669 4,365 4,310 4,174 93.5 92.3 89.4
Total
Note:
For each station, we count the number of calls within its first due area where at least one TFD unit
arrived. Next, we focus on units from the first due station to see if any unit responded, arrived, or arrived first.
Another indicator of workload is the frequency with which peak service demand is occurring.
Peak demand can occur when there are multiple calls occurring simultaneously, or when there
are larger events that draw on the systems resources. All systems experience peak service
demands that strain the available resources in the system. This is why it is necessary for mutual
aid and joint response agreements, to help mitigate these occurrences.
The key to any deployment strategy is to have sufficient resources to handle the day-to-day call
activities and have the system designed to adjust and respond effectively during those high-
demand periods. In the Tukwila system, given the size of the service area and the overall call
volume, we would anticipate that throughout the year there would typically be two to three
calls occurring within the same hour on a regular basis. This call activity can easily triple to 6 to 9
calls in an hour during periods of inclement weather, high traffic periods, and other times when
call volume is higher than normal.
The following table is a compilation of ten busiest hours in the 12-month evaluation period and
the number of calls occurring during each of those hours. It must be pointed out that given the
frequency of short call durations, it is likely that if two calls do occur in an hour the overlapping
period is relatively short. In these situations, the primary response unit could be able to respond
to both calls with a minimal delay.
515151
TABLE 5-13: Top 10 Hours with the Most Calls Received
Number Number Total
Hour
of Calls of Runs Deployed Hours
2/12/2019, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. 9 12 2.8
9/7/2019, 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. 6 8 3.3
2/5/2019, 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. 6 6 2.3
7/2/2019, 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 5 10 2.9
11/9/2019, 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 5 8 3.1
12/12/2019, 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 5 8 2.6
2/9/2019, 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 5 7 3.0
1/6/2019, 2:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. 5 5 2.5
7/3/2019, 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 5 5 1.4
9/27/2019, 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. 4 8 2.6
Note:
Total Deployed Hours is a measure of the total time spent responding to calls received in the hour,
and which may extend into the next hour or hours. The number of runs and deployed hours only includes
TFD units.
TABLE 5-14: Frequency Distribution of the Number of Calls
Calls in an Hour Frequency Percentage
0 4,670 53.3
1 2,806 32.0
2 971 11.1
3 261 3.0
4+ 52 0.6
Total 8,760 100.0
TABLE 5-15: Frequency of Overlapping Calls
Number of Percent of Total
Station Scenario
Calls All Calls Hours
No overlapped call 1,319 92.1 608.4
Overlapped with one call 109 7.6 25.5
51
Overlapped with two calls 4 0.3 0.7
No overlapped call 826 97.2 356.1
52
Overlapped with one call 24 2.8 6.2
No overlapped call 835 96.3 375.0
Overlapped with one call 30 3.5 6.0
53
Overlapped with two calls 2 0.2 0.9
No overlapped call 1,740 96.2 710.9
Overlapped with one call 68 3.8 15.5
54
Overlapped with two calls 1 0.1 0.1
There were occurrences observed throughout the year in which a cluster of calls occurred within
a given hour. We observed a total of 261 times (3 percent of all hours) in which three calls
525252
occurredin a given hour. On 52occasions, there were fourcalls or more that occurred in the
96.4 percent of the time there were two calls or less occurring per hour
same hour. However, for .
Again, these hourly call rates are indicative of our ad being
TFD is very
considered moderate. On the basis of this assessment, CPSM has determined that the
well-equipped to manage its current workload
.
§ § §
535353
SECTION6. RESPONSE TIME ANALYSIS
Response times are typically the primary measurement used in evaluating fire and EMS services.
Most deployment models attempt to achieve a four-minute initial travel time for EMS calls and a
full-force travel time of eight minutes for fire calls. A full-force travel time indicates the time it
takes for the initial response of all resources assigned for the call to arrive on the scene.
While these times have validity, the actual impact of a speedy response time is limited to very
few incidents. For example, in a full cardiac arrest, analysis shows that successful outcomes are
rarely achieved if basic life support (CPR) is not initiated within four minutes of the onset of the
cardiac arrests occur very infrequently; on average these are 1 percent to 1.5
arrest. However,
percent of all EMS incidents
. There are also other EMS incidents that are truly life-threatening
36
and the time of response can clearly impact the outcome. These involve drownings,
electrocutions, and severe trauma (often caused by gunshot wounds, stabbings, and severe
frequency of life-threatening calls is limited, typically
motor vehicle accidents, etc.). Again, the
not more than 10 to 15 percent of the overall EMS call activity
.
Regarding response times for fire incidents, the frequency of actual fires in Tukwila (structure and
structure fires were just
outside fires) is very low, approximately 3.7 percent of all incidents. Actual
over 1 percent of all calls, or 61 in the 12-month period evaluated
. The criterion for fire response
-heated gasses from a fire
in an enclosed area results in a near-simultaneous ignition of the combustible material in the
area. In this situation, usually after an extended period of time (8 to 12 minutes), the fire expands
rapidly and is much more difficult to contain. When the fire reaches this hazardous state, a larger
rate of fire spread is significantly reduced or
and more destructive fire occurs. However, this
even curtailed when automatic fire sprinklers are operational
. The following figure illustrates the
flashover phenomenon and its potential for increased damage.
Another important factor in the whole response time question is called
the time it takes to detect a fire or a medical situation and notify 911 to initiate the response. In
many instances, particularly at night or when automatic detection systems (fire sprinklers and
smoke detectors) are unavailable or inoperable, the detection process can be extended. Fires
that go undetected and are able to expand in size, become more destructive and are more
difficult to extinguish.
§ § §
36. -based Performance Measures for Emergency
Medical Services System: A Model for Expanded EMS Pre-hospital Emergency Care.
545454
FIGURE 6-1: Fire Propagation Curve
MEASURING RESPONSE TIMES
There have been no documented studies that have made a direct correlation between
response times and outcomes in fire and EMS events. No one has been able to show that a four-
minute response time is measurably more effective than a six-minute response time. The logic
,
Furthermore, the ability to measure the difference in outcomes (patient saves, reduced fire
damage, or some other quantifiable measure) between a six-minute, eight-minute, or ten-
minute response is not a performance measure often utilized in the fire service. For example, in
Tukwila, response times for both fire and EMS calls vary markedly. Many responses can exceed
10 minutes and there is little, if any correlation, between these extended response times and the
outcomes observed.
Thus, in looking at response times it is prudent to design a deployment strategy around the
actual circumstances that exist in the community and the fire problem that is perceived to exist.
protection for the community. It would be imprudent, and very costly, to build a deployment
strategy that is based solely upon response times.
response timedispatch time
For the purpose of this analysis, is a product of three components: ,
turnout timetravel time
, and .
Dispatch time is the time interval that begins when the alarm is received at the
communication center and ends when the response information is transmitted via voice or
electronic means to the emergency response facility or emergency response units in the field.
Dispatch time is the responsibility of the 911 center and outside the control of TFD officials.
555555
Turnout time is the time interval that begins when the emergency responders are first notified
(through an audible alarm or visual announcement or both), and ends at the point that their
response is initiated. The fire department has the greatest control over this segment of the total
response time measurement.
Travel time is the time interval that initiates when the unit is en route to the call and ends when
the unit arrives at the scene.
Response time, also known as total response time, is the time interval that begins when the call
is received by the primary dispatch center and ends when the dispatched unit arrives on the
scene to initiate action.
TUKWILA RESPONSE TIMES
For this study, and unless otherwise indicated, our response time calculation measures the first
arriving unit only. Typically, we track only those responses in which the unit is responding with
lights and sirens (HOT). Out of the 5,754 total calls, our response time analysis was based on a
total of 4,251 calls. We excluded any canceled calls and mutual aid responses (1,000), 201 calls
where no units recorded a valid on-scene time, 15 calls where the first arriving unit response was
greater than 30 minutes, and 287
response time could not be calculated due to missing or faulty data. On the basis of these
calculations, we determined:
The average dispatch time for all calls within the city corporate limits was 1.4 minutes
(84 seconds).
The average turnout time was 1.8 minutes (108 seconds).
The average travel time was 3.9 minutes.
The average total response time for EMS calls in the city was 7.1 minutes.
The average total response time for fire category calls was 7.3 minutes.
The average response time for structure fire calls was 6.8 minutes.
The average response time for outside fire calls was 7.8 minutes.
According to NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression
Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career
Departments, 2020 Edition, the alarm processing time or dispatch time should be less than or
equal to 64 seconds 90 percent of the time. This standard also states that the turnout time should
be less than or equal to 80 seconds (1.33 minutes) for fire and special operations 90 percent of
the time, with a 60-second turnout for EMS calls. Travel times are recommended to be less than
or equal to 240 seconds (4 minutes) for the first arriving engine company 90 percent of the time
for both fire and EMS calls.
The following table shows the average response time in minutes for the first arriving unit, by call
type. The subsequent table shows the 90th percentile response times.
565656
TABLE 6-1: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type
Time in Minutes
Number of
Call Type
Calls
Dispatch Turnout Travel Total
Breathing difficulty 1.4 1.7 3.5 6.7 254
Cardiac and stroke 1.4 1.6 3.6 6.6 379
Fall and injury 1.3 1.7 4.0 7.0 751
Illness and other 1.6 1.7 3.7 7.0 785
MVA 1.4 2.0 4.3 7.7 398
Overdose and psychiatric 1.4 1.8 4.4 7.6 220
Seizure and unconsciousness 1.4 1.7 3.6 6.6 479
1.4 1.7 3.9 7.0 3,266
EMS Total
False alarm 0.9 2.2 3.6 6.7 552
Good intent 1.8 2.1 4.6 8.5 57
Hazard 1.6 2.0 4.6 8.2 65
Outside fire 1.5 2.0 4.3 7.8 129
Public service 2.3 1.8 4.5 8.6 124
Structure fire 1.1 2.2 3.5 6.8 58
1.3 2.1 3.9 7.3 985
Fire Total
1.4 1.8 3.9 7.1 4,251
Total
§ § §
575757
TABLE 6-2: Tukwila 90th Percentile Response Times
Time in Minutes
Number of
Call Type
Calls
Dispatch Turnout Travel Total
Breathing difficulty 2.2 2.7 5.9 9.1 254
Cardiac and stroke 2.2 2.6 5.5 9.2 379
Fall and injury 2.5 2.6 6.6 10.5 751
Illness and other 2.8 2.6 6.0 10.1 785
MVA 3.1 2.8 6.8 11.6 398
Overdose and psychiatric 3.0 2.7 7.5 11.4 220
Seizure and unconsciousness 2.5 2.6 5.8 9.3 479
2.6 2.6 6.2 10.1 3,266
EMS Total
False alarm 1.6 3.0 5.9 9.1 552
Good intent 3.4 3.0 7.5 12.1 57
Hazard 3.8 2.9 7.6 12.0 65
Outside fire 2.5 2.7 7.2 11.0 129
Public service 3.9 2.8 6.9 13.7 124
Structure fire 2.2 3.0 7.0 9.5 58
2.4 2.9 6.5 10.5 985
Fire Total
2.6 2.7 6.3 10.2 4,251
Total
Observations:
The average dispatch time was 1.4 minutes.
The average turnout time was 1.8 minutes.
The average travel time was 3.9 minutes.
The average total response time was 7.1 minutes.
The average response time was 7.0 minutes for EMS calls and 7.3 minutes for fire calls.
The average response time was 7.8 minutes for outside fires and 6.8 minutes for structure fires.
The 90th percentile dispatch time was 2.6 minutes.
The 90th percentile turnout time was 2.7minutes.
The 90th percentile travel time was 6.3 minutes.
The 90th percentile total response time was 10.2 minutes.
The 90th percentile response time was 10.1 minutes for EMS calls and 10.5 minutes for fire calls.
The 90th percentile response time was 11.0 minutes for outside fires and 9.5 minutes for
structure fires.
NFPA 1710 response time criteria are utilized by CPSM as a benchmark for service delivery and
in the overall staffing and deployment of fire departments, and are not a CPSM
recommendation.
It is also our observation that agencies are seldom able to achieve the
response time criteria established in this standard. The data observed in the Tukwila system are
585858
indicative of a system that is extremely proficient in its service deliveryoutcomes,yet it still is
unable to meet the response time criteria espoused in NFPA 1710.
The fire station is a critical link in service delivery and where facilities are located is the single
most important factor in determining overall response times and workload distribution. As noted
previously, the fire department operates from four fire stations. The TFD fire stations are located
as follows:
Station 51: 17951 Southcenter Pkwy.
Station 52: 15447 65th Ave. South
Station 53: 4202 South 115th St.
Station 54: 4237 South 144th St.
The following four figures illustrate these station locations and the travel distance projections
from each: 240 seconds (indicated by the green overlay), 360 seconds (indicated by the amber
overlay), 480 seconds (indicated by the red overlay), and a composite overlay. These
projections are based on actual road travel distances and the posted speed limits on these
roadways. For Station 52 we based these projections on the new location for this facility at 15447
65th Ave. South.
§ § §
595959
FIGURE 6-2: Tukwila Station Locations with Travel Projection of 240 Seconds
606060
FIGURE 6-3: Tukwila Station Locations with Travel Projection of 360 Seconds
616161
FIGURE 6-4: Tukwila Station Locations with Travel Projection of 480 Seconds
626262
FIGURE 6-5: Tukwila Station Locations with Composite Travel Projections
The figures show that approximately 80 percent of the developed areas of the city are covered
under the 240-seconds benchmark. We would estimate that approximately 90 percent of the
developed areas of the city are covered under the 360-seconds benchmark and 100 percent of
These maps only depict travel distances and not
the areas within the 480-seconds benchmark.
actual response times.
636363
The next three figures show the actual locations offire, EMS,and other emergency responses,
respectively, carried out by the Tukwila Fire Department during the year studied. It is apparent
from these maps that most responses in Tukwila should result in travel times that are within four to
six minutes. It also appears that the overall distribution of calls is generally equally dispersed
throughout the existing service boundaries; thus, the fire station distribution should provide
suitable coverage to ensure an appropriate response outcome.
FIGURE 6-5: Location of TFD Fire Calls
646464
FIGURE 6-6: Location of TFD EMS Calls
656565
FIGURE 6-7: Location of TFD Other Calls
In our analysis we also looked at those calls with extended total response times, that is, those
total response times that were 10 minutes or greater. We determined that approximately 10
percent of all responses had a total response time greater than 10 minutes. It was surprising to
666666
observe the large volume of these calls that were in close proximity to existing facilities and
resources. The following figure illustrates the 527 calls that had a total response time of 10
minutes or greater.
FIGURE 6-8: Location of TFD Responses with Total Response Time of 10 Minutes or
Greater
676767
SECTION7. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
Fire suppression, prevention programs, and EMS service delivery need to be planned and
managed so that these efforts achieve specific, agreed-upon results. This requires establishing a
set of goals for the activities of any given program. Determining how well an organization or
program is doing requires that these goals be measurable and that they are measured against
desired results. This is the goal of performance measurement.
Simply defined, performance measurement is the ongoing monitoring and reporting of progress
toward pre-established goals. It captures data about programs, activities, and processes, and
displays data in standardized ways that help communicate to service providers, customers, and
other stakeholders how well the agency is performing in key areas. Performance measurement
provides an organization with tools to assess performance and identify areas in need of
what gets measured gets improved
improvement. In short, .
The need to continually assess performance requires adding new words and definitions to the
fire service lexicon. Fire administrators need to be familiar with the different tools available and
the consequences of their use. In Managing the Public Sector, business professor Grover Starling
applies the principles of performance measurement to the public sector. He writes that the
consequences to be considered for any given program include:
Administrative feasibility
: How difficult will it be to set up and operate the program?
Effectiveness
: Does the program produce the intended effect in the specified time? Does it
reach the intended target group?
Efficiency
: How do the benefits compare with the costs?
Equity
: Are the benefits distributed equitably with respect to neighborhoods, income, gender,
ethnicity, age, and so forth?
Political feasibility
: Will the program attract and maintain key actors with a stake in the program
area?
37
Performance measurement systems vary significantly among different types of public agencies
and programs. Some systems focus primarily on efficiency and productivity within work units,
whereas others are designed to monitor outcomes produced by major public programs. Still
others track the quality of services provided by an agency and the extent to which citizens are
satisfied with these services.
Within the fire service, performance measures tend to focus on inputs (the amount of money
and resources spent on a given program or activity) and short-term outputs (the number of fires,
number of EMS calls, response times, etc.). One of the goals of any performance measurement
system should be also to include efficiency and cost-effectiveness indicators, as well as
explanatory information on how these measures should be interpreted. An explanation of these
types of performance measures are shown in the following table.
37. Grover Starling, Managing the Public Sector, (Cengage Learning), 396.
686868
TABLE 7-1: The Five GASB Performance Indicators
38
CategoryDefinition
Input indicators These are designed to report the number of resources,
either financial or other (especially personnel), that
have been used for a specific service or program.
Output indicators These report the number of units produced or the
services provided by a service or program.
Outcome indicators These are designed to report the results (including
quality) of the service.
Efficiency (and cost-These are defined as indicators that measure the cost
(whether in dollars or employee hours) per unit of output
effectiveness) indicators
or outcome.
Explanatory information This includes a variety of information about the
environment and other factors that might affect an
One of the most important elements of performance measurement within the fire service is to
describe service delivery performance in a way that both citizens and those providing the
Ensuring
Managing Fire and Emergency Services rgon can get in
the way:
Too often, fire service performance measures are created by internal customers and
laden with jargon that external customers do not understand. For example, the
traditional fire service has a difficult time getting the public to understand the
staffing in the suppression of fires. Fire and emergency service providers need to be
able to describe performance in a way that is clear to customers, both internal and
external. In the end, simpler descriptions are usually better.
39
In 2019, the Mayor and City Council adopted a series of response time standards for the Tukwila
Fire Department. These standards were a directed effort to measure department performance
and focused primarily on the various components of fire and EMS response times. Though
response times are one aspect of measurement in looking at emergency service delivery, they
do not fully capture the quality of service that is provided once units arrive. There is no
correlation regarding the speed with which units respond and the quality or effectiveness of the
the goals that have been established
services that are delivered once on the scene. In addition,
for responder turn-out for both fire and EMS calls are excessive
and far exceed recognized
national standards recommended by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) for career
fire departments.
38. From Harry P. Hatry et al., eds. Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting: Its Time Has Come
(Norwalk, CT: GASB, 1990).
39. Managing Fire and Emergency Services (ICMA:
Washington, DC: 2012), 202.
696969
It is critical that TFDdevelop a series of internal reporting processesthat can provide a direct link
to department goals or specific target measures. It is also critical that these measures be both
quantitative and qualitative in nature and reflect on multiple areas of service delivery within the
organization. This type of ongoing analysis and the monitoring of trends are most useful to justify
program budgets and to measure service delivery levels.
Staff throughout the organization should participate in the development of any measures. In
addition to helping facilitate department wide buy-in, this could provide an opportunity for
upper management to better understand what the line staff believes to be critical goalsand
vice versa. For the same reason, the process of developing performance measures should
include citizen input, specifically with regard to service level preferences. Translating this advice
from the citizens into performance measures will link the citizens and business community to the
department and will identi
Recommendation: TFD should implement a series of performance measures
that enable ongoing review of service outcomes. The process of developing
these measures should utilize input from TFD members, the Fire Union, the
community, the Mayor and City Council, and City Administration.
(Recommendation No. 20.)
Following are a number of performance measures that may be considered:
Operations:
Response times (fire and percentile/average/frequency of excessive times).
Alarm/dispatch handling times.
Turnout times.
Travel times.
On-scene time.
Call duration.
Canceled en route.
Workload measures
Emergency vs. nonemergency responses.
EMS transportsALS/BLS.
Response to automatic fire alarms/frequency and outcomes.
Company inspections/area occupancy familiarization.
Fire preplanning.
Public education: contact hours/numbers by age group.
Outcome measures
EMS/save rates/action taken.
Successful IVs.
EMS protocol compliance.
Fire loss/limit of fire spreadpoint of origin, room of origin, etc.
On-
707070
Lost timesick/injury.
Fire service vehicle accidents.
Equipment lost or broken.
Training:
Fire and EMS hours.
Officer development.
Skills assessment compliance.
Specialty training.
Professional development/formal education/certifications.
Fitness performance.
Prevention:
Plans review (numbers/valuation amount/completion time).
Inspections (new and existing).
Numbers.
Completion time.
Violations (found/corrected).
Quantification by type of violation and occupancy type.
Fire investigations
Numbers and determinations.
Occupancy types, time of occurrence, ignition source.
Fire loss/structure and contents.
Fires in structures with automatic fire sprinklers present/activated.
Fire in structures with smoke detectors present/activated.
Arson arrests/convictions.
Fire deaths (demographics/occupancy type/cause and origin).
Miscellaneous:
Customer service surveys (by engine/by shift).
Following emergency response.
Public assist.
Inspections (prevention and company).
Public education.
In-service training (employee assessments).
Financial/budgetary.
Overtime expenditures and cause.
Apparatus repair costs and out-of-service time.
717171
SECTION8. ESSENTIALRESOURCES
FIRE PREVENTION AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
Ensuring that services are delivered effectively is paramount in any fire service organizational
mission. The functions of the fire marshal and fire prevention are most critical in that
organizational milieu. The foundation of a good risk management program is to prevent fires
before they occur and to help reduce the losses from those that do occur. The critical role of
each person assigned to enforcement activities is likely to avert more losses than is any single
firefighter and in some cases the fire department as a whole.
The fire departments that are most effective in reducing losses are those that have successfully
integrated prevention as a core value throughout the organization and that continuously review
the impact of prevention on the overall services provided by the department. There are basic
approaches that can be used to ensure that prevention is treated as a paramount department-
wide priority. One way to accomplish this is to have that core value of an organization
referenced directly in the mission statement.
The Tukwila Fire Prevention Division provides fire prevention code enforcement, plans review,
and cause and origin investigation services to City of Tukwila. Fire prevention activities in Tukwila
are supervised by a Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal. The Fire Prevention Division is staffed with three
full-time prevention personnel. Of these, two are Captain/Inspectors and one is a Senior Project
Coordinator in charge of plans review. Fire Prevention also employs an Administrative Support
Technician; however, this position was vacant at the time of the CPSM review.
The Fire Prevention Division has a wide range of duties. These include plans review and code
compliance regarding both new buildings while under construction, as well as ongoing
maintenance inspections after the building is occupied. A significant percentage of these
inspections are mandated as part of the Washington State Fire Marshal inspection guidelines
regarding the inspection of specific occupancies. The remainder are performed in accordance
with nationally recognized standards and best practices, with a large number being required as
part of the business licensing process. In total, it is estimated that there are more than 1,700
inspectable properties within the City of Tukwila. All fire and life-safety inspections in Tukwila are
conducted by the Fire Prevention Division. The TFD does not use In-service fire company
inspections; however, prior to 2017, in-service engine companies were responsible for the
majority of the clife-safety related inspections and the issuance of operational permits.
TABLE 8-1: TFD Fire Prevention Division Activity Statistics, 20142019
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Life-safety inspections* 1388 959 458 3 2 0
Operational permits issued* 770 461 229 86 19 0
Construction permit plans reviewed 850 747 801 805 871 805
Constructions permit inspections 703 624 789 744 737 610
Total Inspections, Permits, and Plans Reviews 3711 2791 2277 1638 1629 1415
*Note:
Life-safety inspections and operation permit Issuance were done previously by in-service engine
companies; however, this practice was discontinued in 2017.
The City of Tukwila currently utilizes the 2017 International Fire Code. This code is adopted
throughout the State of Washington; however, local jurisdictions are allowed to adopt specific
727272
amendments to this code for local applications.One such amendment is the requirement for
residential fire sprinklers in all newly constructed residential housing. CPSM recognizes this fire
Best Practice
code provision as a .
Automatic fire sprinklers have proven to be very effective in reducing fire loss and minimizing fire
deaths in residential structures. Statistics reveal that there has never been an instance of a loss of
multiple lives in a fire in a fully sprinklered building. Property losses are 85 percent less in
40
residences with fire sprinklers compared to those without sprinklers. Where sprinklers were
41
present, flame damage was confined to the room of origin in 97 percent of those fires. The
42
average firefighter injury rate of 13 per 1,000 in reported home fires was 79 percent lower where
sprinklers were present than in fires with no automatic extinguishing systems.
43
In-Service Fire Company Inspections
As was previously discussed, in-service company inspections are currently not being carried out
by the Tukwila Fire Department. CPSM believes that an in-service fire company inspection
program, if managed properly, can yield significant benefits to the system.
Many fire agencies across the country require in-service fire companies to conduct various levels
of inspections. Typically, these inspections are in smaller retail establishments, such as store-front
commercial businesses and restaurants, and usually involve limited inspectable actions. These
inspections usually involve the verification and placement of operational fire extinguishers, the
testing of exit and emergency lighting, evaluating any blockage or storage in emergency egress
passageways, the functionality of emergency exits, checking the kitchen hood systems,
evaluating occupancy loading, etc.
As noted previously, TFD engine companies were conducting in-service fire inspections in nearly
1,400 properties in each 18-month cycle as recently as five years ago. These inspections are
beneficial for identifying and correcting violations before problems occur. They also provide
firefighters with a familiarization with property occupancies, along with processing and storage
activities, a familiarization that is of significant value when incidents occur. These efforts enhance
the safety of responders and improve the effectiveness in mitigating problems.
Recommendation: The Tukwila Fire Department should institute an in-service
fire company inspection program that promotes responder familiarization,
code enforcement, and fire prevention efforts. (Recommendation No. 21.)
The number of inspectable properties is significant in most communities. When not done by in-
service engine companies, these inspections must be done by fire prevention personnel. In
many cases, when fire companies identify suspected code violations, these violations are
brought to the owners attention and a follow-up inspection is scheduled to determine if
corrective action was taken. For those more critical issues, a report is provided to the fire
prevention staff for follow-up. The key to in-service inspection efforts is identifying problems
before an emergency response is needed. In addition, the building owners are made aware of
issues so they can be resolved and preventable problems can be avoided. The program can
also facilitate improved interaction between the fire department and businesses.
40. Tufts University-2019, https://publicsafety.tufts.edu/firesafety/myths-and-facts-about-sprinkler-systems/
41. Ibid.
42. NFPA-2017, https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/Fact-
sheets/SprinklerHOmesFactSheet.pdf
43. Ibid.
737373
Fire agencies often saythat in-service units are too busy with trainingand emergency response
activities to have sufficient time to conduct fire inspections. This was the case in Tukwila and
CPSM was advised that the in-service inspection program was halted when TFD actively
engaged in the South King County Training Consortium. Though there is a likelihood that in-
service personnel will be interrupted when doing inspections because of alarm activity, this
should not be a deterrent to providing this service.
In our analysis of unit workloads, CPSM found that the busiest unit in the TFD system was L-354. We
estimate that on average, L-354 is involved in emergency response duties just over 2 hours each
24-hour period (122 minutes). All other units are typically involved in emergency response duties,
on average, less than two hours in each 24-hour duty period. We also looked at the volume of
individual training activities. On the basis of 2020 training records, we found that TFD personnel
are actively engaged in training activities for less than one hour each duty day. When
considering both emergency response duties and training activities, CPSM believes that there is
ample time to commit approximately one additional hour each day to in-service inspections.
1,400 inspectable properties are not
This is especially needed in light of the fact that upwards of
being inspected
each year because of the workload constraints of the fire prevention staff. Thus,
we strongly recommend the re-institution of the in-service fire company inspection program.
Fire Investigations
Fire investigations are conducted by the TFD Captain/Inspectors, with assistance from the Fire
Marshal when needed. These personnel have received training to conduct fire investigations in
determining the cause and origin of fires and to determine an estimated fire loss.
Over the six-year period from 2014 through 2019, there were an average of 78 investigations per
year. The following table identifies the number of fire investigations conducted by department
personnel during this time frame.
TABLE 8-2: Fire Investigations, 20142019
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Fire investigations 111 66 83 87 68 54
The inefficiency and added overtime cost in responding an off-duty Captain/Inspector to each
fire for the purpose of conducting fire investigations are issues that warrant evaluation by the
department.
Fire investigations serve two primary purposes. The first is to determine the cause and origin of the
fire. This information is helpful in determining if the fire was accidently started or if the fire was
incendiary or intentionally started. The second purpose is to determine the estimated fire loss or
property damage from the fire. This information is utilized by the building occupants in pursuing
an insurance claim and possible settlement.
While fire departments typically utilize Fire Prevention staff specifically trained in fire investigations
to provide this service, in our studies we are seeing more investigations being done by response
personnel. In most instances the first arriving company officer (also a Fire Captain) receives basic
training in determining cause and origin and in estimating fire loss. Supplemental course work is
available to give responding fire officers expanded training in determining fire cause and origin
747474
and estimating fire loss.As indicated in our analysis of structure fires in Tukwila in Section 5of this
44
report, it was determined that the number of actual fires with significant fire loss (greater than
$20,000) is very limited (only five in 2019). CPSM believes that TFD should re-evaluate its use of
Captain/Inspectors to perform fire investigations and consider shifting this responsibility to the first
arriving company officer and the Battalion Chief in-charge.
Recommendation: The Tukwila Fire Department should re-evaluate the use of
the two 40-hour Captain/Inspectors and re-assign the duty of determining fire
cause and origin and estimating fire loss to the responding company officer
and Battalion Chief in-charge. (Recommendation No. 22.)
There may be complex fires or possible arson cases in which deaths or injuries occur and for
which criminal actions may be investigated. In these cases, an option is available to bring in the
, or private insurance company
investigators to support the investigation. Fortunately, these cases are not a frequent occurrence
and the ability to draw on outside expertise is readily available.
Contracting Out Fire Prevention Workload
The TFD Fire Marshal has expressed prolonged frustration over his inability to effectively manage
the fire prevention workload. The Fire Marshal has recommended the use of the outsourced
Brycer Compliance Engine
services of the , which is an on-line company that provides fire
protection system compliance services. Most fire protection systemsincluding automatic fire
sprinkler pumps, fire control rooms, annunciator panels, alarm sounding devices, cooking hood
extinguishers, exhaust systems, elevators, and other alerting or extinguishing devicesrequire
periodic inspections and maintenance to ensure proper operation. These services are typically
carried out by private contractors and technicians who then provide the results of their
evaluations/maintenance to the property owner and the agency having jurisdiction (AHJ). The
Brycer Compliance Engine is a leader in providing these services to local government and in
many instances the fees for its services are included in the periodic maintenance process. These
service providers are also effective in identifying all of the properties in the community that
require periodic inspections; they provide these listings as part of their service. CPSM believes
that the Tukwila Fire Department would benefit greatly from utilizing an outsourced service
provider in managing its inspections responsibilities.
Recommendation: The City of Tukwila should evaluate the use of an out-
sourced service provider in fulfilling the fire code compliance requirements
for periodic inspections of automatic fire protection systems in the city.
(Recommendation No. 23.)
It is common that inspection services including plans review and fire protection system testing
are supported by private, contractual partners that deliver services on an hourly or contractual
basis. In addition, local engineering firms and freelance fire protection engineers often offer
45
their services to local communities on an as-needed or on a retainer basis. Since the use of
model and uniform fire and building codes is widespread and well-understood, outsourcing
services are readily available and oftentimes more cost-effective than hiring and maintaining
full-time staff. In addition, given the cyclical nature of the construction industry and the periodic
44. See; https://teex.org/class/fop010/ and
https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/nfirs/support/nfirsgrams/nfirsgram_calculating_fireloss.html
45. See: https://safebuilt.com/services/private-provider-services/plan-review-private,
https://www.scisusa.com/knowledge-center/outsourced-fire-services/,
https://www.planreviewandinspections.com/services-1.html
757575
swings in local development, outsourced inspections provide greaterflexibility to expand or
contract capacity on the basis of demand. In addition, these contractual relationships offer an
opportunity to include specified service delivery requirements, such as specifying the time
elapsed for completing plans reviews, receiving an inspection, and issuing authorization for
occupancy. These schedules are extremely critical to building contractors, architects, and
engineering firms and meeting the schedule is often difficult with in-house or fixed staffing.
Civilianizing Inspections and Code Enforcement
In many fire departments the personnel who are utilized as fire inspectors, investigators, and
plans reviewers are uniformed firefighter personnel who have been re-assigned to assume fire
prevention duties. In most cases these are voluntary assignments, requested by the employee. In
the TFD, fire inspectors are uniformed Fire Captains/Deputy Fire Marshals and the Fire Marshal is a
ranked Battalion Chief assigned to fire prevention.
In recent years many agencies have moved away from the assignment of uniformed firefighter
personnel to fire prevention assignments and have expanded the use of civilian personnel (non-
certified firefighters) for these assignments. The positions are often classified as Fire Safety
Specialists, Plans Reviewers, Code Examiners, Fire Protection Engineers, and other similar titles
and job classifications which do not have emergency response credentials or responsibilities.
These changes have been made primarily to achieve cost savings. In addition, when uniformed
firefighters are re-assigned to these positions, we typically see these assignments going to more
tenured personnel, such as in the case of TFD with Fire Captains. Emergency response personnel
assigned to fire prevention positions often receive additional pay for 40-hour assignments (wage
differentials, on-call pay, take home vehicles, hazardous duty, or public safety pensions, etc.). In
addition, by civilianizing these positions and removing the more stringent training requirements
for firefighters and the physical fitness components, there is a greater opportunity for expanding
diversity in these positions.
Recommendation: The City of Tukwila should consider the use of non-
firefighter personnel (Fire Safety Specialists) instead of certified Fire
Captains/Inspectors to conduct fire safety inspections and code enforcement
duties. (Recommendation No. 24.)
TFD currently uses a civilian Plans Reviewer as a member of their Fire Prevention staff. Fire Safety
Specialists who are trained to conduct fire inspections and have in-depth knowledge in the
applicable fire codes and enforcement criteria could serve as a valuable resource to the TFD. In
addition, CPSM believes that the utilization of non-firefighting staff in the fire prevention positions
will result in a direct cost savings.
Reclassifying Fire Marshal Position
As mentioned previously, the Fire Marshal is a ranked Battalion Chief, who is currently assigned to
fire prevention. The Battalion Chief position in the Tukwila Fire Department is represented by IAFF
Local 2088 and is eligible for overtime pay along with a whole host of salary increments and
benefits typically not available to managerial positions. In 2019, the Fire Marshal received in
excess of $57,000 in overtime pay above his regular salary. The Fire Marshal is a key managerial
position with program management responsibilities. This position can be filled by a non-
represented position with program management responsibilities. Many fire departments have
moved from uniformed ranked positions as Fire Marshal and have instead opted for professional
and managerial classifications either as a Fire Protection Engineer or a Fire Safety Manager.
767676
Recommendation: The City of Tukwila should consider the reclassification of
the Fire Marshal/Battalion Chief position to a non-represented position
designated as a Program Manager in charge of Fire Prevention activities.
(Recommendation No. 25.)
Public Education
Public education is one of the most effective ways a fire department can reduce civilian injuries
and death from fire and asphyxiation. This effort is closely aligned and a key component of an
integrated risk management plan. Unfortunately, TFD does not have a formal Public Education
and Outreach Program for either at-risk adults or school-aged children. TFD officials have
indicated that recent budget constraints have limited their ability to commit the resources
necessary to pursue this effort. CPSM believes that there has also been a lack of initiative by the
and the community
partnerships that are required. CPSM believes that a viable public education program is needed
in Tukwila.
Recommendation: The Tukwila Fire Department should institute a
comprehensive public education program that targets senior and at-risk
populations along with school-age children. (Recommendation No. 26.)
In-service fire companies can be very effective in the coordination and delivery of public
education programs to target populations. Scheduling can be accomplished through on-line
methods or through a recorded phone-line request process. By designating a Fire Captain on
each shift as the public education manager for that shift, CPSM believes that a viable public
education program effort can be developed with limited financial costs.
WASHINGTON SURVEYING AND RATING BUREAU (WSRB)
The Washington Surveying and Rating Bureau (WSRB) collects data for 635 communities and fire
districts throughout the State of Washington. These data are then analyzed using a Community
Class Grading Schedule to help establish fair premiums for fire insurance, which generally leads
to lower premiums in communities with better protection. This analysis then results in a
Community Protection Class score ranging between 1 and 10. A community with a Protection
Class 1 Rating represents superior property fire protection and a Class 10 Rating indicates that
an area does not meet the minimum criteria set by the WSRB.
departments. As cities grew and buildings became larger and communities more industrialized,
insurance companies sometimes incurred large losses from fires. Much of the time, these losses
were due to inadequate water supplies and ineffective fire suppression capabilities. To help
reduce losses, insurance companies developed criteria to evaluate community fire suppression
capabilities and to quantify the level of fire services provided. Once quantified, insurance
companies used the information (rating) to determine and assign fire insurance rates. The
emphasis then, as now, was primarily to reduce dollar loss from fires. Though improving water
supplies and fire suppression can and does improve life safety, the purpose of rating fire
departments is to adjust insurance rates to lessen insurance company losses.
WSRB uses data and information provided by each community to derive a Protection Class
rating. Community evaluations are performed periodically, generally every four to five years. As
it is intended, the Protection Class rating it
777777
does not consider other emergencies or important services provided by the fire department
such as EMS, technical rescue, or hazmat incident mitigation.
In developing a Protection Class rating, the following major categories are evaluated:
Emergency Communications: WSRB evaluates the emergency communication system used to
dispatch the fire department.
Fire Department: WSRB evaluates the fire department, including fire stations, apparatus,
equipment, personnel, and their training.
Water Supply: WSRB evaluates the capacity, distribution and maintenance of water systems
and fire hydrants.
Fire Safety Control: WSRB evaluates the fire code enforcement and fire safety education
activities in the community.
Tukwila received a WSRB Protection Class rating of 3 in 2019, which is a very good rating. The
city7.6, which is just above mid-point in the Class 3 scoring category (7.0 to 7.9).
Tukwila scored exceptionally well in its ratings involving Water Supply (88 percent of the points
possible) and Emergency Communications, (again, 88 percent of the points possible).
The department was marked down in several of the Training categories, specifically, Company
Training, Training Center Training, Driver Training, and Pre-Fire Planning. Marks were similarly poor
in a number of Fire Safety Control categories. Specifically; Fire Marshal (30 percent of total),
Existing Inspections (12 percent of the possible points), Fire Protection System Testing (24 percent
of the total), Public Fire Education, Programs (20 percent of the total points), and
Adult Programs (28 percent of the total). Fire Investigation also received a lower scoring,
receiving only 50 percent of the point allocation for this category.
While improvements can be made in the areas referenced, it should be recognized that the
overall Protection Class rating of 3 is a strong scoring. In 2019, of the 635 agencies evaluated
only 13
only 62 (fewer than 10 percent), received a Protection Class rating of 3 or better, with
agencies in the State of Washington achieving ratings above Tukwila.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS
Training is one of the most important functions that a fire department should be performing on a
regular basis. One could even make the argument that training is, in some ways, more important
than emergency responses, because a department that is not well-trained, prepared, and
operationally ready will be unable to fulfill its emergency response obligations effectively and
safely. A comprehensive, relative, and ongoing training program is absolutely critical to the fire
An effective fire department training program must cover all of the essential elements of that
combination of technical/classroom training, manipulative or hands-on/practical evolutions,
and training assessment to gauge the effectiveness of these efforts. Most of the training, but
particularly the practical, hands-on training evolutions, should be developed based upon the
own operating procedures while remaining cognizant of widely accepted
practices and standards.
Certain Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations dictate that
minimum training must be completed on an annual basis, covering various topics that include:
787878
A review of the respiratory protection standard, self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)
refresher and user competency training, SCBA fit testing (29 CFR 1910.134).
Blood Borne Pathogens Training (29 CFR 1910.1030).
Hazardous Materials Training (29 CFR 1910.120).
Confined Space Training (29 CFR 1910.146).
Structural Firefighting Training (29 CFR 1910.156).
Education and training programs help to create the character of a fire service organization.
Agencies that place a real emphasis on their training tend to be more proficient in carrying out
day-to-day duties. The prioritization of training also fosters an image of professionalism and instills
pride in the organization.
South King County Fire Training Consortium (SKCFTC)
TFD is a participant in the . The SKCFTC is an
active grouping of 10 fire service agencies located in King County south of Seattle. Agencies
combine their training resources and utilize a regionally designed and comprehensive training
curriculum for its participating members. Agencies are charged an annual fee for membership in
the Consortium and this fee is based on the number of personnel in the individual organization in
relation to thwas assessed at 6.4 percent of the
Consortiums costs, or $284,000. TFD assigns two training Captains to the Consortium and these
individuals work full-time delivering specific training programs to members in the Consortium.
Because of the assignment of these personnel, the annual participation fee charged by the
Consortium to TFD is reduced annually by approximately $248,000, resulting in an annual training
charge of $36,000 after the off-set for the two assigned Captains. In addition, TFD pays the
salaries of these employees along with employee benefits, training supplies, and other related
service costs. In total in 2020, the TFD Training Budget accounted for just over $450,000 in
expenditures.
The Training Consortium develops and distributes a very detailed and all-encompassing training
curriculum for those fire and EMS skills that are essential for proficiency in emergency service
delivery. The curriculum meets or exceeds the required EMS training for both King County and
State of Washington. Special services training is also offered involving hazardous materials
response, high angle and swift water rescue, auto extrication, officer training, and incident
CPSM believes that
command, along with other key areas of training and safety modules.
Consortium is very cost effective and very appropriate in
providing for the training needs of the department.
At the same time, a key failing in the review of the training delivery process in Tukwila is the
absence of any adopted training standard in terms of the number of hours of training
completed by individuals in the department. Though the Consortium operates on the premise of
Tukwila has not adopted
providing 20 hours of in-service training to every individual each month,
an internal training directive
, nor does it conduct periodic reviews of employee training records.
Subsequently, CPSM observed a wide range of participation; many of the TFD personnel are not
logging the recommended 20 hours of monthly training.
Recommendation: The Tukwila Fire Department should adopt a minimum
training criterion (individual hours of training completed), and require that
training requirements on a regular basis. (Recommendation No. 27.)
797979
CPSM believesthatit is essential that the training effort in thedepartmentbeconsistent and
provide a basis for all employees to perform those activities that are needed to operate
successfully in emergency settings. This requires a comprehensive review of training activities and
periodic postings of the number of hours of participation by individual employees and follow-up
when an individual participation is lacking. TFD has access to a tremendous training resource
through the Consortium; however, it must take the needed steps to ensure the full participation
of its personnel.
Many aspects of an EMS training curriculum require a skills assessment in order to obtain the
necessary continuing education credits required for certification. Fire and other related service
training typically does not include a skills assessment and a recorded scoring to determine
individual proficiency.
Recommendation: The Tukwila Fire Department should work with the Training
to institute written and practical skills testing as part
of the dcurriculum. (Recommendation No. 28.)
The ability to monitor and record training test scores is beneficial from an overall proficiency
standpoint. In addition, training scores should be incorporated into the annual performance
appraisal process for both the employee, the supervisor, and
training staff. In addition, the concept of adding a testing process to each training evolution
adds to the importance, consistency, and seriousness in which these activities are carried out.
The leadership of the Consortium has been attempting to institute more skills assessment in its fire
training courses and if Tukwila places an added emphasis on this testing and assessment
component, if should not be difficult to institute.
Firefighter Physical Fitness
Employee physical fitness is a key component in the ability of Fire and EMS personnel to do their
jobs effectively and avoid injuries. Rigid fitness standards are typically required in many fire
NFPA 1583, Standard on Health-Related Fitness Programs for
departments throughout the nation;
Fire Department Members
, is a recognized industry standard for monitoring and maintaining
TFD does not have a fitness standard
firefighter fitness. for its emergency response personnel.
Though employees are encouraged to maintain appropriate levels of fitness, and current
firefighting job descriptions include language requiring good physical conditioning, a formal
organizational fitness assessment does not exist.
Recommendation: TFD should institute annual physical fitness testing in
accordance with NFPA 1583 for all emergency response personnel, including
chief officers. (Recommendation No. 29.)
Candidate
TFD requires new firefighters to pass a physical fitness evaluation that is based on the
Physical Ability Test (CPAT)
. This testing utilizes a number of firefighter skill components (stair
climb, hose drag, equipment carries, ladder raise, forcible entry, rescue drag, search, and
ceiling pull) that are completed in a sequential order and as a timed event. TFD should consider
the use of a modified CPAT exam as the annual fitness qualification for all emergency response
personnel. The Training Consortium has implemented a number of strength-hardening and fitness
tests that could be utilized in these assessments. In addition, most wildland firefighter
ThePack Test-Work Capacity Testing for Wildland Fire Fighting
certifications utilize as an annual
fitness qualification. This may also be considered as an annual fitness requirement for all TFD
personnel.
808080
Annual Medical Evaluation
Closely aligned with the need for firefighter fitness assessment is the need forfirefighters to have
an annual medical evaluation to ensure their well-being and health status so they can safely
perform their duties. Firefighters are susceptible to developing hypertension, diabetes, high
cholesterol, and obesity. According to the NFPA, 43 percent of firefighter deaths are caused by
overexertion and stress. In 2017, the Firefighter Cancer Support Network revealed that 61
percent of career firefighter line-of-duty deaths occurred as a result of cancer from 2002 to 2017.
Periodic and directed medical testing and screening are vital to the well-being of firefighters
NFPA
and are effective in identifying problems at early stages in order to facilitate treatment.
1582, Standard on Comprehensive Occupational Medical Program for Fire Departments
, outlines
an occupational medical program for firefighters aimed at reducing health risks and provides
guidance for periodic screening and medical evaluations aimed at the health and safety of
firefighters. The following medical testing is recommended under the provisions of NFPA 1582:
Blood analysis.
Urinalysis.
Pulmonary function test.
Chest X-ray (due every five years).
EKG.
Infectious disease screening.
Cancer screening.
Audiometric exam.
Vision testing.
Tukwila does not conduct annual medical evaluations for its firefighters. Participation in a
health screening process is voluntary and if carried out is done
physician, who may not be aware of or utilize the screening criteria established in NFPA 1582.
Recommendation: TFD should institute annual medical physicals in
accordance with NFPA 1582 for all emergency response personnel, including
chief officers. (Recommendation No. 30.)
In addition to periodic medical and physical fitness evaluations, firefighters often encounter
injury and illnesses that are not job related and can lead to extended absences and disabilities.
Upon returning to work it is essential that these employees are evaluated under the criteria
established in NFPA 1582 before returning to duty.
Injury Prevention and Safety
Employee safety and injury prevention is closely aligned with training and education. Typically,
fire department injuries are among the highest among all public sector employees. In 2018,
CPSM estimates that TFD line employees lost in excess of 11,500 hours of duty time (collectively,
roughly 32 hours of lost time daily) as a result of long-term disability and job-related injuries. The
cost associated with OSHA recordable injuries in terms of medical costs, lost time, and workers
compensation insurance are very significant.
In most cases line-of-duty injuries for firefighters are preventable. There is little internal review
regarding the causes of these injuries and no effort is being made to address recurring injuries
818181
and implement directed policies to reduce these occurrences. In our experience we have
found that most line-of-duty injuries are a product of improper lifting or not properly utilizing
personal protection and safety equipment. CPSM believes that the department should develop
a TFD Health and Safety program, working in close cooperation with the c Risk Management
reducing injuries
office. Such a program can be extremely effective in . The base of
this process is to use statistical analysis to isolate the highest frequencies of injuries and build into
the training regimens and policy directives the methodologies aimed at reducing injuries.
Recommendation: TFD should institute an Employee Safety and Injury
Avoidance Program aimed reducing the number of line-of-duty injuries and
lost time. (Recommendation No. 31.)
After-Action Review
Injury prevention is an organizational objective. From this perspective, it can be seen that it is
critical that supervisory personnel, specifically Captains and Battalion Chiefs, must have a more
active role in the efforts to reduce injuries. Though injuries in the fire service are avoided at all
costs, there is a very strong sentiment that when a firefighter is injured in the line of duty, it is
viewed with praise, or as something that comes with a sense of bravery or heroism. In reality,
most fireground injuries are the result of a failure to follow a prescribed safety procedure or a
lapse in judgment. It is critical that every injury be evaluated on the basis of why it occurred and
more importantly, how it could have been avoided. The supervisor is critical to this process and
in our estimation their actions, or more importantly inactions, should be evaluated in determining
the cause of the injury.
An after-action review (AAR) is a structured review or professional debriefing of an event that
enables firefighters to discover for themselves what happened during an incident or event, why
it happened, and how it can be done better in the future.
activity in which the full team that participated in the event are involved in the AAR. The process
is open and is not intended to be punitive. The findings of the AAR are recorded and utilized by
others in the organization to learn from the actions that took place, with the overriding goals of
improving outcomes and ensuring responder safety. The National Wildfire Coordinating Group
(NWCG) has developed guidelines for the AAR process and these tools are available for use by
fire service agencies across the nation. TFD does not utilize an AAR for key events or incidents.
46
Recommendation: TFD should implement the use of the after-action reviews
(AARs) after a major incident or event. These will serve as a training exercise
and can improve service delivery and employee safety. (Recommendation
No. 32.)
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Emergency management is the discipline and profession of applying science, technology,
planning, and management to deal with extreme events that can injure or kill large numbers of
people, do extensive damage to property, and disrupt community life. When such events do
occur and cause extensive harm, they are called disasters.
47
46. See: https://www.nwcg.gov/wfldp/toolbox/aars
47. Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government. Eds. Thomas E. Drabek,
Gerard J. Hoetmer. International City Management Association, 1991. p. xvii
828282
In support of the emergency management efforts both in the planning phases and when
activated to address an incident, individual jurisdictions within King County have been grouped
into geographic zones to facilitate and coordinate emergency management needs. During a
large-scale incident with regional impacts, the King County Office of Emergency Management
will serve as the primary coordination point for regional resource management, information
sharing, and escalation of requests for support. King County and its regional partners in south
King countythe Cities of Tukwila, Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Burien, Covington, Des
Moines, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Kent, Maple Valley, Milton, Normandy Park, Pacific, Renton,
SeaTac, and Vashon Islandhave been aligned to form Zone 3.
Emergency management functions operate in accordance with the c
Emergency Management Plan (CEMP). The plan provides coordination for both the planning
and operational aspects of dealing with widescale emergencies and disasters. These planning
and coordination efforts adhere to WAC 118-30 and the Federal Emergency Management
the National
Incident Management System (NIMS).
Tukwila has adopted a municipal Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan that is
designed to work in conjunction with the county CEMP and its Zone 3 partners. The concept of
operations for the c
Emergency Management serve as the coordination point for the city in managing its
emergency management responsibilities. The Chief of Emergency Management along with fire
and other municipal resources, are under the direction of the Mayor who has the authority
under state guidelines and under the Tukwila Municipal Code to direct emergency
management activities for the city.
At the time of the CPSM review, the coordination of emergency management functions was
being transferred to a newly appointed civilian Emergency Manager, who will work under a dual
reporting structure in which day-to-day coordination will be under the Police Department and
during emergencies or activations this responsibility will be under the Mayor. CPSM
views the dual-reporting process to be viable in that it is not uncommon; a number of
communities have taken this approach. There is a clear logic in having day-to-day oversight
within an operational department that is involved in public safety and has the resources to
rapidly activate in order to mitigate problems on a 24/7 basis. In addition, moving to a
professionally trained Emergency Manager who has senior program managerial duties and
would be exempt for overtime is a very logical approach. In addition, given that the new EOC is
physically located in the new Justice Center, there is a logistical justification for having these
functions fall under the Police Chief.
Recommendation: The City of Tukwila should re-assign the duties of the
Battalion Chief of Emergency Management to a professionally trained
Emergency Manager who is classified as a Senor Program Manager and
exempt from overtime. (Recommendation No. 33.)
At the time of the CPSM review the City was actively developing the hiring parameters for a
civilian Emergency Manager who would assume the emergency management coordination
duties once hired.
The c needs to be updated. The current version of the
plan was written in October 2013. It is recommended that a CEMP be revised once every five
years.
838383
Recommendation: The City of Tukwila should update its Comprehensive
Emergency Management Plan(CEMP).(Recommendation No. 34.)
CPSM believes that the revision of the Tukwila CEMP will provide an ideal opportunity for the new
Emergency Manager to structure the c
provides additional and the Police Department, and can make
use of the experience of the Fire Department, to provide a suitable transition that will improve
the overall coordination and effectiveness of these operations.
Training on WebEOC
Emergency management software serves as the coordinating element in planning and
executing actions during large-scale events. The tracking of resources and requesting assistance
through state and federal assets are carried out and documented through these automated
systems.
Tukwila, King County, and the Washington Emergency Management Division all use the
;
however, it requires significant training and understanding of its application to be used
effectively. It is essential that all key personnel and support personnel are fully trained and
familiar with this program. Tukwila has not developed a sufficient cadre of personnel who are
trained and are proficient in the use of WebEOC. These skills cannot be learned in the midst of
an incident.
Recommendation: The City of Tukwila should increase the number of city
officials and support staff who are trained and capable of using the WebEOC
software in the event of a major disaster or EOC activation.
(Recommendation No. 35.)
Other Emergency Management Plans
Another key document in the emergency management planning process is the Hazard
Mitigation Plan (HMP). The c
the City is subject to and identifies mitigation strategies that attempt to minimize these risks. This
document is well-written and was updated in September 2019.
Closely aligned with the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) and the Hazard
Mitigation Plan (HMP) is the Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP). COOP planning is an effort
that is carried out at all levels of government (local, county, state, and federal). It is used to
develop and evaluate scenarios in which government services may be disrupted and plan
efforts to re-institute the delivery of government services in the wake of a disaster (natural or
man-made).
Continuity of Operations (COOP) is an initiative of the federal government, required by U.S.
Presidential Policy Directive 40 (PPD-40), to ensure that agencies at all levels of government can
continue in the performance of essential functions under a broad range of circumstances. The
fundamental purpose of the COOP process is for all levels of government to identify procedures
that allow them to continue their essential operations in the wake of a catastrophic event. The
City of Tukwila has not developed a COOP plan for its municipal operations.
Recommendation: The City of Tukwila should develop a Continuity of
Operations Plan (COOP) for its essential municipal functions.
(Recommendation No. 36.)
848484
For helpful guidance, see the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency'sContinuity
Resources and Technical Assistance (2018). In addition, the City of Kirkland, Wash., has
developed a planning document that can provide valuable insight and examples of this
process.
48
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER (911)
Valley Communications Center (Valley Com) provides the city911 emergency
communications through an interlocal agreement. Valley Com is responsible for the dispatching
and radio communications for TFD operations. The Center provides police, fire, EMS, and jail
operations emergency communications to more than 30 agencies throughout south King
County, Wash., extending from the Seattle city limits to the Pierce County line and including
Vashon Island.
Owner
Valley Com has been operational for more than 40 years and Tukwila is one of five of its
Cities
that first initiated this service relationship. The Center is very adept in providing public
safety communications and understands the advantages and challenges of the next
generation of 911 (NextGen911) in the U.S. CPSM found the leadership and staff at Valley Com
to be highly capable and efficient in managing the emergency communications of Tukwila and
other participating members.
The Center is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with a minimum staffing of 17 personnel
(5 call takers, 11 dispatchers, and 1 supervisor). During peak periods the C
increase to 26 positions. Dispatchers work 12-hour shifts. Peak times are 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
The Center handles more than 1,700 calls daily. During major incidents, it is common practice for
additional personnel to be brought in to assist in operations. On major events, a dispatcher will
be assigned specifically to the incident. New dispatchers have a probationary period of 12
months. Initial training for dispatchers includes eight weeks in the classroom, and an additional
six months of supervised positional training for the various dispatch assignments (call taker, police
dispatcher, and fire dispatcher). All dispatch personnel receive Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials (APCO) 911 certification and receive 40 hours of basic EMT training.
All voice and radio transmissions are recorded. The Center uses a Phase II triangulation system to
identify the location of cell phone calls that are received. All critical dispatch equipment is on
an uninterrupted power supply (UPS). The Center is fully backed up with an auxiliary generator
that is tested monthly; also, it has an alternative site in case of major outages.
Emergency Medical Dispatching (EMD)
The Center utilizes an format that was developed by
King County EMS. This system has been established specifically for the screening and triaging of
EMS calls. The Center operates under EMS protocols established by the c
Director. Once a call is identified to be EMS-related, the call is then screened on the basis of its
severity (ALS or BLS). Depending on this determination, either a fire department BLS first response
unit is dispatched alone (for BLS calls), or when the call is determined to be an ALS event, both
the fire department unit and a Medic-One ALS unit are dispatched.
In 2020, the TFD altered its dispatching process for Tri-Med ambulance for those calls that
automatically dispatched
are BLS. Prior to 2020, a Tri-Med unit was for all calls that were
determined in the dispatch screening process to be BLS (emergency and non-
emergency BLS). In 2020 an agreement between TFD and Tri-Med changed the dispatch
of a Tri-Med unit from an automatic dispatch at the time the response was initiated to a
48. http://mrsc.org/getmedia/18c51db7-792a-4df3-a29a-812830410cbf/k53COOP.pdf.aspx
858585
Tri-Med unit is nowrequested
system in which a and a determination is
made that a transport is warranted. This practice was implemented to improve the
probability of a transport for Tri-Med and was an effort to reduce the number of times
that a Tri-Med unit would respond and no transport would occur.
Though CPSM can recognize the benefit for Tri-Med in this arrangement, we feel it could
lead to a significant increase in the overall call duration for TFD units. We estimate that, in
2019, the average call duration for a BLS call for TFD units was just over 24 minutes. Under
the revised dispatching process, we believe this call duration time will increase by
upwards of 8 to 10 minutes on most BLS responses. This increase in call duration can
adversely affect unit availability and overall response times. CPSM believes that TFD
should closely monitor its call durations and unit availability to determine if the change
from the automatic dispatching of Tri-Med units to the on-scene request mode affects
call duration times.
Recommendation: TFD should monitor its average call durations and unit
availability for BLS calls and determine if the move from the automatic
dispatching of a Tri-Med ambulance is adversely affecting system efficiency.
(Recommendation No. 37.)
The Tri-Med contract specifies a response time of upwards of 17 minutes and 59 seconds for its
(non-emergency BLS). Though Tri- response times have been
significantly less than the 18-minute requirement (at approximately 9 minutes), we do believe
that this change has the potential to be problematic and should be monitored closely.
§ § §
868686
SECTION 9. CONSIDERATIONS FOR REVENUE
ENHANCEMENTS AND REDUCTION IN
OVERTIME
As part of this Operational and Administrative Analysis, CPSM was asked to provide
recommendations for ways for the TFD to generate additional revenue to fund fire department
operations. As well, CPSM was asked to identify ways for the TFD to reduce overtime
expenditures. Many of the ideas listed here were discussed previously in the report; however, a
summary of these options has been elevated from our analysis and are presented in this section
efforts directed towards generating additional
to provide added emphasis. CPSM believes that
revenues will be insufficient
in off-setting the overtime costs needed to cover the amount of lost
our recommendation that measures focus instead on reducing the
time that is occurring. It is
excessive amounts of leave being taken, which we believe is the root cause of the escalating
overtime costs.
Fire department overtime is being driven by the ccombined with
the levels of leave time taken by TFD employees. For example, in 2018, the 54-line personnel
58,480 hours of paid leave for various
(firefighters on the 48/96 work-schedule) utilized a total of
allowances
(vacation, Kelly Days, sick leave, and long-term disability). This resulted in an annual
overtime expenditure of nearly $400,000. In addition to the overtime paid for minimum staffing,
TFD employees were also paid overtime wages in the amount of $227,652 for additional services
they provided in an off-duty status (training, disaster response, fire investigations, and other
duties). CPSM estimates that each employee was off, with pay in 2018, an average of 1,083
each TFD line employee was off with pay on 37 percent of their possible
hours. In other words,
duty hours
.
FIRE DEPARTMENT REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS
Generally speaking, fire department services are part of the public safety functions provided by
local government. There are limited abilities to equitably charge for these services. Though a
number of agencies have been creative in generating revenue, ultimately the amount of
funding generated through these efforts only off-set a small portion of the overall costs of
operations. The most prevalent methods usually considered include:
Contracting out services to neighboring jurisdictions.
Assuming EMS transport duties and charging for these services.
First responder fees.
Fire inspections, permitting, and plans review fees.
Excessive false alarm response penalties.
Non-resident response fees.
Hazardous materials clean-up or recovery charges.
Charging insurance companies for fire and service responses.
878787
The Tukwila FireDepartment has instituted a number of cost recovery efforts that are generating
significant revenues. The following are those revenue methods that are currently in place, along
with considerations for options that may generate additional funding.
EMS First Responder Fee:
Tukwila is generating in excess of $500,000 annually
(approximately $135 per EMS first response) through its first responder
arrangement with King County EMS. In addition to the annual fees being
generated for EMS first responder services, TFD receives a quality review of its field
EMS services from the county along with providing medical control and protocol
CPSM believes that the revenues being generated from EMS first
development.
responder fees is financially representative of the services provided and that
increasing this funding will require an orchestrated effort among all first
responders in King County.
Fire Inspections, Permitting, and Plans Review Fees:
TFD has recently increased
the revenues it is generating from these fees. In 2020, the combined fees
collected from fire prevention services amounted to approximately 30 to 40
CPSM believes that
percent of the cost associated with providing these services.
additional adjustments in the fee structure for fire prevention services are
warranted and these increases have the potential to move the city closer to full
cost recovery for these services.
EMS Transport:
Tukwila maintains a service contract with Tri-Med Ambulance to
provide BLS ambulance transports. It is estimated that approximately 2,000
transports are being carried out annually by Tri-Med from within the City. CPSM
estimates that these transports generate approximately $500,000 in gross
collections before expenses. We estimate that if TFD were to assume these
transport responsibilities, it would require additional staffing and operating
Subsequently, the
expenses that would cost in excess of $1 million annually.
assumption of BLS transport responsibilities by the TFD is not recommended as a
viable option for generating additional revenues.
Ambulance Transport Franchise Fees:
Tukwila has a franchise agreement that
authorizes Tri-Med ambulance service to be the exclusive provider of BLS
transports originating from within the city. Per this agreement, Tukwila receives
CPSM believes that there is an ability to increase
$24,000 annually from Tri-Med.
the annual payment from the ambulance provider for its exclusive right to do EMS
transports in the city.
Contracting out Services to Neighboring Communities:
The option to provide fire
and EMS services to neighboring communities is viable for the City of Tukwila. King
County Fire District #24 has the greatest potential for consideration. In addition,
other options may be available, but these would be dependent upon a desire on
the part of the neighboring jurisdictions to obtain services from Tukwila and the
ability to structure a pricing agreement that is agreeable to both parties. Ideally,
Tukwila would generate the greatest amount of net revenue if these contract
arrangements can be set up in a way in which TFD is able to provide these
CPSM believes that Tukwila should
services without adding additional resources.
pursue options to outsource its services on a fee basis to neighboring
communities.
False Alarm Fees:
Thistype offee is typically developed around a structure that
annually allows a specified number of false alarms to be generated by an
888888
individual business, industrial or residential complexes,before a fee is charged
(usually three to five annually). Managing this program requires ongoing
monitoring and tracking; the fee that is charged is typically tied to the actual cost
for providing this service. In addition, many false alarms are accidental or caused
by power interruptions and inclement weather. Typically, these false alarms are
excluded from the charge. In most instances this fee is not very high, generally
$250 or less. In addition, there is the issue of collection. As well, building occupants
often attempt to suppress or disconnect alarm notification systems to avoid
CPSM does not recommend the establishment of an excessive
recurring charges.
false alarm recovery fee.
Non-Resident Response Fees:
Non-resident response fees have been instituted by
multiple communities as a method to generate additional revenue. This fee is
typically applied to motor vehicle accidents (MVA) or medical emergencies
involving non-residents. The fee is based on the premise that residents are paying
taxes for these services and non-residents do not, so when a call involves a non-
resident, a fee can be charged. Many insurance companies allow payments to
agencies when these charges involve automobile accidents or vehicle fires. For
EMS calls, these charges are not universally covered by medical insurance
policies. A determination regarding the frequency in which non-residents are
utilizing TFD services would be suggested to determine if the call volume would
be sufficient to generate additional funds to justify this effort. However, these fees
will likely be charged to workers and shoppers who may requires service when in
Tukwila and this factor should be considered when developing this type of
CPSM recommends that Tukwila review the revenue potential from a
charge.
non-resident response fee and if viable, consider its implementation.
Hazardous Materials Clean-up or Recovery Charges:
A hazardous materials
not viable in Tukwila
clean-up or recovery charge is as this specialized response is
provided via mutual aid from outside agencies.
§ § §
898989
CONSIDERATIONS FOR REDUCTION IN OVERTIME EXPENDITURES
CPSM has identified options the department has for reducing overtime expenditures. The
estimates we provide for savings are based on the lost hours that are related to each leave
2018 average overtime pay rate of $58.65 per hour
category and the . The actual financial
impacts of implementation will likely differ from our estimates, depending upon the level to
which these proposals are implemented, their timing, or any refinements that may be
considered. It is anticipated that the implementation of these proposals can be carried out over
a multiyear timeframe and will be subject to extensive public debate, negotiations with the
firefighters union, and ultimately driven by the desire to gain control of these costs.
Nine
recommendations are provided here for consideration:
(1) Negotiate a reduction in the number of Kelly Days that are currently provided
to all TFD line personnel.
CPSM believes that the number of Kelly Days should be reduced by half from
14 days per year to 7 days per year. We also recommend that these reductions
be put into place without a corresponding salary increase. This change will
increase the average workweek from 49.5 hours (2,574 hours annually) to
52.8 hours (2,744 hours annually).
Estimated Savings: $545,000 annually
(2) Negotiate a change in the FLSA cycle from its current 24-day cycle to a
28-day cycle and change the eligibility requirements for premium overtime (time
and one-half) to a structure based on the actual hours worked.
Under the current labor agreement overtime is paid whenever an employee
works additional hours. It does not exclude any time-off the employee incurs
during the work cycle. FLSA guidelines (Fair Labor Standards Act) requires that
premium overtime be paid whenever employees work more than the allotted
hours in the work cycle. FLSA does not consider time worked as that time an
employee is off (vacation, sick, disability, bereavement, etc.). When employees
do not meet the FLSA work-cycle hour threshold, any additional hours worked are
paid at a straight time rate as opposed to the premium rate of time-and-one-
half. CPSM believes that the city should negotiate overtime eligibility based on
actual hours worked and exclude any time off from the calculation. It should be
noted that our assumption is that when a time-worked criterion is established for
overtime eligibility, the amount of leave time taken is reduced, as employees are
reluctant to take additional time off that will affect their overtime earnings
Estimated Savings: $162,000 annually
(3) Negotiate a reduction of 25 percent in the vacation hour accruals for line
employees.
The current labor agreement provides up to 312 vacation hours each year
(39 calendar days) for the most senior fire department employees. Less senior
employees (six or more years of service) receive 192 hours (24 calendar days)
each year. CPSM believes that the combined leave options along with the 24/96
schedule, provides significant leave time for the employee and the city should
909090
negotiate a 25 percent reduction in the hours that line employees accrue
annually for vacation.
Estimated Savings: $208,000 annually
(4) Institute a program to reduce use of sick leave.
Fire department line employees utilize nearly 13,700 hours of sick leave annually.
This equates to an estimated 263 hours (roughly 11 shifts) of sick leave use for
every line employee in a year. Though TFD has policy restrictions against the
improper use of sick leave, there is little internal review or enforcement of this
policy. CPSM believes that TFD should implement guidelines for its employees and
institute a supervisory review of sick leave use in an effort to curtail any
unauthorized use of sick leave. We estimate that upwards of 15 percent of the
annual amount of sick leave being used can be reduced with added review and
on-going monitoring practices.
Estimated Savings: $120,500 annually
(5) Establish a safety and injury avoidance program to reduce job-related injuries.
On average, TFD employees collectively incur an estimated 11,500 hours of lost
time annually that is related to on-the-job injuries. There is little internal review
regarding the causes of these injuries and no effort is being taken to address
recurring injuries. In our experience, we have found that most line-of-duty
firefighter injuries are a product of improper lifting or not properly utilizing personal
protection and safety equipment. CPSM believes that an orchestrated safety and
injury avoidance program can reduce the amount of time lost from job related
injuries by at least 10 percent.
Estimated Savings: $67,500 annually
(6) Change the Pipeline positions to a part-time, on-call status and utilize these
personnel to fill firefighter staffing shortages.
The city currently authorizes three to five Pipeline positions (unbudgeted
firefighters), who are trained firefighters eligible for hiring, to supplement
department staffing. These employees are paid full-time firefighter wages and
benefits during their tenure. CPSM proposes that the department utilize future
Pipeline positions (upwards of 18 positions) who are employed as part-time
personnel (limited benefits and no pension contributions), who work in an on-call
status, with workweek limitations, and who are utilized to fill daily staffing
shortages. It is estimated that part-time Pipeline positions could be paid at a rate
of $25 per hour, which will be substantially less that the average firefighter
overtime rate ($58.65 in 2018, not including benefits).
Estimated Savings: $207,800 annually
(7) Move to a three-station configuration in servicing the City of Tukwila.
The city utilizes a four-station configuration with six primary response units in
serving the 9.6 square miles of service area that comprises the City of Tukwila. This
means there is an estimated service area for each station of approximately 2.4
square miles. This is an extremely small service response area when compared to
919191
other communities and the indices that are utilized in determining fire station
response areas. In addition, the emergency service demands in Tukwila are
primarily EMS related and the call volume and workload is not exceptionally high.
When considering the distribution of call activity, individual unit workloads, the
predominate nature of EMS-related calls, the combined service response for EMS
calls by multiple agencies (King County Medic-One, and Tri-Med Ambulance),
and the close proximity to joint response fire agencies (Puget Sound Regional Fire
Authority, Renton Regional Fire Authority, and the South King Fire & Rescue),
CPSM believes that a three-station configuration with six primary response units
(including two roving aid cars), can provide comparable if not improved service
to the community. TFD is planning to spend in excess of $14 million for the
relocation of Fire Station 54. Though these funds have been authorized through
the 2016 Public Safety Bond Program, CPSM believes that the current four-station
configuration should be re-evaluated.
Estimated Savings: $14 million (Public Safety Bond Allocation)
(8) Civilianize and reclassify fire officers assigned to prevention.
The Fire Marshal and the two Fire Captains assigned to Fire Prevention are
uniformed firefighters covered under the IAFF collective bargaining agreement.
These positions receive additional pay supplements (on-call pay, shift differential,
public safety pension contributions), and generate extensive overtime (more than
$130,000 in 2019). CPSM believes that by moving to a civilian professional staff,
out-sourcing selected inspection services, and reclassifying Fire Prevention
personnel to program management classifications, the city will be able to
expand their professional credentials, improve productivity, and reduce costs.
Estimated Savings: $150,000 annually
(9) Outsource EMS first response and fire protection services.
Tukwila is in a unique position to evaluate its options to outsource its fire and EMS
delivery system from a private provider. Typically, private fire and EMS providers,
are able to offer comparable services at significant savings because of their
reduced labor costs. Generally, labor costs for private providers are 25 to 30
percent less than the costs of maintaining a municipal workforce. Because the
city owns its fire stations and its fleet of response vehicles, a private provider
would only need to provide the needed response personnel. In addition,
because of the additional personnel that co-respond with TFD personnel (King
County Medic One, Tri-Med Ambulance, South King County joint response
partners) the service responsibilities for a private provider would be markedly
reduced. CPSM recommends that the city evaluate its options for outsourcing its
fire and EMS services through the issuance of a Request for Qualifications to
determine the level of provider interest.
Estimated Savings: $2.25 to $2.5 Million annually
929292
SECTION 10. DATA ANALYSIS
This data analysis was prepared as a key component of the study of the Tukwila Fire Department
(TFD). This analysis examines all calls for service between January 1, 2019, and December 31,
computer-aided dispatch
, which stores
guidelines.
This analysis is made up of five parts. The first part focuses on call types and dispatches. The
second part explores the time spent and the workload of individual TFD units. The third part
presents an analysis of the busiest hours in the year studied. The fourth part examines the call
locations, mutual aid given, and received calls. The fifth and final part provides a response time
analysis of TFD units.
During the year covered by this study, the Tukwila Fire Department provided life safety services
to about 20,000 city residents within a 9.6 square-mile city area. It operated out of four fire
stations with 67 dedicated professional personnel. The department utilizes three frontline engines
and a reserve engine, two rescue boats, a ladder truck, an aid unit, a rescue unit, and an SCBA
trailer. TFD is located within Fire Zone 3 of King County. It provides the primary service to the
areas within the city limits of Tukwila, and the jurisdictional boundaries of King County Fire District
No. 24 . TFD also responds with automatic mutual
aid to the following areas: SeaTac, Renton, Auburn, Kent, King County Fire Districts 2, 11, 20, and
the Port of Seattle at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
During the study period, the Tukwila Fire Department responded to 5,754 calls, of which 64
percent were emergency medical service (EMS) calls. The total combined workload (deployed
dispatch time was 1.4 minutes and the average total response time was 7.1 minutes. The 90th
percentile dispatch time was 2.6 minutes and the 90th percentile total response time was 10.2
minutes.
METHODOLOGY
In this report, CPSM analyzes calls and runs. A call is an emergency service request or incident. A
run is a dispatch of a unit (i.e., a unit responding to a call). Thus, a call may include multiple runs.
We received CAD data and NFIRS data for the Tukwila Fire Department. We first matched the
NFIRS and CAD data based on the incident numbers provided. Then, we classified the calls in a
series of steps. We first used the NFIRS incident type to identify canceled calls and to assign EMS,
motor vehicle accident (MVA), and fire category call types. EMS calls were then grouped into
subcategories based on their criteria-based dispatch (CBD) codes. In this analysis, we
calls outside of the jurisdictional boundary of Tukwila (which includes the City of Tukwila and King
County Fire District No. 24) were identified as mutual aid. Additional details can be found in
Attachment I.
In this report, canceled and mutual aid calls are included in all analyses other than the response
time analysis.
939393
We received records for 5,979distinct calls in 2019. We removed 136 calls lacking a responding
unit from TFD. All runs that did not have at least an en route or an arrive time led us to exclude
another 87 calls. Two calls that involved only administrative units were not included in the
analysis, but the work associated with these two calls is included in the overall analysis of
additional personnel in Attachment IV. This left a total of 5,754 calls in our analysis.
AGGREGATE CALL TOTALS AND RUNS
During the year studied, TFD responded to 5,754 calls. Of these, 61 were structure fire calls and
145 were outside fire calls.
Calls by Type
The following table and two figures show the number of calls by call type, average calls per day,
and the percentage of calls that fall into each call type category for the 12 months studied.
TABLE 10-1: Call Types
Calls per Call
Call Type Number of Calls
Day Percentage
Breathing difficulty 274 0.8 4.8
Cardiac and stroke 418 1.1 7.3
Fall and injury 828 2.3 14.4
Illness and other 895 2.5 15.6
MVA 486 1.3 8.4
Overdose and psychiatric 238 0.7 4.1
Seizure and unconsciousness 519 1.4 9.0
EMS Total 3,658 10.0 63.6
False alarm 605 1.7 10.5
Good intent 64 0.2 1.1
Hazard 77 0.2 1.3
Outside fire 145 0.4 2.5
Public service 144 0.4 2.5
Structure fire 61 0.2 1.1
Fire Total 1,096 3.0 19.0
Canceled 426 1.2 7.4
Mutual aid 574 1.6 10.0
Total 5,754 15.8 100.0
949494
FIGURE 10-1: EMS Calls by Type
FIGURE 10-2: Fire Calls by Type
959595
Observations:
Overall
The department received an average of 15.8 calls per day, including 1.2 canceled calls and
1.6 mutual aid calls.
Mutual aid calls included 366 EMS calls and 208 fire calls that are not included in the main EMS
and fire totals.
EMS
EMS calls for the year totaled 3,658 (64 percent of all calls), an average of 10.0 per day.
Illness and other calls were the largest category of EMS calls at 24 percent of EMS calls, an
average of 2.5 calls per day.
Cardiac and stroke calls made up 11 percent of EMS calls, an average of 1.1 calls per day.
Motor vehicle accidents made up 13 percent of EMS calls, an average of 1.3 calls per day.
Fire
Fire calls for the year totaled 1,096 (19 percent of all calls), an average of 3.0 per day.
False alarm calls were the largest category of fire calls at 55 percent of fire calls, an average
of 1.7 calls per day.
Structure and outside fire calls combined made up 19 percent of fire calls, an average of
0.6 calls per day, or one call every 2 days.
969696
Calls by Type and Duration
The following table shows the duration of calls by type using four duration categories: less than
30 minutes, 30 minutes to one hour, one to two hours, and more than two hours. Here, duration
refers to the interval between the latest clear and earliest dispatch times.
TABLE 10-2: Calls by Type and Duration
Less than 30 Minutes One to More Than
Call Type Total
30 Minutes to One Hour Two Hours Two Hours
204 68 2 0 274
Breathing difficulty
280 123 13 2 418
Cardiac and stroke
663 151 13 1 828
Fall and injury
712 170 11 2 895
Illness and other
289 160 27 10 486
MVA
178 59 1 0 238
Overdose and psychiatric
378 129 11 1 519
Seizure and unconsciousness
2,704 860 78 16 3,658
EMS Total
472 113 17 3 605
False alarm
54 9 1 0 64
Good intent
48 20 6 3 77
Hazard
96 31 13 5 145
Outside fire
111 19 11 3 144
Public service
35 13 7 6 61
Structure fire
816 205 55 20 1,096
Fire Total
Canceled 415 10 1 0 426
Mutual aid 367 169 30 8 574
Total 4,302 1,244 164 44 5,754
979797
Observations:
EMS
On average, there were 0.3 EMS calls per day that lasted more than one hour.
A total of 3,564 EMS calls (97 percent) lasted less than one hour, 78 EMS calls (2 percent) lasted
one to two hours, and 16 EMS calls (less than 1 percent) lasted two or more hours.
A total of 403 cardiac and stroke calls (96 percent) lasted less than one hour, 13 cardiac and
stroke calls (3 percent) lasted one to two hours, and 2 cardiac and stroke calls (less than
1 percent) lasted two or more hours.
A total of 449 motor vehicle accidents (92 percent) lasted less than one hour, 27 motor vehicle
accidents (6 percent) lasted one to two hours, and 10 motor vehicle accidents (2 percent)
lasted two or more hours.
Fire
On average, there were 0.2 fire calls per day that lasted more than one hour.
A total of 1,021 fire calls (93 percent) lasted less than one hour, 55 fire calls (5 percent) lasted
one to two hours, and 20 fire calls (2 percent) lasted two or more hours.
A total of 585 false alarm calls (97 percent) lasted less than one hour, 17 false alarm calls
(3 percent) lasted one to two hours, and 3 false alarm calls (1 percent) lasted two or more
hours.
A total of 127 outside fire calls (88 percent) lasted less than one hour, 13 outside fire calls
(9 percent) lasted one to two hours, and 5 outside fire calls (3 percent) lasted two or more
hours.
A total of 48 structure fire calls (79 percent) lasted less than one hour, 7 structure fire calls
(11 percent) lasted one to two hours, and 6 structure fire calls (10 percent) lasted two or more
hours.
989898
EMS Calls by Response Mode and Duration
The following figure shows the percentage of calls by response mode: advanced life support
(ALS) and basic life support (BLS), separating emergency and nonemergency calls. We used the
EMS calls that lacked CBD codes, we assumed they were ALS calls if Medic-One arrived on
scene and designated the remainder as BLS nonemergency calls.
The subsequent table analyzes EMS calls by duration and response mode. Durations are limited
to the time spent by TFD units and do not reflect the time spent by other fire agencies or
ambulances.
FIGURE 10-3: EMS Calls by Response Mode
TABLE 10-3: EMS Calls by Response Mode and Duration
Less than 30 Minutes One to Two More Than Average
Response Mode Total
30 Minutes to One Hour Hours Two Hours Duration
292 309 37 11 649
ALS 36.2
2,038 455 32 5 2,530
BLS Emergent 24.4
374 96 9 0 479
BLS Nonemergent 23.4
2,704 860 78 16 3,658
Total 26.4
Note
: Here, the duration is the interval between the latest clear and earliest dispatch times.
999999
Observations:
ALS
TFD units responded to 649 EMS calls (or 1.8 calls per day) requiring ALS treatment.
ALS calls were 18 percent of the total EMS calls responded by TFD.
The average duration for ALS calls was 36.2 minutes.
On average, there were 0.1 ALS type calls per day that lasted more than one hour.
A total of 601 calls (93 percent) lasted less than one hour, 37 calls (6 percent) lasted one to
two hours, and 11 calls (2 percent) lasted two or more hours.
BLS
TFD units responded to 3,009 EMS calls (or 8.2 calls per day) requiring only BLS treatment.
BLS calls were 82 percent of the total EMS calls responded by TFD.
The average duration for BLS calls was 24.2 minutes.
On average, there were 0.1 BLS type calls per day that lasted more than one hour.
A total of 2,963 calls (98 percent) lasted less than one hour, 41 calls (1 percent) lasted one to
two hours, and 5 calls (less than 1 percent) lasted two or more hours.
100100100
Calls by Month and Hour of Day
Figure 10-4 shows the monthly variation in the average daily number of calls handled by TFD
during the year studied. Similarly, Figure 10-5 illustrates the average number of calls received
each hour of the day throughout the year.
FIGURE 10-4: Calls per Day by Month
Observations:
Average EMS calls per day ranged from 7.7 in October 2019 to 11.4 in December 2019.
Average fire calls per day ranged from 2.3 in November 2019 to 4.2 in June 2019.
Average other calls per day ranged from 2.3 in November 2019 to 3.1 in February 2019.
Average calls per day overall ranged from 13.7 in October 2019 to 17.0 in December 2019.
101101101
FIGURE 10-5: Calls per Hour by Time of Day
Observations:
Average EMS calls per hour ranged from 0.2 between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. to 0.7 between
2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Average fire calls per hour ranged from less than 0.1 between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. to
0.2 between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m.
Average other calls per hour ranged from less than 0.1 between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. to
0.2 between noon and 1:00 p.m.
Average calls per hour overall ranged from 0.3 between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. to
1.0 between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.
102102102
Units Arriving to Calls
The following table and two figures detail the number of TFD calls with one, two, three, or four or
more units arriving at a call, broken down by call type. In this section, we limit ourselves to calls
where a unit arrives. There were 583 calls where a TFD unit was en route to a call but did not
arrive.
TABLE 10-4: Calls by Call Type and Number of Arriving Units
Number of Units
Call Type Total Calls
One Two Three Four or More
259 1 1 0 261
Breathing difficulty
356 27 19 0 402
Cardiac and stroke
771 18 11 0 800
Fall and injury
846 18 3 0 867
Illness and other
188 184 101 2 475
MVA
220 5 2 0 227
Overdose and psychiatric
483 11 9 0 503
Seizure and unconsciousness
3,123 264 146 2 3,535
EMS Total
495 53 27 18 593
False alarm
44 12 2 2 60
Good intent
44 16 6 7 73
Hazard
101 25 15 1 142
Outside fire
116 12 4 4 136
Public service
35 11 7 8 61
Structure fire
835 129 61 40 1,065
Fire Total
Canceled 78 10 1 1 90
Mutual aid 415 45 18 3 481
4,451 448 226 46 5,171
Total
86.1 8.7 4.4 0.9 100.0
Percentage
Note:
Only calls with arriving units were considered. Therefore, the number of calls is less than that
presented in Table 10-1.
103103103
FIGURE 10-6: Calls by Number of Units Arriving, EMS
FIGURE 10-7: Calls by Number of Units Arriving, Fire
104104104
Observations:
Overall
On average, 1.2 units arrived at all calls; for 86 percent of calls only one unit arrived.
Overall, four or more units arrived at 1 percent of calls.
EMS
On average, 1.2 units arrived per EMS call.
For EMS calls, one unit arrived 88 percent of the time, two units arrived 7 percent of the time,
three units arrived 4 percent of the time, and four or more units arrived less than 1 percent of
the time.
Fire
On average, 1.4 units arrived per fire call.
For fire calls, one unit arrived 78 percent of the time, two units arrived 12 percent of the time,
three units arrived 6 percent of the time, and four or more units arrived 4 percent of the time.
For outside fire calls, three or more units arrived 11 percent of the time.
For structure fire calls, three or more units arrived 25 percent of the time.
105105105
WORKLOAD: RUNS AND TOTAL TIME SPENT
The workload of each unit is measured in two ways: runs and deployed time. The deployed time
of a run is measured from the time a unit is dispatched through the time the unit is cleared.
Because multiple units respond to some calls, there are more runs than calls, and the average
deployed time per run varies from the total duration of calls.
Runs and Deployed Time All Units
Deployed time, also referred to as deployed hours, is the total deployment time of all units
deployed on all runs. Table 10-5 shows the total deployed time, both overall and broken down
by type of run, for TFD units during the year studied. Table 10-6 and Figure 10-8 present the
average deployed minutes by hour of day.
TABLE 10-5: Annual Runs and Deployed Time by Run Type
Deployed Percent Deployed
Annual Annual Runs
Minutes of Total Minutes
Call Type
Hours Runs per Day
per Run Hours per Day
26.4 122.3 3.9 20.1 278 0.8
Breathing difficulty
27.5 238.2 7.6 39.1 520 1.4
Cardiac and stroke
23.4 350.7 11.1 57.7 900 2.5
Fall and injury
23.8 373.1 11.9 61.3 942 2.6
Illness and other
27.3 470.2 14.9 77.3 1,035 2.8
MVA
23.7 100.6 3.2 16.5 255 0.7
Overdose and psychiatric
25.7 246.7 7.8 40.5 575 1.6
Seizure and unconsciousness
25.3 1,901.7 60.4 312.6 4,505 12.3
EMS Total
20.0 297.0 9.4 48.8 891 2.4
False alarm
17.0 30.2 1.0 5.0 107 0.3
Good intent
36.4 87.3 2.8 14.3 144 0.4
Hazard
31.7 121.1 3.8 19.9 229 0.6
Outside fire
49.6 153.8 4.9 25.3 186 0.5
Public service
49.2 114.1 3.6 18.8 139 0.4
Structure fire
28.4 803.5 25.5 132.1 1,696 4.6
Fire Total
Canceled 8.1 73.1 2.3 12.0 541 1.5
Mutual aid 30.5 369.5 11.7 60.7 728 2.0
Other Total 20.9 442.6 14.1 72.8 1,269 3.5
Total 25.3 3,147.8 100.0 517.4 7,470 20.5
106106106
Observations:
Overall
Total deployed time for the year was 3,147.8 hours. The daily average was 8.6 hours for all units
combined.
There were 7,470 runs, including 541 runs dispatched for canceled calls and 728 runs
dispatched for mutual aid calls. The daily average was 20.5 runs.
EMS
EMS runs accounted for 60 percent of the total workload.
The average deployed time for EMS runs was 25.3 minutes. The deployed time for all EMS runs
was 1,901.7 hours or 5.2 hours per day.
Fire
Fire runs accounted for 26 percent of the total workload.
The average deployed time for fire runs was 28.4 minutes. The deployed time for all fire runs
was 803.5 hours or 2.2 hours per day.
There were 368 runs for structure and outside fire calls combined, with a total workload of
235.1 hours. This accounted for 7 percent of the total workload.
The average deployed time for outside fire runs was 31.7 minutes per run, and the average
deployed time for structure fire runs was 49.2 minutes per run.
107107107
TABLE 10-6: Average Deployed Minutes by Hour of Day
Hour EMS Fire Other Total
0 8.9 3.8 1.6 14.2
1 9.9 3.5 0.8 14.2
2 8.1 4.2 1.1 13.4
3 7.9 3.4 0.8 12.0
4 6.3 2.4 0.6 9.2
5 6.4 3.3 1.2 10.8
6 6.4 5.0 1.7 13.1
7 9.0 6.8 1.6 17.4
8 7.4 6.3 2.7 16.4
9 9.5 6.6 3.1 19.2
10 11.5 6.1 5.1 22.7
11 14.2 4.8 3.5 22.6
12 16.4 6.0 4.5 26.9
13 16.8 8.8 5.1 30.6
14 20.9 7.4 3.9 32.1
15 19.7 6.4 4.9 30.9
16 18.4 6.3 5.2 29.8
17 17.8 6.3 6.0 30.0
18 17.9 8.0 3.7 29.7
19 18.0 6.3 3.6 27.9
20 17.1 5.3 4.2 26.6
21 15.4 5.0 3.3 23.7
22 15.6 5.0 3.2 23.7
23 13.2 5.4 1.5 20.1
312.6 132.1 72.8 517.4
Daily Avg.
108108108
FIGURE 10-8: Average Deployed Minutes by Hour of Day
Observations:
Hourly deployed time was highest during the day from 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., averaging
30 minutes.
Average deployed time peaked between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. at 32 minutes.
Average deployed time was lowest between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. at 9 minutes.
109109109
Workload by Unit
Table 10-7 provides a summary of each u-8 and 10-9 provide a
run type (Table 10-8)
and the average deployed time by run type (Table 10-9).
TABLE 10-7: Call Workload by Unit
Deployed Total Deployed Total Runs
Station Unit Unit Type Minutes Annual Minutes Annual per
per Run Hours per Day Runs Day
B351 Battalion Chief (BC) 28.3 347.5 57.1 738 2.0
B352 Reserve BC 492.3 16.4 2.7 2 0.0
Support Service BC 26.4 0.9 0.1 2 0.0
51
C354
E351 Engine 24.7 758.6 124.7 1,843 5.0
26.1 1,123.4 184.7 2,585 7.1
Total
E352 Engine 25.5 613.1 100.8 1,445 4.0
52
25.5 613.1 100.8 1,445 4.0
Total
Air353 SCBA Trailer 86.54.30.730.0
BOT353 Rescue Boat 75.83.80.630.0
E353 Engine 25.7 494.3 81.3 1,156 3.2
53
R353 Aid Unit 50.0 4.2 0.7 5 0.0
26.0 506.6 83.3 1,167 3.2
Total
A354 Aid Unit 24.3106.117.42620.7
E354 Reserve Engine 27.3 52.2 8.6 115 0.3
54
L354 Ladder Truck 23.6 746.3 122.7 1,896 5.2
23.9 904.7 148.7 2,273 6.2
Total
25.3 3,147.8 517.4 7,470 20.5
Total
110110110
Total
738221,843 2,585 1,445 1,445 331,1565 1,167 2621151,896 2,2737,470
Mutual
00 393 59212 120 1912 156728
109284 59 115125
Aid
Canceled
7201146 219 78 78 00870 87 83146 157541
Structure
310030 61 26 26 00180 18 0034 34139
Fire
Public
221043 66 40 40 00310 31 2443 49186
Service
111111111
Outside 92 43 44 50
42014943004401544 229
Fire
33002627013320121 144
59273622
Hazard
Good Intent
21001724003100014 107
38243114
: Total Annual Runs by Run Type and Unit
False
00 355190 000 130 012 216891
114241190130204
Alarm
294101,007 1,302 958 958 116671 670 232781,265 1,5754,505
EMS
Support Service
Battalion Chief
Reserve Engine
Rescue Boat
Ladder Truck
SCBA Trailer
Reserve BC
Unit Type
Aid UnitAid Unit
EngineEngineEngine
TotalTotalTotalTotal
(BC)
BC
Total
353
Air353
C354
A354
R353
351352
E351E352E353E354
L354
OT
Unit
8
BBB
-
TABLE 10
Station
234
1
555
5
Total 2.7 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.7 83.3 8.6
57.1124.7 184.7 100.8 100.8 81.317.4122.7 148.74
517.
Mutual
9.90.00.019.8 29.7 5.30.60.410.20.4 11.6 1.21.012.0 14.260.7
5.3
Aid
Canceled 1.8 0.0 0.0 2.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.2 0.1 3.4 12.0
4.51.91.93.7
Structure
4.10.00.03.54.30.00.02.40.00.00.04.5 18.8
7.64.32.44.5
Fire
Public
4.32.30.05.6 12.2 5.90.00.03.30.00.11.02.7 25.3
5.93.33.9
Service
112112112
Outside 3.8 0.0 0.1 4.1 4.5 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.1 19.9
8.04.53.73.7
Fire
Daily Average Deployed Minutes by Run Type and Unit
4.00.00.03.32.80.00.02.00.20.00.01.9 14.3
7.32.82.22.0
Hazard
Good Intent
0.90.00.01.01.00.00.01.30.00.00.00.7
1.91.01.30.75.0
False
5.90.00.014.9 20.8 10.5 10.5 0.00.06.50.00.00.610.4 11.048.8
6.5
Alarm
0.3 0.0 92.6 64.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 50.3 5.4
22.569.864.649.815.983.8 105.1312.6
EMS
Support Service
Battalion Chief
Reserve Engine
Rescue Boat
Ladder Truck
SCBA Trailer
Reserve BC
Unit Type
Aid UnitAid Unit
EngineEngineEngine
TotalTotalTotalTotal
(BC)
BC
Total
353
Air353
C354
A354
R353
351352
E351E352E353E354
L354
OT
Unit
:
9
BBB
-
TABLE 10
Station
234
1
555
5
Observations:
At the station level, Station 51 made the most runs (2,585), with an average of 7.1 runs per day.
Station 51 also had the highest total annual deployed time (1,123.4 hours), with an average of
3.1 hours per day.
EMS calls accounted for 50 percent of runs and 50 percent of total deployed time.
Structure and outside fire calls accounted for 6 percent of runs and 8 percent of total
deployed time.
At the station level, Station 54 made the second most runs (2,273), with an average of 6.2 runs
per day. Station 54 also had the second-highest total annual deployed time (904.7 hours), with
an average of 2.5 hours per day.
EMS calls accounted for 69 percent of runs and 71 percent of total deployed time.
Structure and outside fire calls accounted for 4 percent of runs and 6 percent of total
deployed time.
At the unit level, Ladder L354 made the most runs (1,896), with an average of 5.2 runs per day.
L354 had the second-highest total annual deployed time (746.3 hours), with an average of 2.0
hours per day.
EMS calls accounted for 67 percent of runs and 68 percent of total deployed time.
Structure and outside fire calls accounted for 4 percent of runs and 6 percent of total
deployed time.
At the unit level, Engine E351 made the second most runs (1,843), with an average of 5.0 runs
per day. E351 had the highest total annual deployed time (758.6 hours), with an average of
2.1 hours per day.
EMS calls accounted for 55 percent of runs and 56 percent of total deployed time.
Structure and outside fire calls accounted for 4 percent of runs and 6 percent of total
deployed time.
113113113
ANALYSIS OF BUSIEST HOURS
There is significant variability in the number of calls from hour to hour. One special concern
relates to the resources available for hours with the heaviest workload. We tabulated the data
for each of the 8,760 hours in the year. Table 10-10 shows the number of hours in the year in
which there were zero to four or more calls during the hour. Table 10-11 shows the 10 one-hour
intervals which had the most calls during the year. Table 10-12 examines the number of times a
Table 10-
area.
TABLE 10-10: Frequency Distribution of the Number of Calls
Calls in an Hour Frequency Percentage
0 4,670 53.3
1 2,806 32.0
2 971 11.1
3 261 3.0
4+ 52 0.6
Total 8,760 100.0
TABLE 10-11: Top 10 Hours with the Most Calls Received
Number Number Total
Hour
of Calls of Runs Deployed Hours
2/12/2019, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. 9 12 2.8
9/7/2019, 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. 6 8 3.3
2/5/2019, 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. 6 6 2.3
7/2/2019, 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 5 10 2.9
11/9/2019, 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 5 8 3.1
12/12/2019, 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 5 8 2.6
2/9/2019, 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 5 7 3.0
1/6/2019, 2:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. 5 5 2.5
7/3/2019, 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 5 5 1.4
9/27/2019, 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. 4 8 2.6
Note:
Total deployed hours is a measure of the total time spent responding to calls received in the hour,
and which may extend into the next hour or hours. The number of runs and deployed hours only includes
TFD units.
114114114
TABLE 10-12: Frequency of Overlapping Calls
Number of Percent of Total
Station Scenario
Calls All Calls Hours
No overlapped call 1,319 92.1 608.4
Overlapped with one call 109 7.6 25.5
51
Overlapped with two calls 4 0.3 0.7
No overlapped call 826 97.2 356.1
52
Overlapped with one call 24 2.8 6.2
No overlapped call 835 96.3 375.0
Overlapped with one call 30 3.5 6.0
53
Overlapped with two calls 2 0.2 0.9
No overlapped call 1,740 96.2 710.9
Overlapped with one call 68 3.8 15.5
54
Overlapped with two calls 1 0.1 0.1
Table 10-13
also shows calls where a TFD unit eventually arrived and ignores calls where no unit arrived. Out
calls for which a TFD unit went en route but
no unit arrived. For this reason, the individual rows and the total in Table 10-
will not match corresponding values for Table 10-12.
TABLE 10-13: Station Availability to Respond to Calls
Arriving First Due First Due First Due Percent Percent Percent
Station
Calls Responded Arrived First Responded Arrived First
1,344 1,235 1,222 1,202 91.9 90.9 89.4
51
810 746 734 684 92.1 90.6 84.4
52
813 764 749 698 94.0 92.1 85.9
53
1,702 1,620 1,605 1,590 95.2 94.3 93.4
54
4,669 4,365 4,310 4,174 93.5 92.3 89.4
Total
Note:
For each station, we count the number of calls within its first due area where at least one TFD unit
arrived. Next, we focus on units from the first due station to see if any unit responded, arrived, or arrived first.
Observations:
During 52 hours (0.6 percent of all hours), four or more calls occurred; in other words, the
department responded to four or more calls in an hour roughly once every week.
The highest number of calls to occur in an hour was 9, which happened once after a seasonal
storm.
The hour with the most calls was 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on February 12.
These 9 calls included five false alarm calls, two seizure and unconsciousness calls, one
illness and other call, and one outside fire call.
115115115
CALL LOCATIONS, AID GIVEN AND RECEIVED
TFD responded to 5,754 calls in 2019, of which 4,958 calls were inside and 796 calls were outside
City of Tukwila and King County
mutual aid calls. Table 10-14 bre
Table 10-15 provides further detail on the workload associated with structure and outside fire
calls by location.
Tables 10-16 and 10-17 examine aid--received
to provide aid but never arrive on scene. For this reason, to analyze aid-given calls, we first count
total calls where TFD responded and then count calls where a TFD unit arrived on scene.
Similarly, to analyze aid-received calls, we first count total calls where an outside fire agency
responded and then count calls where an outside agency arrived on scene. Table 10-18
examines calls and runs by responding outside fire agency. Since multiple agencies may
respond to the same call, the total number of calls in Table 10-18 does not equal the sum of the
calls counted for each agency.
116116116
TABLE 10-14: Calls and Workload by Location
Percent Deployed Total Percent
Location Fire Agency Call Annual Run Minutes Annual Annual
Calls Per Run Hours Work
Tukwila*
Tukwila FD 4,931 85.7 6,439 25.3 2,718.1 86.3
Renton
Renton RFA 215 3.7 272 20.9 94.7 3.0
Kent
188 3.3 203 20.0 67.6 2.1
Puget Sound
RFA
SeaTac
166 2.9 224 25.1 93.8 3.0
District 20 Fire District 20 131 2.3 153 22.1 56.5 1.8
District 2 Fire District 2
86 1.5 114 41.8 79.5 2.6
District 24*
Tukwila FD 27 0.5 51 38.7 32.9 1.0
District 40 Fire District 40 3 0.1 3 10.7 0.5 0.0
Seattle
Seattle FD 3 0.1 5 21.5 1.8 0.1
South King Fire
Des Moines 3 0.1 5 28.8 2.4 0.1
and Rescue
District 25 District 25 1 0.0 1 2.2 0.0 0.0
Total 5,754 100.0 7,470 25.3 3,147.8 100.0
Note
:
jurisdiction; FD = Fire Department; RFA = Regional Fire Authority. District 2 includes the Burien Fire
Department and North Highline Fire District.
TABLE 10-15: Structure Fire and Outside Fire Runs by Location
Structure Fire Outside Fire
Annual Percent of
Location Fire Agency
Minutes Minutes Hours Workload
Run Run
per Run per Run
Tukwila* Tukwila FD 139 49.2 223 29.2 222.5 61.5
District 2 Fire District 2 30 101.2 1* 3.4 50.7 14.0
SeaTac Puget Sound RFA 26 45.3 23 33.4 32.4 9.0
Renton Renton RFA 25 31.4 13 32.6 20.2 5.6
Kent Puget Sound RFA 22 32.1 5 19.1 13.4 3.7
District 24* Tukwila FD 0 NA 6 126.3 12.6 3.5
District 20 Fire District 20 13 40.9 2* 2.9 9.0 2.5
South King Fire
Des Moines 3 16.7 0 NA 0.8 0.2
and Rescue
Total 258 50.9 273 31.3 361.6 100.0
Note: *
TFD units went en route but did not arrive on scene. TFD made no fire runs to Seattle.
117117117
TABLE 10-16: Aid Given Calls, by Call Type
Number of Runs
Number of Calls
Call Type
Responded Arrived Responded Arrived
Breathing difficulty 22 19 23 20
Cardiac and stroke 47 43 52 45
Fall and injury 51 49 54 50
Illness and other 63 59 66 61
MVA 134 113 194 157
Overdose and psychiatric 10 9 10 9
Seizure and unconsciousness 39 37 42 37
EMS Total 366 329 441 379
False alarm 70 48 72 48
Good intent 12 10 17 12
Hazard 16 12 20 16
Outside fire 28 21 44 33
Public service 13 11 15 13
Structure fire 69 50 119 75
Fire Total 208 152 287 197
Canceled 222 21 252 22
Total 796 502 980 598
TABLE 10-17: Aid Received Calls, by Call Type
Number of Runs
Number of Calls
Call Type
Responded Arrived Responded Arrived
Breathing difficulty 3 3 3 3
Cardiac and stroke 16 9 16 9
Fall and injury 9 6 10 7
Illness and other 3 0 5 0
MVA 129 90 191 119
Overdose and psychiatric 3 2 3 2
Seizure and unconsciousness 6 2 6 2
EMS Total 169 112 234 142
False alarm 67 31 79 32
Good intent 10 3 27 3
Hazard 29 28 121 61
Outside fire 22 15 45 22
Public service 6 4 16 7
Structure fire 15 14 67 49
Fire Total 149 95 355 174
Canceled 29 16 53 27
Total 347 223 642 343
118118118
TABLE 10-18: Aid Received Calls, by Responding Agency
Run
Call
Fire Agency
Agency Code Responded Arrived Responded Arrived
KF Puget Sound RFA 243 161 328 196
RF Renton RFA 73 41 145 66
UF Fire District 2 58 25 72 32
SF Fire District 20 31 17 34 18
FF 11 10 45 27
South King Fire & Rescue
WF 10 3 11 3
AF Valley RFA 2 1 3 1
VF Fire District 20 1 0 4 0
Total* 347 223 642 343
Note:
Multiple agencies can provide aid for the same call. For this reason, the total number of calls will be
smaller than the sum of the individual rows listed above it; FD = Fire Department; RFA = Regional Fire
Authority.
TABLE 10-19: Mutual Aid Response, by Agency
Aid Received
Aid Given
Fire Agency
Call Run Call Run
Puget Sound RFA 354 427 243 328
Renton RFA 215 272 73 145
District 20 131 153 32 38
District 2 86 114 58 72
South King Fire & Rescue 3 5 21 56
Seattle 3 5 0 0
District 40 3 3 0 0
District 25 1 1 0 0
Valley RFA 0 0 2 3
Total 796 980 347 642
Note
: FD = Fire Department; RFA = Regional Fire Authority. Total aid received calls is lower than the sum of
aid received calls from each fire agency. This table focuses on uses counts of calls and runs to which the
appropriate agency responded without worrying about whether a unit arrived.
Observations:
For aid-given calls, when canceled calls are excluded, EMS calls were 64 percent and fire
calls were 36 percent of total calls.
TFD responded to 97 aid-given outside fire and structure fire calls. When canceled calls are
excluded, this was 17 percent of total aid-given calls.
For aid-received calls, when canceled calls are excluded, EMS calls were 53 percent and fire
calls were 47 percent of total calls.
TFD received aid for 37 outside fire and structure fire calls. When canceled calls are excluded,
this was 12 percent of total aid-received calls.
119119119
RESPONSE TIME
In this part of the analysis, we present response time statistics for different call types. We separate
response time into its identifiable components. Dispatch time is the difference between the time
a call is received and the time a unit is dispatched. Dispatch time includes call processing time,
which is the time required to determine the nature of the emergency and the types of resources
to dispatch. Turnout time is the difference between dispatch time and the time a unit is en route
Response time is the total time elapsed between receiving a call to arriving on scene.
In this analysis, we included all calls within the primary response area of the Tukwila Fire
Department to which at least one non-administrative unit from TFD responded while excluding
canceled and mutual aid calls. In addition, calls with a total response time of more than 30
minutes were excluded. Finally, we focused on units that had complete time stamps, that is, units
with all components recorded, so that we could calculate each segment of response time.
jurisdiction, 426 canceled calls, 201 calls where no units recorded a valid on-scene time, 15 calls
where the first arriving unit response was greater than 30 minutes, and 287 calls where one or
faulty data. As a result, in this section, a total of 4,251 calls are included in the analysis.
The fire department indicated that it does not factor in criteria-based dispatch codes when
responding to calls for service. For this reason, most of this section includes all calls. At the end of
the section, we examined response times by response mode distinguishing ALS, BLS emergency,
and BLS nonemergency calls.
120120120
Response Time by Type of Call
Table 10-20 breaks down the average dispatch, turnout, travel, and total response times by call
10-21 does the same for 90th percentile
response times. A 90th percentile means that 90 percent of calls had response times at or below
that number. For example, Table 10-21 shows a 90th percentile response time of 10.2 minutes,
which means that 90 percent of the time, a call had a response time of no more than
10.2 minutes. Figures 10-9 and 10-10 illustrate the same information for EMS and fire call types.
TABLE 10-20: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type
Minutes
Number
Call Type
Turnout &
of Calls
Dispatch Turnout Travel Total
Travel
Breathing difficulty 1.4 1.7 3.5 5.3 6.7 254
Cardiac and stroke 1.4 1.6 3.6 5.2 6.6 379
Fall and injury 1.3 1.7 4.0 5.7 7.0 751
Illness and other 1.6 1.7 3.7 5.4 7.0 785
MVA 1.4 2.0 4.3 6.3 7.7 398
Overdose and psychiatric 1.4 1.8 4.4 6.2 7.6 220
Seizure and unconsciousness 1.4 1.7 3.6 5.2 6.6 479
1.4 1.7 3.9 5.6 7.0 3,266
EMS Total
False alarm 0.9 2.2 3.6 5.8 6.7 552
Good intent 1.8 2.1 4.6 6.7 8.5 57
Hazard 1.6 2.0 4.6 6.6 8.2 66
Outside fire 1.5 2.0 4.3 6.3 7.8 128
Public service 2.3 1.8 4.5 6.3 8.6 124
Structure fire 1.1 2.2 3.5 5.7 6.8 58
1.3 2.1 3.9 6.0 7.3 985
Fire Total
1.4 1.8 3.9 5.7 7.1 4,251
Total
121121121
FIGURE 10-9: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by EMS Call Type
FIGURE 10-10: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Fire Call Type
122122122
TABLE 10-21: 90th Percentile Response Time of Average Response Time of First
Arriving Unit, by Call Type
Minutes
Number
Call Type
Turnout &
of Calls
Dispatch Turnout Travel Total
Travel
Breathing difficulty 2.2 2.7 5.9 7.6 9.1 254
Cardiac and stroke 2.2 2.6 5.5 7.3 9.3 379
Fall and injury 2.5 2.6 6.6 8.3 10.5 751
Illness and other 2.8 2.6 6.0 7.8 10.1 785
MVA 3.1 2.8 6.8 9.0 11.6 398
Overdose and psychiatric 3.0 2.7 7.5 9.5 11.4 220
Seizure and unconsciousness 2.5 2.6 5.8 7.5 9.3 479
2.6 2.6 6.2 8.2 10.1 3,266
EMS Total
False alarm 1.6 3.0 5.9 8.1 9.1 552
Good intent 3.4 3.0 7.5 10.0 12.1 57
Hazard 3.8 2.9 7.6 9.3 12.0 66
Outside fire 2.5 2.7 7.2 9.2 11.0 128
Public service 3.9 2.8 6.9 9.0 13.7 124
Structure fire 2.2 3.0 7.0 8.6 9.5 58
2.4 2.9 6.6 8.6 10.5 985
Fire Total
2.6 2.7 6.3 8.3 10.2 4,251
Total
Observations:
The average dispatch time was 1.4 minutes.
The average turnout time was 1.8 minutes.
The average travel time was 3.9 minutes.
The average combined turnout and travel time was 5.7 minutes.
The average total response time was 7.1 minutes.
The average response time was 7.0 minutes for EMS calls and 7.3 minutes for fire calls.
The average response time was 7.8 minutes for outside fires and 6.8 minutes for structure fires.
The 90th percentile dispatch time was 2.6 minutes.
The 90th percentile turnout time was 2.7minutes.
The 90th percentile travel time was 6.3 minutes.
The 90th percentile combined turnout and travel time was 8.3 minutes.
The 90th percentile total response time was 10.2 minutes.
The 90th percentile response time was 10.1 minutes for EMS calls and 10.5 minutes for fire calls.
The 90th percentile response time was 11.0 minutes for outside fires and 9.5 minutes for
structure fires.
123123123
Response Time by Hour
Average dispatch, turnout, travel, and total response time by hour for cal
are shown in the following table and figure. The table also shows 90th percentile response times.
TABLE 10-22: Average and 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit at
Tukwila, by Hour of Day
Minutes
Number
Hour Turnout and Travel Total Response
of Calls
Dispatch Turnout Travel
Average 90th Average 90th
1.6 2.5 3.9 6.4 8.5 7.9 10.9 132
0
1.4 2.5 4.0 6.5 8.8 7.9 10.9 135
1
1.7 2.6 3.8 6.5 8.9 8.1 12.1 99
2
1.8 2.6 4.3 6.9 10.4 8.7 12.4 94
3
1.4 2.7 4.0 6.7 9.6 8.1 10.8 79
4
1.7 2.5 4.1 6.7 8.8 8.4 11.9 86
5
1.6 2.4 3.5 6.0 8.0 7.5 10.0 101
6
1.4 2.0 3.8 5.8 8.1 7.2 10.3 151
7
1.5 1.8 3.8 5.6 8.1 7.1 10.3 156
8
1.3 1.7 3.9 5.5 8.1 6.9 10.5 163
9
1.4 1.7 3.8 5.5 8.1 6.9 9.9 174
10
1.5 1.6 3.8 5.4 8.0 6.9 9.7 214
11
1.3 1.6 3.6 5.2 7.6 6.5 9.3 241
12
1.4 1.6 3.9 5.5 7.9 6.9 9.4 254
13
1.3 1.5 4.1 5.5 8.3 6.8 10.1 267
14
1.3 1.5 4.0 5.5 8.2 6.9 10.6 242
15
1.2 1.5 4.0 5.5 8.1 6.7 9.6 218
16
1.4 1.5 3.8 5.4 7.6 6.7 9.7 241
17
1.3 1.5 4.0 5.5 8.4 6.8 10.4 231
18
1.2 1.5 3.7 5.2 7.7 6.4 8.7 215
19
1.2 1.6 3.8 5.4 7.5 6.6 9.4 226
20
1.3 1.8 3.9 5.7 7.9 6.9 9.7 211
21
1.4 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.4 7.3 10.7 174
22
1.3 2.2 3.9 6.1 8.8 7.4 10.8 147
23
1.4 1.8 3.9 5.7 8.3 7.1 10.2 4,251
Total
124124124
FIGURE 10-11: Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit at Tukwila, by Hour
of Day
Observations:
Average dispatch time was between 1.2 minutes (8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.) and 1.8 minutes
(3:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.).
Average turnout time was between 1.5 minutes (2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.) and 2.7 minutes
(4:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.).
Average travel time was between 3.5 minutes (6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.) and 4.3 minutes
(3:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.).
Average combined turnout and travel time was between 5.2 minutes (noon to 1:00 p.m.) and
6.9 minutes (3:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.).
Average response time was between 6.4 minutes (7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) and 8.7 minutes
(3:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.).
The 90th percentile combined turnout and travel time was between 7.5 minutes (8:00 p.m. to
9:00 p.m.) and 10.4 minutes (3:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.).
The 90th percentile response time was between 8.7 minutes (7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) and
12.4 minutes (3:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.).
125125125
Response Time Distribution
Here, we present a more detailed look at how response times to calls are distributed. The
cumulative distribution of total response time for the first arriving unit to EMS calls is shown in
Figure 10-12 and Table 10-23. Figure 10-12 shows response times for the first arriving unit to EMS
calls as a frequency distribution in whole-minute increments, and Figure 10-13 shows the same
for the first arriving unit to outside and structure fire calls.
The cumulative percentages here are read in the same way as a percentile. In Figure 10-12, the
90th percentile of 10.1 minutes means that 90 percent of EMS calls had a response time of
10.1 minutes or less. In Table 10-23, the cumulative percentage of 73.8 means that 73.8 percent
of EMS calls had a response time under 8 minutes.
FIGURE 10-12: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time, First Arriving Unit, EMS
126126126
FIGURE 10-13: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time, First Arriving Unit,
Outside and Structure Fires
TABLE 10-23: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time, First Arriving Unit, EMS
Response Time Cumulative
Frequency
(Minutes) Percentage
1 0 0.0
2 3 0.1
3 29 1.0
4 163 6.0
5 474 20.5
6 636 40.0
7 637 59.5
8 469 73.8
9 333 84.0
10 178 89.5
11 119 93.1
12 72 95.3
13 45 96.7
14 30 97.6
15+ 78 100.0
127127127
TABLE 10-24: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time, First Arriving Unit, Outside
and Structure Fires
Response Time Cumulative
Frequency
(Minutes) Percentage
1 0 0.0
2 0 0.0
3 1 0.5
4 4 2.7
5 21 14.0
6 21 25.3
7 45 49.5
8 32 66.7
9 18 76.3
10 17 85.5
11 14 93.0
12 3 94.6
13+ 10 100.0
Observations:
For 74 percent of EMS calls, the response time of the first arriving unit was less than 8 minutes.
For 67 percent of fire calls, the response time of the first arriving unit was less than 8 minutes.
128128128
EMS Response Time by Response Mode
Table 10-25 provides the average dispatch, turnout, travel, and total response times of first
arriving TFD units responding to ALS and BLS medical calls. Table 10-26 gives the corresponding
90th percentile response times. Attachment II shows how CBD codes were used to determine a
-One
unit were identified as ALS calls, and the rest were identified as BLS nonemergency calls.
TABLE 10-25: Average Response Times of First Arriving TFD Unit, by Response
Mode
Minutes
Number
Response Mode
Turnout &
Response
of Calls
Dispatch Turnout Travel
Travel
Time
1.3 1.7 3.7 5.4 6.7 584
ALS
1.4 1.7 3.9 5.6 7.1 2,248
BLS Emergency
1.5 1.7 3.8 5.5 7.0 434
BLS Nonemergency
1.4 1.7 3.9 5.6 7.0 3,266
Total
TABLE 10-26: 90th Percentile Response Times of First Arriving TFD Unit, by
Response Mode
Minutes
Number
Response Mode
Turnout &
Response
of Calls
Dispatch Turnout Travel
Travel
Time
2.3 2.7 5.9 7.9 9.7 584
ALS
2.6 2.6 6.3 8.2 10.2 2,248
BLS Emergency
3.0 2.6 6.2 8.2 10.6 434
BLS Nonemergency
2.6 2.6 6.2 8.2 10.1 3,266
Total
Observations:
Average response times varied little by response mode.
90th percentile response times varied slightly by response mode:
The 90th percentile total response time was 9.7 minutes for ALS calls.
The 90th percentile total response time was 10.2 minutes for BLS emergency calls.
The 90th percentile total response time was 10.6 minutes for BLS nonemergency calls.
129129129
ATTACHMENT I: TFD RESPONSE AREA MAPS
FIGURE 10-
Note:
130130130
FIGURE 10-15: Tukwila Fire Department
Districts
131131131
ATTACHMENT II: DISPATCH CRITERIA
TABLE 10-27: Dependence of EMS Type on CBD Code
CBD
CBD Description EMS Type
Code
01 Abdominal/Back/Groin Pain Illness and other
02 Anaphylaxis/Allergic Reaction Illness and other
03 Infectious Disease Illness and other
04 Bleeding - non-traumatic Illness and other
05 Breathing difficulty Breathing difficulty
06 Cardiac Arrest Cardiac and stroke
07 Chest Pain/Discomfort/Heart Problems Cardiac and stroke
08 Choking Breathing difficulty
09 Diabetic Illness and other
10 Environmental/Toxic Exposure Illness and other
11 Medical Knowledge (medical facility only) Illness and other
12 Head/Neck Illness and other
13 Mental/Emotional/Psychological Overdose and psychiatric
14 Overdose/Poisoning Overdose and psychiatric
15 Pregnancy/Childbirth/GYN Illness and other
16 Seizures Seizure and unconsciousness
17 Sick (unknown/other) Illness and other
18 Stroke Cardiac and stroke
19 Unconscious/Unresponsive/Syncope Seizure and unconsciousness
20 Pediatric Emergencies Illness and other
21 Assault/Trauma Fall and injury
22 Burns - Thermal/Electrical/Chemical Fall and injury
Drowning/Near Drowning/Diving or Water-
23 Fall and injury
related Injury
24 Falls/Accidents/Pain Fall and injury
25 MVA MVA
26 Animal Bites Fall and injury
99 Unavailable Initial Dispatch Code Illness and other
132132132
TABLE 10-28: Dependence of Response Mode on CBD Code
Response CBD
Description
Mode Code
Medic unit (ALS response) together with Basic Life Support unit (BLS
M
response) sent Code Red.
ALS
Q Medic unit requested from scene by arriving BLS unit.
BLS Emergency R BLS response sent Code Red; responds with lights and siren.
BLS response sent Code Yellow; responds obeying speed limits and
Y
traffic laws.
Telephone Referral Program Calls are transferred from dispatch to a
TRP
BLS
consulting nurse line. No BLS unit is sent.
Nonemergency
T Breathing difficulty
BLS unit requested by police for a patient that meets the TRP criteria.
p
BLS unit should be sent.
133133133
ATTACHMENT III: ACTIONS TAKEN
TABLE 10-29: Actions Taken Analysis for Structure and Outside Fire Calls
Number of Calls
Action Taken
Outside Fire Structure Fire
Evacuate area 0 2
Extinguishment by fire service personnel 93 9
Fill-in or move up 1 0
Incident command 1 1
Investigate 49 44
Investigate fire out on arrival 3 1
Provide apparatus 1 0
Provide manpower 2 0
Refer to proper authority 1 1
Remove water 0 1
Restore fire alarm system 0 7
Salvage & overhaul 3 6
Shut down system 0 2
Standby 1 0
Ventilate 0 14
Note:
Totals are higher than the total number of structure and outside fire calls because some calls
recorded multiple actions taken.
Observations:
Out of 145 outside fires, 93 were extinguished by fire service personnel, which accounted for
64 percent of outside fires.
Out of 61 structure fires, 9 were extinguished by fire service personnel, which accounted for
15 percent of structure fires.
134134134
ATTACHMENT IV: ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
TABLE 10-30: Workload of Administrative Units
Annual Annual
Unit ID Unit Type
Hours Runs
Ch351 Fire Chief 2.4 1
Ch352 Deputy Chief 0.9 1
Ch354 Deputy Chief 6.2 4
Fm351 Fire Marshal 21.2 8
Fm353 Deputy Fire Marshal 16.9 14
Fm354 Deputy Fire Marshal 28.2 33
135135135
ATTACHMENT V: FIRE LOSS
TABLE 10-31: Total Fire Loss Above and Below $20,000
Call Type No Loss Under $20,000 $20,000 plus
96 46 3
Outside fire
43 13 5
Structure fire
139 59 8
Total
TABLE 10-32: Content and Property Loss Structure and Outside Fires
Property Loss Content Loss
Call Type
Loss Value Number of Calls Loss Value Number of Calls
Outside fire $252,137 46 $54,615 20
Structure fire $331,549 13 $124,330 13
Total $583,686 59 $178,945 33
Note:
The table only includes fire calls with a nonzero recorded loss.
Observations:
96 (of 145) outside fires and 43 (of 61) structure fires had no recorded loss.
3 outside fires and 5 structure fires had $20,000 or more in losses.
Structure fires:
The highest total loss for a structure fire was $200,000.
The average total loss for structure fires with loss was $25,327.
13 structure fires recorded content losses with a combined $124,330 in losses.
Out of 61 structure fires, 13 recorded property losses, with a combined $331,549 in losses.
Outside fires:
The highest total loss for an outside fire was $140,000.
The average total loss for outside fires with loss was $6,260.
20 outside fires recorded content losses with a combined $54,615 in losses.
Out of 145 outside fires, 46 recorded property losses, with a combined $252,137 in losses.
136136136
ATTACHMENT VI: HISTORICAL TRENDS IN SERVICE
In this analysis, we examine the historical trends of EMS and fire responses based on four years of
data from 2016 through 2019 for the Tukwila Fire Department. We present trends in calls by type,
unit workload, service availability, response time, and the quantity of mutual aid over these four
previous years. For this reason, our detailed analysis focusing on 2019 is sufficient.
From 2016 to 2019, TFD responded to an average of 5,611 non-administrative calls and
dispatched 7,359 units per year. The annual average combined deployed time for TFD units was
ction, the average dispatch time was 1.3
minutes, and the average total response time was 7.0 minutes. The 90th percentile dispatch time
was 2.5 minutes and the 90th percentile total response time was 10.0 minutes.
137137137
Trends in Call Volume
Table 10-33 and Figure 10-16 show the number of calls by grand call type and year from 2016
through 2019. Tables 10-34 and 10-35 detail calls by year for each EMS and fire call type.
Figure 10-17 illustrates the average number of calls received each hour of the day from 2016
throughout 2019.
TABLE 10-33: Calls by Year and Grand Call Type
Number of Calls
Grand Call Type
2016 2017 2018 2019
EMS 3,597 3,659 3,612 3,658
Fire 1,087 1,165 1,044 1,096
Other 828 852 848 1,000
Total 5,512 5,676 5,504 5,754
FIGURE 10-16: Calls per Day by Year and Grand Call Type
138138138
TABLE 10-34: EMS Calls by Year and Type
Number of Calls
Call Type
2016 2017 2018 2019
Breathing Difficulty 247 274 261 274
Cardiac and Stroke 341 413 424 418
Fall and Injury 820 830 842 828
Illness and Other 871 862 825 895
MVA 519 502 499 486
Overdose and Psychiatric 274 223 219 238
Seizure and Unconsciousness 525 555 542 519
Total 3,597 3,659 3,612 3,658
TABLE 10-35: Fire Calls by Year and Type
Number of Calls
Call Type
2016 2017 2018 2019
False Alarm 571 655 549 605
Good Intent 73 70 52 64
Hazard 102 93 78 77
Outside Fire 140 143 160 145
Public Service 121 143 146 144
Structure Fire 80 61 59 61
Total 1,087 1,165 1,044 1,096
Observations:
The average number of EMS and fire calls per day from 2016 through 2018 was12.9.
The average number of EMS and fire calls per day in 2019 was 13.0.
The number of EMS and fire calls per day did not change significantly from 2016 through 2019.
139139139
FIGURE 10-17: Calls per Hour by Year and Time of Day
Observations:
From 2016 to 2019, the busiest hour shifted from 5:00 p.m. in 2016 to 2:00 p.m. in 2019.
140140140
Trends in Workload
Table 10-36 compares the runs and workload for TFD units responding to calls from 2016 through
2019.
TABLE 10-36: Unit Runs and Workload by Year
2019
2016 2017 2018
Station Unit Unit Type
Runs Hours Runs Hours Runs Hours Runs Hours
702 319.2 782 334.4 743 299.1 738 347.5
B351 BC
1,620 707.1 1,679 727.8 1,663 679.2 1,843 758.6
51
E351 Engine
2,322 1,026.3 2,461 1,062.2 2,406 978.3 2,581 1,106.1
Total
1,469 620.3 1,465 629.6 1,468 585.5 1,445 613.1
E352 Engine
52
1,469 620.3 1,465 629.6 1,468 585.5 1,445 613.1
Total
1,151 534.8 1,127 528.8 1,110 499.9 1,156 494.3
E353 Engine
53
1,151 534.8 1,127 528.8 1,110 499.9 1,156 494.3
Total
324136.0557238.713048.9 262 106.1
A354 Aid Unit
328 142.9 290 113.8 304 117.3 115 52.2
E354 Res Engine
54
1,622 659.1 1,598 667.0 1,803 688.0 1,896 746.3
L354 Ladder Truck
2,274 938.0 2,445 1,019.5 2,237 854.3 2,273 904.7
Total
8 5.8 10 9.2 7 13.1 15 29.6
Other Unit Total
7,224 3,125.2 7,508 3,249.3 7,228 2,931.1 7,470 3,147.8
Total
Note
: BC represents Battalion Chief and Res Engine represents Reserve Engine. Other units include B352,
C354, AIR353, BOT353, and R353 that made less than 10 runs total each year.
Observations:
141141141
Trends in Station Availability
Table 10-37 and Figure 10-
calls within its first due area by year. Availability to respond, arrive, and arrive first is shown.
TABLE 10-37: Station Availability to Respond to Calls by Year
Availability Percentage
Availability
Station
Type
2016 2017 2018 2019
Response 89.8 89.5 90.5 91.9
51 Arrive 89.2 88.8 89.6 90.9
Arrive First 87.6 86.9 87.9 89.4
Response 90.7 91.8 90.1 92.1
52 Arrive 89.6 90.8 89.3 90.6
Arrive First 84.1 83.4 83.8 84.4
Response 88.9 89.9 92.2 94.0
53 Arrive 87.5 88.3 90.4 92.1
Arrive First 79.5 81.8 82.7 85.9
Response 94.3 94.0 94.0 95.2
54 Arrive 93.5 93.4 93.5 94.3
Arrive First 92.1 91.8 91.7 93.4
FIGURE 10-18: Availability to Respond to Calls by Station and Year
142142142
Observations:
The station availability increased from 2016 to 2019.
Station 53 displayed the largest increase. For example, from 2016 to 2019, the availability of
calls increased from 80 to 86 percent.
143143143
Trends in Response Time
The following figure compares the 2019 and three-year average values of dispatch, turnout,
travel, and total response tim.
For calls responded by ALS, BLS-emergency, and BLS-nonemergency modes, Table 10-38
compares the three-year and 2019 values for 90th percentile response time components. Trends
in these components by year are shown in Figure 10-20.
FIGURE 10-19: Comparison of Average Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by
Hour of Day
144144144
TABLE 10-38: Comparison of 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving TFD
Unit, by Response Mode and Year
2016 through 2018, Minutes 2019, Minutes
Station
Turnout Total Turnout Total
Dispatch Turnout Travel Dispatch Turnout Travel
& Travel Response & Travel Response
ALS
2.1 2.6 5.8 7.6 9.2 2.3 2.7 5.9 7.9 9.7
BLS-E
2.4 2.6 6.2 8.1 9.9 2.6 2.6 6.3 8.2 10.2
BLS-NE
2.8 2.7 5.9 7.9 10.4 3.0 2.6 6.2 8.2 10.6
Total 2.4 2.6 6.1 8.0 9.8 2.6 2.6 6.2 8.2 10.1
Note
: BLS-E = BLS Emergency; BLS-NE = BLS Non-emergency.
FIGURE 10-20: Trend in 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving TFD Unit, by
Response Mode
Observations:
The 90th percentile response time in 2019 did not deviate significantly from the same
percentiles in earlier years.
145145145
Trends in Mutual Aid
Table 10-39 summarizes the mutual aid given by TFD to other fire agencies in King County from
2016 through 2019. Table 10-40 summarizes the mutual aid received during the same period.
TABLE 10-39: Aid Given Runs by Year and Agency
Fire Agency 2016 2017 2018 2019
Puget Sound RFA 398 437 450 427
Renton RFA 142 144 132 272
District 20 168 189 134 153
District 2 78 65 69 114
South King FR 3 2 7 5
Valley RFA 2 4 3 0
Other 5 10 11 9
Total 796 851 806 980
Note
: FD = Fire Department; FR= Fire & Rescue; RFA = Regional Fire Authority
TABLE 10-40: Aid Received Runs by Year and Agency
Fire Agency 2016 2017 2018 2019
373 355 348 328
Puget Sound RFA
110 133 113 145
Renton RFA
42 28 30 38
District 20
60 66 67 72
District 2
5 0 40 56
South King FR
2 4 8 3
Valley RFA
Total 592 586 606 642
Note
: FR= Fire & Rescue; RFA = Regional Fire Authority. Total aid received calls is lower than the sum of aid
received calls from each fire agency. This table uses counts of calls and runs to which the appropriate
agency responded without worrying about whether a unit arrived.
Observations:
Mutual aid given to other fire agencies increased 23 percent from 2016 through 2019.
The largest increase in mutual aid given was into Renton.
Mutual aid received from other fire agencies increased by 8 percent from 2016 through 2019.
- END -
146146146