Arcata City Council
July 30, 2025

CITY OF ARCATA

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING

STUDY SESSION
AGENDA

Wednesday, July 30, 2025, 3:30 p.m.

Council Chamber
736 F Street, Arcata
Joint Study Session with the Board of Directors of the Arcata Fire District _________________________________________________________________________________________ Special accommodations for the disabled who attend City meetings can be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk at 822-5953. Assistive listening devices are available. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.5, all writings or documents relating to any item on this agenda which have been provided to a majority of the City Council, including those received less than 72 hours prior to the City Council meeting, will be made available for public inspection in the agenda binder located on the counter in the lobby at Arcata City Hall, 736 F Street, during normal business hours, and on the City's website at www.cityofarcata.org.

PLEASE NOTE: Speakers wishing to distribute materials to the City Council at the meeting are requested to provide 10 copies to the City Clerk.
_________________________________________________________________________________________ How to Observe and Participate in the Meeting:

Members of the public may attend the meeting in person and give public comment.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL / ATTENDANCE AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM

3. PUBLIC COMMENT

4. DISCUSSION
a. Receive the Arcata Fire District’s Standards of Coverage Report.

5. ADJOURNMENT
STAFF REPORT – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: David Loya, Community Development Director
PREPARER: David Loya, Community Development Director
DATE: July 30, 2025
TITLE: Receive the Arcata Fire District’s Standards of Coverage Report.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Council and Fire District Board:

1. Receive a presentation from AP Triton and staff on the Standards of Coverage report; and

2. Discuss the report and its implications.

INTRODUCTION:

The City, the Arcata Fire District (the District), and Cal Poly Humboldt jointly funded the Standards of Coverage Report (the “Report”) as a collaborative effort to address the District’s capacity to provide service under growing development pressures. The City’s recently adopted General Plan 2045 and the University’s Cal Poly designation will result in larger multi-family and mixed-use structures than have historically been built in the District’s service area. It is critical for local jurisdictions, the County, and the University to continue to partner with the District to ensure fire and emergency services continue to meet the community need.

DISCUSSION:

The State is experiencing a housing crisis. To address the housing crisis impact in Arcata, the City prepared and adopted a General Plan and zoning that allows for higher-density infill development concentrated in certain areas. This rezone was mandated by the State in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element (Implementation Measure 20). The General Plan and updated zoning adopted in late 2024 satisfied the mandatory rezone and allows buildings up to seven stories in some parts of the Gateway Area.

The District raised concerns during the General Plan engagement process about their capacity to adequately serve mid-rise buildings and a larger population, which will result in a higher call volume. Concurrent with the General Plan planning process, the University was in the planning phase for a student housing project on the former Craftsman’s Mall property. The Hinarr Hu Moulik project, which will be occupied this Fall, was the first seven-story, mixed-use, residential project proposed in Arcata. The District had similar concerns about this project.

The City, District and University committed to partnering on solutions. The Standards of Coverage Report was jointly funded to support planning for the District to address the future housing needs in its service area. The City will likely have mid-rises proposed in the Gateway Area and elsewhere over the next 20-30 years. The University continues to build larger format buildings with their campus plan. And the County has plans for larger scale buildings in the McKinleyville Town Center Master Plan. In addition, the District provides mutual aid to Humboldt Bay Fire, which means planning should consider the City of Eureka’s future development and existing larger buildings downtown.

The District will use the Report to help identify funding sources and to start a conversation with the community about the level of service that is acceptable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA):

This discussion is not a project as defined by CEQA. CEQA does not apply.

BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT:

The City, District, and University shared the cost of the study equally.

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

It is recommended that the Council and the Fire District Board:

1. Receive a presentation from AP Triton and staff on the Standards of Coverage report; and

2. Discuss the report and its implications.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Standards of Coverage Report

Arcata Fire Protection District
Arcata, California
Community Risk Assessment &
Standards of Cover
Deployment Analysis
July 2025

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District i

CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................iv SECTION I: EVALUATION OF CURRENT CONDITIONS ................................................................................... 1 Organization Overview .................................................................................................................................2 Financial Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Staffing & Personnel.................................................................................................................................... 39 Planning for Fire Protection & EMS............................................................................................................ 45 Capital Facilities & Equipment .................................................................................................................. 48 Communications & Dispatch .................................................................................................................... 59 Emergency Medical Services.................................................................................................................... 61 Prevention Services & Public Education .................................................................................................. 65 Hazardous Materials Services Support & Response................................................................................ 76 Technical Rescue Services......................................................................................................................... 78 Water Rescue Services............................................................................................................................... 79 Training & Continuing Education.............................................................................................................. 80 SECTION II: COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT................................................................................................ 84 Description of Communities Served ......................................................................................................... 85 All-Hazards Community Risk Assessment.................................................................................................. 87 Environmental & Physical Hazards............................................................................................................ 99 Critical Infrastructure Protected.............................................................................................................. 110 Land Use & Growth Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................... 117 Risk Classification ...................................................................................................................................... 130 SECTION III: STANDARDS OF COVER.......................................................................................................... 140 Service Delivery & Performance ............................................................................................................. 141 Population Growth & Service Demand Projections ............................................................................. 172 Effectiveness of Inter-jurisdictional Response ........................................................................................ 173 SECTION IV: FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................ 176 Establishment of Performance Objectives ............................................................................................ 177 Overview of Compliance Methodology ............................................................................................... 183 Strategies & Recommendations............................................................................................................. 184 Financial Feasibility Analysis..................................................................................................................... 192 SECTION V: APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 203 Appendix A: Stakeholder Interviews ...................................................................................................... 204 Appendix B: Community Survey ............................................................................................................. 211 Appendix C: Risk Classifications.............................................................................................................. 233

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District ii
Appendix D: Critical Tasking Analysis..................................................................................................... 238 Appendix E: Incremental Development Tax Revenue Projections..................................................... 259 Appendix F: Table of Figures ................................................................................................................... 281

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
AP Triton wishes to extend its sincere appreciation to each of those individuals whose contributions and assistance made this project possible.

Arcata Fire Protection District
Chris Emmons
Fire Chief
Anali Gonzalez
Business Manager
Ross McDonald
Assistant Fire Chief
Ed Laidlaw
Fire Marshal
Wayne Peabody
Assistant Fire Chief
Marcus Lillard
President IAFF 4981
Justin McDonald
Fire Chief (Retired)
City of Arcata
Merritt Perry
City Manager
David Loya
Community Development Director
Karen Diemer
City Manager (Retired)
Cal Poly Humboldt
Cris Jones Koczera
Associate Vice President of Campus Resilience and Response And the Board of Directors, firefighters,
and support staff who serve
the citizens and visitors of the district.

Our sincere appreciation is extended to each of you.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Arcata Fire Protection District’s Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis is intended to serve as a strategic roadmap that equips the department to proactively address the community’s dynamic risks and challenges. By analyzing existing data, assessing community risk profiles, and anticipating growth patterns, the plan aims to ensure that the organization evolves with the community it serves. This plan is designed to prevent the fire district from falling behind as the community grows and changes and to facilitate policy and budgeting decisions for elected officials.

The project commenced on February 16, 2024, and with some exceptions the data requests were completed on April 30, 2024. AP Triton’s team visited the department in early August to assist in acquiring a comprehensive understanding of the organization through stakeholder interviews.

The AP Triton team analyzed data from the Arcata Fire Protection District, the City of Arcata, Humboldt County, CAL FIRE ECC, and other relevant sources to evaluate current performance and make projections. Our analysis allowed our team to identify various factors influencing community risk and response efficiency. Consequently, we have identified opportunities for improvements.

Our findings are followed by a set of 18 recommendations to consider followed by a section dedicated to the financial feasibility of the Arcata Fire Protection District. While we understand that economic conditions may influence the timeline for implementing these recommendations, they collectively offer a blueprint for elevating the district’s capabilities and services.

We wish to extend our sincere appreciation to each of those individuals whose contributions and assistance made this project possible. By employing AP Triton’s multidisciplinary expertise and innovative approach, the Arcata Fire Protection District has gained a trusted consulting partner committed to delivering tailored, sustainable solutions that will empower the district to achieve long-term success.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 1 SECTION I:

Evaluation of
Current Conditions

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 2 ORGANIZATION OVERVIEW
This section of the report provides a basic description of the history and composition of the Arcata Fire Protection District or Arcata Fire District (AFPD).

History & Formation of the District
Following several significant fires in the
community, Arcata Fire Company No. 1 was
established in January 1884. The name was
changed later to “Arcata Hook & Ladder
Company,” and a month later changed to
the “Arcata Volunteer Fire Department.”1
Later, the fire department became a Special
District, receiving its charter in June 1944. The
purpose was to expand its services and
provide fire protection to areas surrounding
Arcata that included McKinleyville, Manilla, & Bayside.2 The fire district membership was comprised of volunteers for many years, with its first paid Fire Chief beginning in 1953. In 1960, the McKinleyville Fire Station was opened and staffed, followed by the construction of the Mad River Fire Station in 1975.3 Composition of the Arcata Fire District
The fire district is comprised of approximately 62 square miles with an estimated population of 36,000 residents.4In addition to the City of Arcata (2022 estimated population of 18,555), the district includes McKinleyville (2020 population of 16,262), Manilla (2020 population of 798), and Bayside, which are unincorporated communities. 1 Arcata Fire District website (www.arcatafire.org).
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Data Table 1 completed by AFPD staff.

Figure 1: Arcata Hook & Ladder Co. (1887)

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 3 Governance & Lines of Authority
The Arcata Fire Protection District is governed by a five-member elected Board of Directors representing five divisions. The Board is responsible for establishing general policies, annual budgets, and capital expenditures. The AFPD Fire Chief reports directly to the Board of Directors.

The following figure shows the current organization chart of the Arcata Fire District.

Figure 2: Arcata Fire District Organization Chart (2024) As shown in the preceding figure, the AFPD Fire Chief supervises an Assistant Chief (AC) of Operations, and Assistant Chief of Administration, and the Fire Marshal. The Operations AC is responsible for three shifts staffing three fire stations.

The Administration/Training AC is responsible for personnel training and continuing education, in addition to the Volunteer Logistics Unit. The Fire Marshal overseen the Fire Prevention Bureau with a part-time Inspector and full-time Fire Prevention Specialist.

Fire Marshal
V = Volunteer PT = Part-Time
Engineer
McKinleyville
Captain
Engineer
Mad River
Engineer
Arcata
Captain
Engineer
Engineer
Mad River
Captain
Engineer
McKinleyville
Captain
Captain
Engineer
Mad River
Captain
Engineer
McKinleyville
Captain
Arcata
Captain
Arcata
Captain
Engineer
Operations & Training
Assistant Chief
Fire Chief
A Shift B Shift C Shift
Fire Prevention
Specialist
Members (6)
Company 1 (V) Company 2
Members (6)
Board of Directors (5)
Arcata Fire Protection District
Inspector (PT)
Administration & Planning
Assistant Chief
Volunteer Logistic Unit (V) Fire Prevention Bureau
Business Manager

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 4 Volunteer Logistics Unit
Volunteer Logistics Unit (VLU) is comprised of individuals that do not serve in a “combat” role but rather provide substantial support to AFPD members at significant emergency, non-emergency, and training events. They are not assigned to fire suppression or rescue tasks. Instead, VLU members assist in a variety of critical support tasks which enable firefighters to perform more demanding and/or dangerous assignments.

Measure F Citizens Advisory Committee
AFPD created a Citizens Advisory Committee for the purpose of increasing voter acceptance for Measure “F” by establishing and appointing members that would provide oversight of the voter-approved special tax funds. Measure F consisted of the following:
“The proceeds from this special tax shall be used solely for the purpose of providing fire protection, rescue, and emergency medical services within the district.” Operations & Deployment
AFPD deploys its personnel and apparatus from three staffed stations with a minimum of one Captain and one Engineer at each station on each shift (A, B, and C). The fire district provides traditional fire protection services, wildland firefighting, medical first-response at the Basic Life Support (BLS) level, and hazardous materials response at the First Responder Operations level (FRO).

In 2024, the fire district was assigned a Public Protection Classification (PPC®) grade of Class 3/3Y by the Insurance Services Office (ISO). The PPC grade primarily impacts the insurance costs of businesses. Class 1 represents the highest grade and 10 the lowest.

In addition, AFPD conducts fire inspections, code enforcement, plan reviews, and firecause investigations. The Fire Prevention Bureau also provides a variety of public education and prevention programs.

The next figure lists the apparatus and staffing assigned to each fire station in the district.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 5 Figure 3: AFPD Apparatus & Staffing by Fire Station
Unit Schedule Staffing
McKinleyville Station (Headquarters)
Engine 8219 24 hours daily 2
Utility 8295 As needed Cross-staffed
Attack 8241 As needed Cross-staffed
Reserve Engine 8211 As needed Cross-staffed
Mad River Station
Engine 8218 24 hours daily 2
Engine 8239 As needed Cross-staffed
Logistics 8291 As needed Volunteers
Arcata Station
Engine 8217 24 hours daily 2
Water Tender 8258 As needed Cross-staffed
As shown in the preceding figure, each station is staffed with a two-person engine company. Additional apparatus (e.g., Water Tender, Reserve Engine, etc.) can be cross staffed by the engine crew when necessary.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 6 The next figure shows the boundaries of the Arcata Fire Protection District and the locations of each of its three fire stations.

Figure 4: AFPD Study Area Map

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 7 Other Emergency Services Resources in the Region
Emergency Communications & Dispatch
The CAL FIRE Emergency Command Center (ECC) is responsible for taking the 911 calls and dispatching the closest agency to respond. AFPD is dispatched through the Humboldt County Fire Net.

The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) and Arcata Police Department (APD) serve as the local Primary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for the AFPD communities. HCSO and APD do not provide fire and EMS dispatch services, but instead they may transfer callers to the appropriate local agency dispatch center. The California Highway Patrol also receives 911 calls from cell phones and transfers calls.

Ground Emergency Medical Transport
Ground Emergency Medical Transport (GEMT)—ambulance service—is provided by Arcata Mad River Ambulance (AMRA) service based in McKinleyville and Arcata. AMRA provides Advanced Life Support patient care and transport service. A single ambulance is deployed from its station on “F” Street in Arcata, with another located on Murray Road in McKinleyville. Each ambulance is staffed 24 hours daily.

When necessary, City Ambulance will respond to the Arcata area. The company maintains ALS ambulances in Eureka, Fortuna, and Scotia, which are staffed by a minimum of one Paramedic and one EMT 24 hours daily.

Air Medical Transport
Helicopter scene responses are provided by Cal-Ore Life Flight headquartered in Brookings, Oregon with a base in McKinleyville. Life Flight staffs its helicopters with a Registered Flight Nurse and a certified Paramedic. The organization has been accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Transport Services (CAMTS).

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 8 Mutual & Automatic Aid Resources
The next figure shows that Arcata Fire District has several resources available for mutual aid and automatic aid responses.

Figure 5: Mutual & Automatic Aid Resources Available to AFPD Agency Name Station
Number
No. of
Engines
No. of
Aerials
Water
Tenders
No. of
Staff
Blue Lake FPD BLFPD 2 0 2 V
CAL FIRE Trinidad 1A 0 0 2/3
Fortuna 1A 0 0 3
Ferndale FPD FFPD 2 0 2 V
Fieldbrook CSD FVFD 2 0 1 V
Fortuna FPD 1 1 1 0 V
2 2 0 1 V
3 2 0 1 V
Humboldt Bay Fire JPA 1 0 1 0 4/5
2 1 0 0 3
3 1 0 1 3
4 1 0 0 3
5 1 0 0 3
Kneeland FPD KFD 3 0 1 V
Loleta FPD LFPD 3 0 1 V
Rio Dell VFD Rio Dell 3 0 1 V
Scotia VFD Scotia 2 0 0 V
Redcrest VFD Red Crest 1 0 0 V
Shivley Fire & Rescue Shivley 1 0 1 V
Samoa CSD Fairhaven 1 0 0 V
Westhaven VFD WVF 1A 0 1 V
Totals: 32 2 13 21/23
V = Volunteer personnel. A Type 3 engine.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 9 The next figure illustrates the locations of the various mutual aid fire stations adjacent to the Arcata Fire Protection District.

Figure 6: AFPD Fire Mutual Aid

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 10 Figure 7: AFPD EMS Mutual Aid

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 11 Hospitals & Tertiary Care Facilities
• Mad River Community Hospital is in Arcata and maintains a 24-hour Emergency Department and has been designated as a Level IV Trauma Center. • Providence St. Joseph Hospital is less than 10 minutes away in Eureka. It maintains a 24-hour Emergency Department and has been designated as a Level III Trauma Center. The hospital maintains a catheterization lab and has a STEMI Center Designation.
• Providence Redwood Memorial Hospital is approximately 25 miles from Arcata and maintains a 24-hour Emergency Department.

Humboldt County Office of Emergency Services
The Humboldt County Sheriff's Office of Emergency Services (OES) is responsible for coordinating and conducting emergency planning, response, and recovery in collaboration with local, state, and federal partners. OES is the primary local coordination agency for emergencies and disasters affecting residents, public infrastructure, and government operations in Humboldt County.

Humboldt County Fire Safe Council
The mission of the Humboldt County Fire Safe Council is to:
• Serve as a forum for the implementation of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP).
• Share fire-safety related information.
• Assess fire risk.
• Promote community fire-safe planning and coordination. • Link fire-prevention programs.
• Support beneficial fire (prescribed fire, cultural burning, and managed wildfire where appropriate).
• Support the local fire service.

United States Coast Guard
The U.S. Coast Guard Sector Humboldt Bay provides a valuable service along 250 miles of coastline that extends from the California-Oregon border to the Mendocino-Sonoma County line. The Command Center for Sector Humboldt Bay monitors emergency incidents 24 hours daily.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 12 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
Sound fiscal health is imperative to ensure the effective operation of local governments.

Analyzing historical trends provides valuable information about current and future fiscal health. To understand Arcata Fire Protection District’s historical and projected financial position, AP Triton reviewed and analyzed the AFPD’s historical budgeting documents, schedules, and independent auditor reports for the four years of FY 2020 through FY 2023 and the adopted FY 2024 midyear budget.

Additionally, AP Triton reviewed the local, state, and national economic conditions to assess and better understand any significant trends that could affect the assumptions in AFPD’s current and future fiscal years. This analysis relies on the extensive financial documentation provided by staff, including independent auditor’s reports and actual budgets for the review period.

AFPD operates on a fiscal year running July 1 through June 30. Typical of most governmental entities, AFPD employs the use of fund accounting to account for its financial operations. In general, a fund is a fiscal and accounting entity that includes cash, financial resources, liabilities, and balances related to specific activities or objectives. AFPD maintains a single general fund, composed of accounts at various financial institutions, that collectively form AFPD’s primary operating fund.

The budgeting process typically begins in January each year with a detailed revenue and expenditure analysis. The AFPD Board of Directors prepares and adopts a preliminary budget for the fiscal year, no later than June 30th of each year, with the final budget adopted by October 1st in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 13895.5 AFPD adheres to a reserve policy that mandates maintaining a reserve equal to at least 50% of its annual operating revenue. This policy is designed to ensure fiscal stability, provide for emergencies, and cushion the district against unexpected financial disruptions.6 Arcata Fire Protection District is primarily funded by ad valorem property taxes and two voter-approved parcel taxes: the 2020 Special Tax (Measure F) and the 2006 Benefit Assessment. Additional revenues are generated through charges for services, intergovernmental contracts, and occasional asset sales. 5 California Code Health and Safety Code – Fire Protection District Law of 1987. 6 Board Policy Manual: Section 5.11 – Board Philosophy for Fire District Reserves.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 13 The district’s operating expenses include salaries, benefits, supplies, services, debt service, and occasional capital outlays. As the district has assumed debt to finance the acquisition of assets, debt service is included as a recurring expense for the purpose of this report.

The following figure summarizes AFPD’s combined financial activity for FY 2020 through midyear FY 2024.7 Transfers to reserve accounts are not included as an expense in the following figure since the funds are still available for use.
7 AFPD Auditor’s Reports, FY 2020–FY 2023 & FY 2024 Mid-Year Budget.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 14 Figure 8: AFPD Historical Budget Summary (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year) Revenue/Expenses FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Actual
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Mid-Year
Property (Ad Valorem) Tax 2,372,742 2,500,002 2,552,383 2,738,036 2,766,000 1996 Special Tax 320,740 323,042 — — —
2006 Benefit Assessment 1,411,255 1,421,382 1,434,870 1,435,417 1,434,000 2020 Special Tax — — 2,273,762 2,292,939 2,290,000
State Timber Yield Tax 984 890 766 1,028 1,000
Total Tax Revenue 4,105,721 4,245,316 6,261,781 6,467,420 6,491,000 Charges For Service 60,042 70,161 63,558 84,199 67,000
Recurring Revenue: $4,165,763 $4,315,477 $6,325,339 $6,551,619 $6,558,000 Interest Income 33,006 36,217 45,341 46,380 195,000
Intergovernmental 134,520 395,781 212,473 117,720 195,000 Other Revenues 77,297 70,450 85,213 12,046 24,000
Sale of Assets — 50,000 3,326 118,000 —
Non-Recurring Revenue: $244,823 $552,448 $346,353 $294,146 $414,000 TOTAL REVENUE: $4,410,586 $4,867,925 $6,671,692 $6,845,765 $6,972,000 Salaries & Wages 1,858,705 1,516,967 1,772,903 2,440,617 2,850,000 Retirement 450,274 346,412 429,154 594,069 676,000
PERS UAL Payment 473,011 365,841 431,548 188,844 190,000 Insurance 818,453 711,022 818,616 922,398 1,095,500
Total Salaries & Benefits 3,600,443 2,940,242 3,452,221 4,145,928 4,811,500 Service & Supplies 627,438 749,417 736,564 862,098 928,600 Debt Service 164,095 155,889 93,353 507,134 502,620
Recurring Expense: 4,391,976 3,845,548 4,282,138 5,515,160 6,242,720 Capital Outlay — — 65,788 224,554 31,000
Debt Issuance Cost — — 67,797 8,813 —
Non-Recurring Expense: — — 133,585 233,367 31,000
TOTAL EXPENSE: $4,391,976 $3,845,548 $4,415,723 $5,748,527 $6,273,720 Surplus/(Deficit) $18,610 $1,022,377 $2,255,969 $1,097,238 $698,280 Beginning Fund Balance 3,002,841 3,021,451 4,043,828 6,299,797 7,397,034 Ending Fund Balance $3,021,451 $4,043,828 $6,299,797 $7,397,034 $8,095,314

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 15 Overall, total combined revenue has grown by $2,561,414, from $4,410,586 in FY 2020 to $6,972,000 anticipated for FY 2024. This represents a 58% increase over the five-year period.

Nearly all the revenue growth is directly attributed to the increase in tax revenue over the five-year study period. FY 2022 saw the largest year-over-year increase following the implementation of Measure F.

During this same period, total expenses increased $1,881,744, nearly 43%, from $4,391,976 in FY 2020 to $6,273,720 anticipated for FY 2024 mid-year. The variability in salaries and wages, notably in FY 2021, was largely attributed to the failure of Measure R and the resulting unfilled positions. Non-recurring expenses, primarily consisting of capital outlays, represent a relatively minor portion of total expenses.

During FY 2020 and FY 2021, AFPD was forced to reduce services substantially following the defeat of Measure R. These reductions included the temporary closure of one of the district's three fire stations and a drastic reduction in staffing levels. Additionally, the district had to delay essential capital outlays, putting off necessary investments in equipment and infrastructure. These measures were necessary to cope with financial constraints and maintain basic operations.

AFPD has demonstrated strong fiscal management over the past five years. The introduction of the 2020 Measure F Special Tax was a crucial step in restoring the district’s capabilities. This voter-approved special tax provided the additional funding needed to reinstate staffing levels and reopen the closed fire station. Measure F has been instrumental in stabilizing AFPD's operations and improving service delivery. However, it is important to note that Measure F has a finite life, with a 10-year sunset clause set to expire in FY 2030.

This impending expiration presents a significant challenge, as the district must secure continued funding to avoid future service reductions.

The district anticipates increased demand for services due to projected population growth throughout the district. Proactive financial planning and voter engagement will be essential for sustaining AFPD’s financial health and operational capabilities in the coming years. The district must prepare for the expiration of Measure F by exploring alternative funding sources and engaging with the community and governmental partners to secure future support. Investing in capital equipment and infrastructure is critical to maintaining and improving service quality, ensuring that AFPD can continue to meet the needs of the community effectively.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 16 Revenue
For analysis purposes, AP Triton classifies revenues, sometimes referred to as resources, as recurring or non-recurring. Recurring revenues can be reasonably anticipated annually and are generally quantifiable. On the other hand, non-recurring revenues may not occur annually or are not easily quantifiable, such as debt proceeds, one-time grant awards, or proceeds from the disposal of assets. While these amounts may be estimated with a reasonable degree of accuracy, the frequency of their receipt places them in the nonrecurring category.

AFPD’s revenue comes primarily from property taxes and parcel taxes, making up 94% of total income and 99% of recurring revenue since the passage of Measure F. Other minor sources include service charges, intergovernmental contracts, and grants.

The next figure depicts AFPD’s total combined revenue, between FY 2020 and FY 2024, providing a historical perspective of AFPD’s revenue sources available for day-to-day operations and capital projects.8
Figure 9: AFPD Historical Revenue Summary (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year) Revenue FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Actual
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Mid-Year
Property (Ad Valorem) Tax 2,372,742 2,500,002 2,552,383 2,738,036 2,766,000 1996 Special Tax 320,740 323,042 — — —
2006 Benefit Assessment 1,411,255 1,421,382 1,434,870 1,435,417 1,434,000 2020 Special Tax — — 2,273,762 2,292,939 2,290,000
State Timber Yield Tax 984 890 766 1,028 1,000
Total Tax Revenue 4,105,721 4,245,316 6,261,781 6,467,420 6,491,000 Charges For Service 60,042 70,161 63,558 84,199 67,000
Recurring Revenue: $4,165,763 $4,315,477 $6,325,339 $6,551,619 $6,558,000 Interest Income 33,006 36,217 45,341 46,380 195,000
Intergovernmental 134,520 395,781 212,473 117,720 195,000 Other Revenues 77,297 70,450 85,213 12,046 24,000
Sale of Assets — 50,000 3,326 118,000 —
Non-Recurring Revenue: $244,823 $552,448 $346,353 $294,146 $414,000 TOTAL REVENUE: $4,410,586 $4,867,925 $6,671,692 $6,845,765 $6,972,000 8 AFPD Auditor’s Reports, FY 2020–FY 2023 & FY 2024 Mid-Year Budget.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 17 The total combined revenue has grown steadily by approximately 58% over the five-year period from $4,410,586 in FY 2020 to a projected $6,972,000 for FY 2024. Nearly all the revenue growth is directly attributed to the increase in tax revenue over the five-year study period, driven primarily by the implementation of Measure F in FY 2022. Tax revenues increased from $4,105,721 in FY 2020 to an anticipated $6,491,000 in FY 2024.

It is instructive to examine recurring revenues in relation to their ability to fund ongoing expenditures. AFPD’s recurring revenue has increased by $2,385,279, or about 57%, from $4,165,763 in FY 2020 to $6,558,000 projected in the FY 2024 mid-year budget.9 Nonrecurring revenue, derived from sources such as asset sales and one-time intergovernmental contracts, represents a smaller but important part of AFPD's overall revenue structure.

The following figure compares the district’s recurring and non-recurring revenue to total revenue.

Figure 10: Recurring vs. Non-Recurring Revenue (FY 2020–FY 2024) 9 Ibid.
$4,165,763
$244,823
$4,410,586
$4,315,477
$552,448
$4,867,925
$6,325,339
$346,353
$6,671,692
$6,551,619
$294,146
$6,845,765
$6,558,000
$414,000
$6,972,000
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
Recurring Revenue Non-Recurring Revenue Total Revenue
FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 18 As indicated, non-recurring revenue constitutes a minor portion of the district’s total revenue. Non-recurring revenues fluctuated between 4% and 11% of total revenue during the FY 2020 through FY 2024 period. Although oftentimes reliable, intergovernmental revenues are considered as “non-recurring” in nature for this report given the strong reliance on property tax and parcel taxes.

Tax and Assessment Revenue
The Arcata Fire Protection District is primarily funded by property tax, a special tax assessment and a benefit assessment. Property tax is an ad valorem tax, meaning it is levied based on the assessed value of the property, while the parcel taxes are based on the parcel as a unit rather than its assessed value. AFPD also receives a timber yield tax, although it is minimal and not discussed as a discrete source in the following figure.

The next figure summarizes AFPD’s total tax revenue from FY 2020 to mid-year FY 2024.

Figure 11: Tax Revenue (FY 2020–FY 2024)
Tax & Assessment Revenue FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Actual
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Mid-Year
Property Taxes 2,372,742 2,500,002 2,552,383 2,738,036 2,766,000 1996 Special Tax 320,740 323,042 — — —
2006 Benefit Assessment 1,411,255 1,421,382 1,434,870 1,435,417 1,434,000 2020 Special Tax — — 2,273,762 2,292,939 2,290,000
Total Parcel Taxes 1,731,995 1,744,424 3,708,632 3,728,356 3,724,000 State Timber Yield Tax 984 890 766 1,028 1,000
Total Tax Revenue: $4,105,721 $4,245,316 $6,261,781 $6,467,420 $6,491,000 Ad Valorem Property Tax
AFPD relies significantly on ad valorem property taxes. Ad valorem taxes, which are based on the assessed value of real property, provide the most stable and predictable source of revenue for AFPD. For FY 2024, the district had an assessed tax base of $4.6 billion.10 The base property tax rate in California is 1% of the assessed value. The total ad valorem tax revenue for AFPD is calculated by multiplying the assessed value, subject to limitations, of all taxable properties within the district by the tax allocation factor (TAF). 10 Data Table 3 – Budget & Finance, Prepared by AFPD Staff.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 19 Ad valorem property tax revenue has been relatively static, increasing a total of $393,258 over the past five years, from $2,372,742 in FY 2020 to a projected $2,766,000 in FY 2024.11 This represents an average annual increase of about 4%, or $98,000.

The annual increase is limited by Proposition 13, which caps property tax growth to 2% annually unless property changes ownership or new construction occurs.

The following figure summarizes AFPD’s ad valorem property tax revenue for the five years FY 2020 to FY 2024.

Figure 12: Ad Valorem Property Tax Revenue (FY 2020–FY 2024) As discussed elsewhere in this report, AFPD is responsible for providing fire protection services to the Cal Poly University Humboldt campus and its population. As a state-owned entity, universities do not pay property taxes, which means that AFPD receives no ad valorem tax revenue from this entity despite being required to serve it. 11 Ibid.
$2,372,742
$2,500,002
$2,552,383
$2,738,036
$2,766,000
$2,372,742
$2,500,002 $2,552,383
$2,738,036 $2,766,000
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24
Property Tax (Ad Valorem) Revenue

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 20 Parcel Tax
AFPD benefits from two key parcel taxes: the 2006 Benefit Assessment and the 2020 Special Tax, also known as Measure F. Unlike property taxes, parcel taxes are based on the parcel as a unit rather than its assessed value, ensuring a fixed revenue stream regardless of property value fluctuations.
2006 Benefit Assessment
In response to revenue constraints posed by California Proposition 218, property owners approved the 2006 Benefit Assessment. This assessment helps fund salaries and the purchase and maintenance of capital equipment. It is intended to cover the staffing and operation costs of one of the district’s three fire stations. 12 The 2006 Benefit Assessment levies a tax on parcels at a rate of $22 per unit of benefit, based on the parcel’s designated land use and the number of units of benefit the parcel receives from the fire protection services. The rates are fixed and cannot be increased without voter approval since the special tax did not include a built-in inflation provision when originally adopted.13 As a result, the rate remains at $22 per unit in perpetuity unless adjusted through a new voter initiative.

The next figure provides total assessments based on assigned units of benefit.14 12 Arcata Fire Protection District, Ordinance No. 06-12. 13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 21 Figure 13: 2006 Benefit Assessment Rates
Units of
Benefit Total Assessment Total Annual Charge
3 $66 per year Licensed Mobile Home Park
1 $22 per year Vacant Single-Family Residential
4 $88 per year Improved Single-Family Residential
4 $88 per year Condominium Single-Family Residential
8 $178 per year Improved Multi-Family 2–4 Units
N/A $0 per year Low Income Sec. 236 Housing
1 $22 per year Vacant Rural Residential to 0.99 Acres
6 $132 per year Improved Rural Residential to 0.99 Acres 10 $220 per year Misc. Light Industrial
12 $264 per year Fast Food Restaurant
12 $264 per year Gas Station Without Mini-Market
12 $264 per year Public Utilities
The following figure summarizes the revenue generated from the 2006 Benefit Assessment.

Figure 14: 2006 Special Benefit Assessment (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year) 2006 SBA Revenue FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Actual
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Mid-Year
2006 Benefit Assessment $1,411,255 $1,421,382 $1,434,870 $1,435,417 $1,434,000 The 2006 Benefit Assessment has remained stable generating approximately $1.43 million annually. Since FY 2022, benefit assessment revenue has comprised roughly 22% of the district's recurring revenue and 21% of total revenue. As this revenue is not indexed for inflation, its purchasing power diminishes annually, making it increasingly inadequate to cover rising operational costs.

The next figure graphically distinguishes the proportion of Benefit Assessment revenue as a component of the district's total recurring revenue, highlighting its importance in maintaining the financial health and operational capabilities of the Arcata Fire Protection District.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 22 Figure 15: Benefit Assessment Revenue vs. Other Recurring Revenue (FY 2020–FY 2024) The 2006 Benefit Assessment clearly plays a crucial role in supporting AFPD’s operational needs, providing stable and predictable funding. However, to continue meeting the increasing costs of operations, the district must consider strategies to adjust this revenue stream in response to inflationary pressures and growing service demands. 2020 Measure F Special Tax Measure
Measure F is a voter-approved measure that was introduced in 2020 following the defeat of Measure R. The failure of Measure R forced the AFPD to reduce staffing and close one of its fire stations. Measure F was designed to restore and maintain essential services.

The passage of Measure F has been critical in stabilizing the district’s budget, allowing AFPD to maintain service levels and support its staffing needs. This tax helped supplement property taxes, which are limited by California’s Proposition 13, and provided a reliable source of recurring revenue for essential operations.
$4,165,763 $4,315,477
$6,325,339 $6,551,619 $6,558,000
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24
Other Recurring Revenue Benefit Assessment Total Recurring Revenue

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 23 Unlike a traditional ad valorem property tax, which is based on the property's assessed value, a special tax is a fixed amount determined by voters and applied uniformly to all properties within the district, regardless of value. Revenues generated from these special taxes are strictly earmarked for their intended purposes and cannot be diverted to other uses.

The tax rates under Measure F are applied based on the assigned parcel use category, with different rates for various types of properties.15 The figure below details these rates.

Figure 16: Measure F Special Tax Rates by Parcel Use
Parcel Use Total Annual Charge
Vacant/unimproved $30 per year
Single-Family Residential $118 per year
Rural Residential/Improved $192 per year
Multi-Family (2–4 units) $309 per year
Multi-Family (5–9 units) $388 per year
Multi-Family (19+ units) $465 per year
Commercial $546 per year
Industrial $910 per year
Retail (10,000 + sq ft) $910 per year
Mobile Homes $90 per year
Since AFPD began receiving the proceeds from Measure F in FY 2022, the revenue generated has proven to be a major financing source for the district. The following figure outlines the revenue generated by Measure F from its inception.

Figure 17: 2020 Measure F Special Tax (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year) Measure F Revenue FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Actual
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Mid-Year
Measure F Revenue — — $2,273,762 $2,292,939 $2,290,000
15 Article XIII C, Section 2(a) of the California Constitution.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 24 Measure F alone contributed $2,273,762 in its first year (FY 2022) and has continued to provide substantial and much-needed revenue, with $2,273,762 in FY 2022 and $2,292,939 in FY 2023 and $2,290,000 projected for FY 2024.16 In FY 2024, Measure F revenue is expected to total $2,290,000, nearly 35% of recurring revenue and about 33% of total revenue.

The following figure illustrates the importance of this revenue source, comparing special tax revenue against AFPD’s other recurring revenue for FY 2020 to FY 2024 mid-year. Note that the special tax revenue in FY 2020 and FY 2021 reflects amounts received from the 1996 special tax, as the district did not begin collecting proceeds from the 2020 Measure F Special Tax until FY 2022.

Figure 18: Special Tax Revenue vs. Other Recurring Revenue (FY 2020–FY 2024) 16 AFPD FY 2024 Adopted Mid-Year Budget.
$4,165,763
$4,315,477
$6,325,339 $6,551,619 $6,558,000
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24
Other Recurring Revenue Special Tax Total Recurring Revenue

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 25 Other
AFPD also generates minor income through state timber yield taxes, charges for service, and intergovernmental revenues. While these are essential supplements, they do not provide the consistency or scale required to sustain the district’s long-term financial health.

Compared to tax revenues, these sources are relatively modest, contributing only 5–6% of the total revenue. Apart from a small portion from timber yields and an average of approximately $60,000 annually from charges for services, the remaining income outside of tax revenues is considered non-recurring in nature.

AFPD has previously received, on average, $37,000 a year from Cal Poly Humboldt. This agreement was terminated in FY 2024.17 FY 2024’s projected intergovernmental income was reduced at mid-year to reflect the prorated refund following the agreement termination.

Interest Income
Interest income, although relatively modest in the earlier years, saw a dramatic increase by FY 2024 mid-year, reaching $195,000.18 This spike indicates improved investment strategies or favorable economic conditions impacting interest yields.

SAFER Grant
In February 2024, the AFPD Board entered into an agreement with a grant-writing expert to prepare the application for the Staffing For Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant through FEMA.19 The AFPD was unsuccessful with its 2024 application, but has identified its gaps and plans to apply again in 2025. If awarded, AFPD will need to initiate a hiring process to increase the staffing at all stations to meet the NFPA 1710 standard.

Further, the district will have to come up with a detailed plan and funding sources to assume full responsibility for the potentially funded positions at the conclusion of the SAFER Grant project period.
17 Arcata Fire Protection District Board of Directors Meeting, October 10, 2023. 18 Arcata Fire Protection District Board of Directors Meeting, June 11, 2024 . 19 Arcata Fire Protection District Board of Directors Meeting, April 9, 2024.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 26 Fire Engine Grant
Arcata Fire Protection District has actively sought various grant funding opportunities. Most recently, AFPD received a grant from the Humboldt Area Foundation for the purchase of a fire engine. Part of the requirement of the grant for the purchase of a new fire engine from the Humboldt Area Foundation is for the district to accrue 100% of the capital to purchase the engine.

Expenses
Similar to revenues, AP Triton classifies expenditures as either recurring or non-recurring.

Recurring expenses can be reasonably anticipated annually and are generally quantifiable. AFPD’s recurring expenses represent the district’s operating expenses and include salaries, benefits, supplies and services, and operating commodities/supplies. For the purpose of this analysis, AP Triton considers AFPD’s debt service as a recurring expense as it is known and unable to be delayed.

Non-recurring expenses may not occur annually or are not easily quantifiable. Examples of non-recurring expenses include capital outlay and equipment purchases, non-capitalized equipment purchases, and other minor expenses that are not considered ongoing and are easily predictable. Although the need and approximate timing of various capital outlays may oftentimes be reasonably estimated, AP Triton classifies these outlays as “nonrecurring” since the amounts and timing of these outlays are historically variable and can be delayed if needed.

While AFPD has successfully managed its finances over the past five years, the district faces several long-term challenges, including rising operational costs, the expiration of Measure F in 2030, and the need for capital investments in aging infrastructure. The district needs to invest in much-needed capital equipment and infrastructure to support growing service demands. This includes upgrading fire apparatus, enhancing facilities, and ensuring that the district is equipped to handle the increasing complexity and volume of emergency calls. Additional consideration is given to capital equipment later in this report.

While the district maintains various accounts at financial institutions, the following figure details the general fund as a whole. Interfund transfers, for example, transfers to reserves, are excluded from consideration, as the net effect of the transfers is canceled out between funds. Budgeted transfers to reserve funds are not documented in the following figure and are not included in the total annual expense since those amounts represent available resources for the district. In this analysis, all capital expenditures and debt issuance costs are treated as non-recurring expenses.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 27 Figure 19: AFPD Historical Expense Summary (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year) Expenses FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Actual
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Mid-Year
Salaries & Wages 1,858,705 1,516,967 1,772,903 2,440,617 2,850,000 Retirement 450,274 346,412 429,154 594,069 676,000
PERS UAL Payment 473,011 365,841 431,548 188,844 190,000 Insurance 818,453 711,022 818,616 922,398 1,095,500
Total Salaries & Benefits 3,600,443 2,940,242 3,452,221 4,145,928 4,811,500 Service & Supplies 627,438 749,417 736,564 862,098 928,600 Debt Service 164,095 155,889 93,353 507,134 502,620
Recurring Expense: $4,391,976 $3,845,548 $4,282,138 $5,515,160 $6,242,720 Capital Outlay — — 65,788 224,554 31,000
Debt Issuance Cost — — 67,797 8,813 —
Non-Recurring Expense: — — $133,585 $233,367 $31,000
TOTAL EXPENSE: $4,391,976 $3,845,548 $4,415,723 $5,748,527 $6,273,720 While AFPD’s revenue grew steadily over the review period, the district also faced rising operational costs. Excluding the planned amount to set aside funds as reserves, total expenses increased from $4,391,976 in FY 2020 to a projected $6,273,720 in FY 2024, representing a 43% increase.20 The largest driver of this cost growth was personnel expenses, which include salaries, wages, benefits, and pension obligations.

As AFPD continues to face inflationary pressures and increasing service demands, maintaining a balanced approach to managing both recurring and non-recurring expenses will be critical.

The following figure compares recurring, non-recurring, and total expenses (excluding reserve transfers) from FY 2020 through FY 2023 actual with amounts anticipated as of the FY 2024 mid-year budget.
20 FY 2024 Adopted Mid-Year Budget.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 28 Figure 20: Recurring vs. Non-Recurring Expenses (FY 2020–FY 2024) The majority of AFPD’s expenses are recurring in nature. Recurring expenses, including salaries, benefits, supplies, services, and debt service, are essential for maintaining the district’s operations and service delivery. Generally, capital expense has not been a significant percentage of the total, and most expenses through the FY 2024 mid-year budget have been recurring in nature.

While it is important to monitor and evaluate outflows across an organization, for the purposes of this study, it is most instructive to analyze recurring expenses. Recurring expenses reflect the district’s operating costs and are crucial for day-to-day operations.

AFPD’s recurring expenses are divided into three main categories: salaries and benefits, supplies and services, and debt service. A concise overview of these recurring expense categories follows:
• Salaries and Benefits: Include salaries, retirement contributions, insurance premiums, and required PERS unfunded accrued liability (UAL) payments. • Supplies and Services: Regular operating supplies and essential services required for maintaining operations.
• Debt Service: Payments for debt obligations related to the UAL refinancing loan and equipment purchases.
$4,391,976
$3,845,548
$4,415,723
$5,748,527
$6,273,720
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24
Recurring Expense Non-Recurring Expense Total Expense

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 29 Recurring expenses have increased approximately $1,850,744, about 42%, from $4,391,976 in FY 2020 to $6,242,720 anticipated as of the adoption of the FY 2024 mid-year budget.21 As expected, with a growing organization shouldering an increasing service demand, $1,211,057 of the $1,850,744 increase has been due to increased personnel expenses.22 The following figure illustrates the trend of AFPD’s recurring expenses broken out between salaries and benefits, services and supplies, and debt service for the five-year period of FY 2020 through FY 2024.

Figure 21: AFPD Recurring Expenses by Category
Salaries & Benefits
Typical of most public safety budgets, personnel costs account for the largest portion of AFPD’s total budget, historically accounting for about 70% of recurring expenses per year.

Expenditures within the Personnel Services category include contributions to the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS), medical insurance, social security, wages, and overtime.
21 Ibid.
22 Arcata Fire District Board of Directors Meeting, June 11, 2024. $4,391,976
$3,845,548
$4,282,138
$5,515,160
$6,242,720
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24
Salaries & Benefits Service & Supplies
Debt Service Recurring Expense:

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 30 Figure 22: AFPD Salaries & Benefits Summary (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year) Salaries & Benefits FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Actual
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Mid-Year
Salaries & Wages 1,858,705 1,516,967 1,772,903 2,440,617 2,850,000 Retirement 450,274 346,412 429,154 594,069 676,000
PERS UAL Payment 473,011 365,841 431,548 188,844 190,000 Insurance 818,453 711,022 818,616 922,398 1,095,500
Total Salaries & Benefits $3,600,443 $2,940,242 $3,452,221 $4,145,928 $4,811,500 Figure 23: AFPD Salaries & Benefits Expense
Salaries and benefits alone increased by 34% between FY 2020 and FY 2024, rising from $3,600,443 to an anticipated $4,811,500. This increase was driven by the need to restore staffing levels following Measure R’s failure, as well as rising pension and healthcare costs.

The following figure illustrates this trend.
$3,600,443
$2,940,242
$3,452,221
$4,145,928
$4,811,500
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24
Salaries Retirement & PERS UAL Insurance

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 31 The total salaries and benefit expenses experienced a notable decrease in FY 2021, dropping to $1,516,967 from $1,858,705 in FY 2020. This reduction was primarily due to the failure of Measure R, which resulted in vacated positions going unfilled and the shutdown of one fire station, leading to a reduction in staffing and associated costs. Specifically, five full-time equivalent (FTE) positions remained unfilled during this period, significantly impacting the overall salary expenditure. However, with the enactment of Measure F, AFPD has been able to restore staffing levels and reopen the closed fire station, reflected in the increased personnel expenses in subsequent years. 23 CalPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL)
AFPD employees participate in the California Public Employee’s Retirement System (CalPERS). In FY 2022, the AFPD took a significant step to manage its pension liabilities by issuing a $4,750,000 Series 2021 Taxable CalPERS UAL Prepayment Project loan. This strategy aimed to refinance a portion of the district’s outstanding unfunded accrued liability (UAL) associated with their CalPERS Safety, Safety 2nd, and Miscellaneous Pension Plans.24 Unlike traditional pension obligation bonds, which can complicate future financings, the refinancing was structured to allow AFPD to secure the best possible interest rates for UAL pension costs. The refinancing also facilitated favorable terms for future financings, shifted the financed UAL pension costs from operating expenses to debt service, and increased the district’s debt service coverage ratio.

As a result of the refinancing, the district projected total cash flow savings of approximately $1,792,656. Additionally, the transaction transformed 23 years of rising payments into level debt service payments over 15 years, providing a more predictable and manageable financial outlook.

At the time the FY 2024 budget was prepared, there was no required UAL payment; however, AFPD proactively allocated and paid $190,000 as a prepayment towards the pension liability.25 According to AFPD’s actuarial report, the pension was 86% funded as of the end of FY 2023. Despite this favorable funding status, pension-related benefits remain a substantial long-term expense for the district.
23 Arcata Fire Protection District, FY 2021 Annual Financial Report. 24 Arcata Fire Protection District Auditor’s Reports, FY 2022. 25 Arcata Fire Protection District FY 2024 Adopted Budget.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 32 Service and Supplies
Service and Supplies expenses encompass a range of essential operational expenditures, including utilities, maintenance, fuel, training, office supplies, and other day-to-day operational needs. On average, service and supplies accounted for approximately 16% of AFPD’s overall recurring expenses. The following figure provides an overview of these expenditures over the five-year period of FY 2020 to FY 2024.

Figure 24: AFPD Service & Supplies Expense (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year) Service & Supplies
Expense
FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Actual
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Mid-Year
Uniforms 17,236 13,115 14,367 29,328 42,000
Communication 137,948 102,188 29,684 27,157 33,000
Food 907 682 587 1,385 2,000
Household Expense 7,638 8,070 12,843 14,173 15,000
Insurance 18,018 23,335 35,221 43,637 52,000
Maintenance–Equipment 39,903 131,702 133,590 140,784 135,600 Maintenance–Electronics 420 1,793 1,847 5,487 3,500
Transportation & Travel 32,497 31,889 56,062 68,532 94,000 Utilities 39,477 32,763 34,754 41,235 42,100
Maintenance–Structure 4,971 6,949 17,840 48,759 62,000
Medical Supplies 1,690 4,208 5,667 3,206 6,500
Dues & Subscription 16,579 1,708 1,997 2,233 3,000
Miscellaneous 5,656 4,408 1,924 522 2,500
Office Supplies 1,566 3,420 3,013 19,991 23,700
Professional Services 115,404 133,753 164,880 179,177 132,400 Publications and Notices 312 112 1,770 921 1,000
Copier Lease 6,681 6,986 7,079 7,325 8,300
Rent 96,000 96,000 108,000 120,000 120,000
Special District Expense 82,404 120,273 83,516 94,592 130,000 Small Tools & Equipment 2,131 26,063 21,923 13,654 20,000 Total Service & Supplies $627,438 $749,417 $736,564 $862,098 $928,600

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 33 Service and supplies have grown by a total of $301,162, reflecting an approximate 48% increase from $627,438 in FY 2020 to a projected $928,600 in FY 2024. Despite some fluctuations over the years, this translates to an average annual increase of roughly 12%.

The following figure illustrates this trend.

Figure 25: AFPD Service & Supplies Expense
Equipment maintenance has been one of the District’s most significant operating expenses, reaching $135,600 in FY 2024. This category includes the servicing and upkeep of critical assets necessary for emergency response operations. The majority of these costs are attributable to apparatus-related maintenance for maintaining the District’s fleet of engines, trucks, and support vehicles. In addition, the equipment maintenance budget covers the servicing of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBAs), power tools, and rescue equipment to ensure operational readiness. It also funds hose and ladder testing, AED inspections, fire extinguisher servicing, and repairs to small equipment. Transportation and travel costs have also risen substantially, increasing from $32,497 in FY 2020 to $94,000 in FY 2024, reflecting the growing travel demands for both personnel and operational needs. Although this appears to be a significant jump, it is important to note that training and travel were heavily limited in FY 2020 and FY 2021 due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and the financial pressures following the failure of Measure R. The reduction of communication-related expenses in FY 2022 was partially due to a decrease in county funding assistance with the dispatch fee.
$627,438
$749,417 $736,564
$862,098
$928,600
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24
Service & Supplies Expense

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 34 The rent expense previously covered the rental of the “9th Street Station” from the Arcata Volunteer Firefighter’s Association (AVFA). As of September 2024, the rent was set to increase to $12,500 per month ($150,000 annually) and would have required the district to fund major structural repairs. However, at the start of FY 2025, the district purchased the station from AVFA for $1.7 million.26 While this eliminates rent expense moving forward in fiscal years following this report, it will increase the district’s debt service obligations.

Debt Service
Debt service includes the principal and interest payments on its outstanding loans. These payments are considered as recurring expenses for the purpose of this report, as AFPD is obligated to make consistent debt service payments over the coming years. However, the one-time costs associated with issuing new debt are treated as non-recurring.

The next figure summarizes AFPD historical debt service obligations.

Figure 26: AFPD Debt Service (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year) Debt Service FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Actual
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Mid-Year
Series 2011 Principal 152,696 152,095 — — —
Series 2022A Principal — — — 100,000 100,183
UAL Refinance Principal — — — 261,000 268,000
Interest 11,399 3,794 93,353 146,134 134,437
Total Debt Service $164,095 $155,889 $93,353 $507,134 $502,620 At the time of this report, AFPD has three loans outstanding: one associated with the UAL refinancing, which was initiated to manage pension liabilities, one for the purchase of a fire engine27, and one assumed in FY 2025 for the purchase of the 9th Street Station from the AVFA for approximately $1.7 million.
28 26 Arcata Fire Protection District Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, November 12, 2024. 27 Arcata Fire Protection District Auditor’s Reports, FY 2023. 28 Arcata Fire Protection District Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, November 12, 2024.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 35 Debt can be a useful tool for fire agencies like AFPD to finance large, essential purchases that would otherwise be unaffordable within a single fiscal year. For capital-intensive items such as fire engines, station upgrades, and equipment, debt financing allows AFPD to spread the cost over several years, aligning the repayment period with the useful life of the assets being financed. This helps ensure that AFPD can maintain its service levels and operational readiness without drawing down reserves or depleting cash flow.

Debt is not inherently negative. When managed responsibly, it can be a powerful tool for achieving long-term financial goals while maintaining a stable budget. The key is to ensure that the debt is structured in a way that fits within AFPD’s ability to repay without jeopardizing future financial health. For AFPD, the UAL refinancing not only secured a lower interest rate but also transformed rising pension costs into predictable, level payments over a 15-year period. This strategic use of debt reduces financial uncertainty and provides a clearer path to managing long-term obligations.

It is important to note, however, that any future capital expenditures requiring additional debt could increase AFPD’s overall debt service load. As AFPD continues to grow and expand its services, careful consideration will need to be given to balancing the district's debt obligations with its operational and capital needs. Nonetheless, the current debt service structure provides a manageable and predictable outlook for the AFPD’s finances in the near term.

Non-Recurring Expense
Non-recurring expenses, such as capital outlays, though necessary for long-term asset management and operational efficiency, can be more flexible in terms of timing.

However, delaying these expenses can lead to increased costs and operational inefficiencies in the long run.

Historically, capital outlays and debt issuance costs have been AFPD’s only non-recurring expenses.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 36 General Fund Recurring Revenue vs. Recurring Expenses Unlike a for-profit business, government agencies do not have the ability to immediately respond to changing economic conditions and require reasonable reserves to continue to provide service levels. The distinction should be made between the difference between a balanced budget and a structurally sound budget. A budget that may fit the statutory definition of a “balanced budget” may not be financially sustainable. For example, a budget balanced by such standards could include non-recurring resources, such as asset sales or reserves, to fund ongoing expenditures and thus not be in structural balance.

This is often seen when an organization experiences revenue declines during a recession and may need to spend more than it takes in, using reserves and other one-time measures to make up the difference. To offset that, entities should typically collect more revenue than they spend during periods of economic growth.

It is crucial that local governments assess their ability to continue providing their core services in a financially responsible manner. While certainly not always the case, best practice recommends that governmental entities generally use recurring revenues to meet recurring obligations to ensure long-range fiscal success best. This is especially important for AFPD to consider as the sunset of the Measure F 2020 special tax sunset approaches at the end of FY 2030.

The following figure represents the AFPD’s recurring revenues compared to its recurring expenses for FY 2020 to FY 2024.

Figure 27: AFPD Recurring Revenue vs. Recurring Expense (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year)
FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Actual
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Mid-Year
Recurring Revenue 4,165,763 4,315,477 6,325,339 6,551,619 6,558,000 Recurring Expense 4,391,976 3,845,548 4,282,138 5,515,160 6,242,720 Rev. Over (Under) Exp. ($226,213) $469,929 $2,043,201 $1,036,459 $315,280 Between FY 2020 and FY 2024, the AFPD's recurring revenues generally exceeded its recurring expenses, though this has only been possible due to the passage of Measure F in 2020. Without Measure F, deficits would have persisted, particularly starting in FY 2023, when expenses outpaced the revenue growth from the district’s key recurring sources: the ad valorem property tax, the 2006 benefit assessment, and the 2020 Measure F special tax.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 37 To illustrate the impact of Measure F not being passed, the next figure assumes that Measure F was not enacted and that the 1996 Special Tax continues at $330,000 in revenue annually.

Figure 28: Recurring Revenue vs. Recurring Expense Without Measure F FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Actual
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Mid-Year
Recurring Revenue $4,165,763 $4,315,477 $4,381,577 $4,588,680 $4,598,000 Recurring Expense $4,391,976 $3,845,548 $4,282,138 $5,515,160 $6,242,720 Rev. Over (Under) Exp. ($226,213) $469,929 $99,439 ($926,480) ($1,644,720) This comparison clearly demonstrates the critical role Measure F has played in maintaining AFPD’s financial stability. Without it, the district would have faced significant financial challenges.

Fund Balance Summary
AFPD has demonstrated a commitment to prudent and conservative financial management, enabling it to retain and grow its ending fund balance over the five-year report period. This disciplined approach allows the district to transfer surplus funds, beyond annual operational costs, into reserves, ensuring the strategic financing of upcoming capital projects and significant expenditures.

Moreover, these practices ensure that AFPD consistently maintains a minimum fund balance exceeding 50% of its annual operating costs, as required by Board Policy 5.11, after accounting for interfund transfers.29
The next figure illustrates the ending general fund balance from FY 2020 through FY 2024. 29 Arcata Fire Protection District Board Policy 5.11.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 38 Figure 29: Ending Fund Balance (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year) In FY 2024, AFPD’s reserve balance is projected to reach $8.09 million, up from $3.02 million in FY 2020.30
Looking ahead, as AFPD faces growing needs for expansion, new equipment, and additional personnel, it will be crucial for AFPD to have a mechanism in place to build and sustain its reserves and fund balance. A key concern highlighted by this report is the potential for revenues to fall short of covering operational expenses alone, let alone nonrecurring expenses such as capital projects or additional debt service obligations. This highlights the importance of replacing Measure F and developing a long-term revenue strategy to ensure AFPD remains fiscally resilient.
30 AFPD Auditor’s Reports, FY 2020–FY 2023 & FY 2024 Mid-Year Budget. $18,610
$1,022,377
$2,255,969
$1,097,238
$698,280
$3,021,451
$4,043,828
$6,299,797
$7,397,035
$8,095,315
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024
Surplus/(Deficit) Ending Fund Balance

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 39 STAFFING & PERSONNEL
Employees are often the most valuable asset of emergency services organizations.

Effectively managing personnel to optimize efficiency, professionalism, and job satisfaction is both a science and an art. This challenge becomes even more critical when the organization depends on the dedication of a volunteer workforce. Volunteers are more likely to disengage or leave if they feel undervalued or derive insufficient personal satisfaction from their involvement. Cultivating a supportive and rewarding environment is essential for maintaining a committed and effective team.

Several national organizations play a crucial role in establishing standards to address staffing challenges in emergency services. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets critical guidelines, such as the Respiratory Protection Standard, to ensure workplace safety. Additionally, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) provides authoritative standards, including NFPA 1710 or 1720 (as applicable), which outline staffing requirements and deployment objectives. The Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) further enriches this framework by publishing benchmarks that recommend appropriate personnel levels for emergency scenes based on varying levels of risk.

It is very common for fire agencies to focus attention on operational staffing; however, achieving organizational success requires balancing operational resources and service levels with an appropriate allocation of administrative and support staff. Key administrative and logistical support roles are essential to ensuring the efficient functioning of a fire department.

Safety & Health Programs
Ensuring the health and safety of employees is a top priority for any business or government organization. In the fire service, proactive wellness programs play a vital role in promoting healthy lifestyles and preventing illness and injury. These programs often extend to mental health support, which is especially critical for emergency services personnel due to the unique challenges they face. The following figure highlights the key findings on health program effectiveness.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 40 Figure 30: Health Safety & Counseling Services
Standard Arcata Fire District
Medical Standards Established Yes
Medical Exam Frequency Every four years < 50 years
Every two years > 50 years
Safety Committee Established Yes
Critical Incident Stress Debriefing Yes
Employee Assistance Program Contracted through Halcyon
AFPD has an established Safety Committee comprising a cross-section of personnel from each rank who meet monthly to discuss safety issues and related policies and procedures.

The district also participates in the County’s Risk Management.

Medical Assessment Discussion
AFPD has established medical standards consistent with NFPA 1582: Standard on Comprehensive Occupational Medical Program for Fire Departments and require a comprehensive medical examination after being conditionally hired.

Confirming that firefighters are medically fit to meet the strenuous duties associated with emergency response and fireground tasks is paramount, regardless of age. In addition, state and federal law mandates respiratory medical assessment, clearance, and fit testing for anyone required to wear a respirator. CFR 1910.134(e)(1) requires that employees obtain a medical clearance from a physician or other licensed healthcare professional before they can wear a respirator (including N95, N100, P100, and HEPA respirators), and must be annually fit tested.

Administrative & Support Staffing
Providing the operational staff with the means and ability to respond to and mitigate emergencies safely, effectively, and efficiently is one of the primary responsibilities of administrative and support staff. Additional responsibilities of this group include planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, and evaluating the various programs utilized within AFPD. In many cases, the administrative and support staff handle various responsibilities, some of which do not fall under the previously mentioned responsibilities. Some of these ongoing responsibilities include records management, payroll, purchasing, travel/per diem, and training documentation requirements.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 41 The following figure illustrates the administrative and support staffing structure for AFPD.

Figure 31: AFPD Administrative & Support Staffing
Position Title FTEs Hours per Week
Fire Chief 1 40
Assistant Fire Chief 2 40
Officer Manager 1 40
Fire Marshal 1 18
Fire Inspectors 1 20
Fire Prevention Specialist/Public Information Officer 1 40 Total: 7
As with many fire service organizations, administrative and support staff typically serve multiple roles with varying job responsibilities. For AFPD, the administrative staff is an example. The office staff includes seven full-time equivalents (FTE). These positions handle department training, incident command, fire inspections, and fire investigations and coordinate public education and community engagement. Administrative and support staffing represents 27% of the total AFPD employees.

Operational Staffing
Operational staff serve as the public face of any fire service organization due to their more frequent interactions with the community. This group is integral to nearly every aspect of the organization’s operations. At AFPD, operational staff responsibilities include fire suppression, emergency medical response, technical rescue, fire investigations, public education, and pre-incident planning.

Several national organizations recommend standards to address staffing issues. The Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) CFR 1910.134, Section (g)(4) Respiratory Protection Standard, 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 Fire Departments and the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) publishes benchmarks on the number of personnel recommended on the emergency scene for various risk levels.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 42 The following figure illustrates the operational staffing structure for AFPD.

Figure 32: AFPD Operational Staffing
Position Title Number
of FTEs
Hours Worked
per Week
Work
Schedule
Captain 9 56 48/96
Engineers/Apparatus Operators 9 56 48/96
Total: 18
A three-platoon system working 24-hour shift rotations that yield an average 56-hour workweek accomplishes shift operations. The minimum staffing goal for AFPD is 6 personnel responding from three fire stations on seven apparatus for each 24-hour period. Four apparatuses are cross staffed with full-time staff. Volunteer staff the logistics unit located at the Mad River Station.

The following figure illustrates the current minimum staffing model for AFPD.

Figure 33: AFPD Current Staffing Model
Apparatus Minimum Staffing
Arcata Engine 8217 2 personnel
Mad River Engine 8218 2 personnel
McKinleyville Engine 8219 2 personnel
Total: 6 personnel
AP Triton calculated the theoretical total number of full-time employees required to meet the various average leave hours used by employees and compared the results to the current number of operations employees assigned to 24-hour staffed units.

The analysis compared the average available scheduled weekly work hours per employee, subtracted the average various leave types—based on 2022, and 2023 historical leave-use data—and calculated a leave relief factor. AP Triton calculates this analysis using only a two-year “lookback.” Trending over a longer period of time would provide better reliability.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 43 Figure 34: AFPD Theoretical Relief Factor Calculations Staffing Factor AFPD
Total Operations Assigned Personnel 18
Required Minimum Daily Staffing Positions 6
Theoretical Staffing Relief Factor per Position 1.30
Theoretical No. of Staff Needed to Cover Historical Leave Use 24.69 Total Personnel Overage/Deficit: 5.69
The above figure compares the theoretical number of employees needed with the current number of employees assigned to the operations work schedule. As stated, the Theoretical Relief Factor was multiplied by the minimum number of personnel needed to cover one 24- hour position seven days a week and then multiplied by the minimum number of positions required on a 24/7 basis. In theory, this would eliminate the need for overtime; however, it is impossible to predict some leave types (e.g., workers' compensation, long-term illness, etc.) that can have a significant impact, especially on an agency the size of AFPD.

Emergency Operations Staffing Discussion
The theoretical analysis does not necessarily account for an organization’s inherent flexibility and resources, which potentially can be leveraged to reduce overall workload and personnel costs. Nor does it consider the ongoing costs of providing the various benefits to full-time employees, which is approximately 40% of the total cost of salary and benefits in AFPD.

When analyzing the cost of adding full-time employees versus using overtime, full-time employee benefit expenses must be considered.

Responding to the appropriate units with sufficient responders is critical for all emergency incidents, but it is especially true for fire suppression operations. Staffing methodologies for fire suppression operations are typically derived from the national organizations. For example, OSHA safety regulations (CFR 1910.120) require personnel entering a building involved in a fire in two groups. Further, before personnel can enter a building, at least two additional Firefighters must be on-scene and assigned to conduct search and rescue if the initial crew becomes trapped. This is referred to as the “two-in, two-out rule.”

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 44 As previously discussed, AFPD has a minimum staffing requirement of six personnel on duty for each 24 hours. Several fire suppression apparatus types are housed at the three staffed AFPD fire stations, and cross-staffing is used to respond to emergencies such as wildland fires. The AFPD’s actual response to incidents and performance will be analyzed in a separate section of this report.

Industry standards guide the staffing level to meet service demand. 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 (2020 Edition) provides specific definitions and operational standards for AFPD. For a typical structure fire in a 2,000 ft² (186 m²), two-story single-family dwelling without a basement or exposures, the initial full alarm assignment should provide the following:
• Incident Command: Establish incident command outside the hazard area to oversee and coordinate the full alarm assignment, with a minimum of one individual dedicated to this role.
• Water Supply: Ensure an uninterrupted water supply capable of delivering a minimum of 400 gallons per minute (1520 L/min) for at least 30 minutes, maintained by a supply line operator.
• Water Flow Application: Achieve an effective water flow application rate of 300 gallons per minute (1140 L/min) using two handlines, each delivering at least 100 gallons per minute (380 L/min). Each handline must be operated by a minimum of two individuals to ensure safe and effective handling.
• Support Personnel: Provide one support person for each deployed attack and backup line. Support tasks include hydrant connection, hose line deployment, utility control, and forcible entry.
• Victim Search and Rescue: Deploy at least one victim search and rescue team, with each team consisting of a minimum of two individuals.
• Ladder and Ventilation Team: Assign at least one team of two individuals to raise ground ladders and perform ventilation operations.
• Initial Rapid Intervention Crew (IRIC): Establish an IRIC with a minimum of two trained and properly equipped individuals ready to respond to emergency situations.

AFPD does not currently meet the NFPA 1710 minimum standard. The NFPA 1710 minimum staffing standards are the goal for fire departments based on safety standards and fireground critical tasks but can be challenging to attain based on budgetary and other locally driven economic factors for communities.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 45 PLANNING FOR FIRE PROTECTION & EMS
The AFPD is committed to a comprehensive planning process that integrates critical components necessary for effective fire and emergency services within the community.

This process emphasizes continual assessment and evaluation, leveraging both internal and external data to anticipate and address the evolving needs of the community and the organization.

To achieve true effectiveness, emergency services agencies must consider future planning at five distinct levels. These levels are outlined in the following figure.

Figure 35: Planning for the Future
Planning Level Description

1. Tactical Planning
Development of specific strategies for
responding to potential emergency
incidents.

2. Operational Planning
Translates long-term goals into actionable
day-to-day operations and resource
management, bridging tactical and
strategic planning.

3. Emergency Management Planning
Identification and mitigation of potential
critical risks and threats to the community,
with a focus on preparedness, response, and
recovery.

4. Strategic Planning
Establishment of an organization’s mission,
vision, and values, along with prioritizing
near-term goals and objectives.

5. Master Planning
Long-term preparation to ensure the agency
remains effective as the operating
environment evolves over time.

Tactical planning within the AFPD involves immediate, short-term incident management strategies that are crucial during emergency responses.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 46 Operational planning bridges the gap between tactical and strategic planning, translating long-term goals into actionable day-to-day operations and resource management necessary to maintain the department's readiness and effectiveness. Such planning ensures that the AFPD is ready to handle emergencies and contributes to the community's safety and well-being.

AFPD’s planning efforts are also a significant component of addressing the future needs of the community and the department. These efforts include developing a Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis to ensure the community's needs are met efficiently and effectively.

Strategic planning, on the other hand, focuses on mid-term goals that align with the department's mission and vision. This type of planning involves updating the agency’s mission, vision, and core values, identifying important goals, and defining objectives and action steps needed to achieve these goals. The AFPD has a Strategic Plan that was developed in 2015 then updated in 2019. Strategic plans usually cover a three-to-five-year period. The 2019 update included an Organizational Playbook which outlines the AFPD guiding principles or philosophy.

Mission
We exist to protect the lives, environment and property of the communities we serve.

Vision
Fostering our rich tradition of excellence and growth in our communities and our organization, for the betterment of everyone.

Values
Every Effort. Every Hour. Every Call.

The AFPD's planning continuum includes specific projects such as fire station construction or replacing fire apparatus, which are considered long-range plans and are essential for the department's strategic alignment with the community's growth and needs. The AFPD’s commitment to long-term planning is also reflected in their interest in cooperative efforts and financial planning, which are crucial for sustaining operations and preparing for future growth and challenges.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 47 In conclusion, the AFPD’s planning processes reflect a well-rounded approach that incorporates tactical, strategic, and operational elements, along with long-range planning efforts. These components work in synergy to create a resilient and responsive fire department that can effectively serve its community now and in the future. The AFPD’s commitment to continuous improvement and community engagement is evident in its proactive planning and implementation of strategies that address both current and anticipated challenges.

In addition to these efforts, the AFPD should engage in master planning, which is a highlevel process that typically spans a timeframe of 10 to 15 years. This type of planning is critical for communities experiencing growth, as it helps forecast future population and service demands, and develops strategies to meet future needs.

While some planning elements are dated, the AFPD’s overall planning processes reflect a balanced integration of tactical, strategic, and operational elements, along with a clear vision for long-term initiatives. This multifaceted approach allows the AFPD to adapt to changing conditions, meet the current and future needs of the community, and maintain a high standard of fire and emergency services. The department’s dedication to continuous improvement and community involvement is a testament to its commitment to excellence and public safety.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 48 CAPITAL FACILITIES & EQUIPMENT
Apparatus and other vehicles, trained personnel, firefighting and emergency medical equipment, and fire stations are the essential capital resources necessary for a fire district to carry out its mission. The essential capital assets for emergency operations are facilities, apparatus, and other emergency response vehicles. This report section assesses AFPD’s fire stations, frontline apparatus, and ambulances.

Fire Station Features
Fire stations play an integral role in delivering emergency services for several reasons. To a large degree, a station’s location will dictate response times to emergencies. A poorly located station can mean the difference between confining a fire to a single room and losing the structure or survival from sudden cardiac arrest. Fire stations also need to be designed to adequately house equipment and apparatus and meet the needs of the organization and its personnel.

Fire station activities should be closely examined to ensure the structure is adequate in size and function. Examples of these functions can include the following:
• Kitchen facilities, appliances, and storage
• Residential living space and sleeping quarters for on-duty personnel (all genders) • Bathrooms and showers (all genders)
• Training, classroom, and library areas
• Firefighter fitness area
• The housing and cleaning of apparatus and equipment, including decontamination and disposal of biohazards
• Administrative and management offices, computer stations, and office facilities • Public meeting space
In gathering information from AFPD, AP Triton asked the district to rate the condition of its fire stations using the criteria from the next figure. The results will be seen in the figures that follow the criteria description.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 49 Figure 36: Criteria Utilized to Determine Fire Station Condition Excellent
Like new condition. No visible structural defects. The facility is clean and well-maintained. The interior layout is conducive to function with no unnecessary impediments to the apparatus bays or offices. No significant defect history. Building design and construction match the building’s purposes. Age is typically less than ten years.

Good
The exterior has a good appearance with minor or no defects. Clean lines, good workflow design, and only minor wear on the building interior.

Roof and apparatus apron are in good working order, absent any significant full-thickness cracks, crumbling of the apron surface, or visible roof patches or leaks. Building design and construction match the building’s purposes. Age is typically less than 20 years.

Fair
The building appears structurally sound with a weathered appearance and minor to moderate non-structural defects. The interior condition shows normal wear and tear but flows effectively to the apparatus bay or offices. Mechanical systems are in working order. Building design and construction may not match the building’s purposes well. Shows increasing age-related maintenance but with no critical defects. Age is typically 30 years or more.

Poor
The building appears cosmetically weathered and worn with potential structural defects, although not imminently dangerous or unsafe. Large, multiple full-thickness cracks and crumbling concrete on the apron may exist. The roof has evidence of leaking and multiple repairs. The interior is poorly maintained or showing signs of advanced deterioration with moderate to significant non-structural defects. Problematic age-related maintenance and major defects are evident. It may not be well-suited to its intended purpose. Age is typically greater than 40 years.

Arcata Fire Stations
The following section lists the features of each of the Arcata Fire Protection District’s three fire stations.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 50 Figure 37: McKinleyville Station (Headquarters)
Address/Physical Location: 2149 Central Ave, McKinleyville, CA 95519 General Description:

This station was built in 1960 and staffed that same
year. Additional property to the south was purchased
in the late 1990s and was used to complete the
expansion of the station and relocation of
headquarters. The station and headquarters are well
maintained. An exhaust extraction system is in place,
the apparatus bay also functions as a gym.

Structure
Date of Construction 1960
General Condition Excellent (remodeled in 2015)
Seismic Protection Apparatus bay only
Auxiliary Power Diesel Generator
ADA Compliant Yes
Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 3 Back-Ins 0 Total Bays: 3 Total Square Footage 8,600 square feet
Facilities Available
Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 4 Beds 4 Dorm Beds 0
Maximum Staffing Capability 4 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes (2)
Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms N Showers N Bedrooms N Exercise/Workout Facilities In apparatus bay
Kitchen Facilities Yes
Individual Lockers Assigned Yes
Training/Meeting Rooms Conference room on Headquarters side Washer/Dryer/Extractor Yes
Safety & Security
Station Sprinklered Yes
Smoke & CO Detection Yes
Decon & Biological Disposal No
Security System No
Apparatus Exhaust System Yes

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 51 Figure 38: Arcata Station
Address/Physical Location: 631 9th Street, Arcata, CA 95521 General Description:

The station had upgrades in 1956 (two-story portion
added), 1963 (apparatus bay expansion), and 1990
(seismic upgrade). In 1990, the station was staffed by
career firefighters for the first time. Again in 2015, the station received a complete remodel. The station has a
community room and space for the volunteers.

Structure
Date of Original Construction 1949
General Condition Excellent (remodeled in 2015)
Seismic Protection Apparatus bay only
Auxiliary Power Diesel generator
ADA Compliant Only public spaces on first floor
Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 3 Total Bays: 3 Total Square Footage 8,000
Facilities Available
Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 4 Beds 4 Dorm Beds 0
Maximum Staffing Capability 4 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes (multiple bathrooms
Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms N Showers N Bedrooms N Exercise/Workout Facilities In apparatus bays
Kitchen Facilities Yes
Individual Lockers Assigned Yes
Training/Meeting Rooms Yes
Washer/Dryer/Extractor Yes
Safety & Security
Station Sprinklered Yes
Smoke & CO Detection Yes
Decon & Biological Disposal No
Security System No
Apparatus Exhaust System Yes

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 52 Figure 39: Mad River Station
Address/Physical Location: 3235 Janes Rd, Arcata, CA 95521 General Description:

This station was constructed in 1975. It is the central station with a 2004 detached garage capable of
storing a ladder truck and some props for training.

Several cosmetic interior upgrades have taken
place; however, the living space needs
improvement. There is one bathroom and a
dormitory with partition walls.

Structure
Date of Construction 1975
General Condition Fair
Seismic Protection No
Auxiliary Power Diesel generator
ADA Compliant No
Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 3 Total Bays: 3 Total Square Footage 3,600 included plus a 1,600 detached garage Facilities Available
Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 2.5 Beds 3 Dorm Beds 0
Maximum Staffing Capability 3 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes
Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms N Showers N Bedrooms N Exercise/Workout Facilities In apparatus bay
Kitchen Facilities Yes
Individual Lockers Assigned Yes
Training/Meeting Rooms No
Washer/Dryer/Extractor Washer/dryer (household type only) Safety & Security
Station Sprinklered Yes
Smoke & CO Detection Yes
Decon & Biological Disposal No
Security System No
Apparatus Exhaust System Yes

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 53 Summary of the Fire Station Features
The following figure summarizes some of the primary features of the three Arcata Fire Protection District fire stations.

Figure 40: Summary of the AFPD Fire Station Features
Station Square
Footage
Apparatus
Bays
Maximum
Staffing
General
Condition
Station
Age
McKinleyville 8,600 3 4 Excellent 64 years*
Arcata 8,000 3 4 Excellent 75 years*
Mad River 5,200** 3 3 Fair 49 years
Totals: 21,800 9 11
*Remodeled in 2015. **Includes an additional 1,600 square feet in a detached garage.

As shown in the preceding figure, two of the original fire stations were remodeled in 2015 and are in “Excellent” condition.

Fire Stations Discussion
McKinleyville (Headquarters) Station
The McKinleyville Station was built in 1960 and staffed that same year. Additional property to the south was purchased in the late 1990s and was used to complete the expansion of the station and relocation of the Headquarters, which was completed in 2017. The station and headquarters are well-maintained. While an exhaust extraction system is in place, the apparatus bay also functions as a gym.

Arcata Station
The Arcata Station was built in 1949. The building has upgrades in 1956 (two-story portion added), 1963 (apparatus bay expansion), and 1990 (seismic upgrade). In 1990, the station was staffed by career firefighters for the first time. Again in 2015, the station received a complete remodel. The station has a community room and space for the Arcata Volunteer Firefighter Association (AVFA). During the study period, the AFPD purchased the fire station from the AVFA, which had owned the building.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 54 Mad River Station
The Mad River Station was constructed in 1975. Mad River Station is the central station for the Fire District with a 2004 detached garage capable of storing a ladder truck and some props for training. Over the years, several cosmetic interior upgrades have taken place; however, the fire station's living space needs improvement. There is a single bathroom and a dormitory with partition walls. The apparatus bay height and depth are limiting factors as well.

Apparatus & Vehicles Fleet Inventory
Fire apparatus and other emergency response vehicles must be sufficiently reliable to transport firefighters and equipment rapidly and safely to an incident scene. In addition, such vehicles must be properly equipped and function appropriately to ensure that the delivery of emergency services is not compromised.

As a part of this study, AP Triton requested that the Arcata Fire Protection District provide a complete inventory of its fleet (suppression apparatus, command units, support vehicles, specialty units, etc.). For each vehicle listed, AFPD was asked to rate its condition utilizing criteria described in the next figure.

Figure 41: Criteria Used to Determine Apparatus & Vehicle Condition Components Points Assignment Criteria
Age: One point for every year of chronological age, based on the date the unit was originally placed into service.

Miles/Hours: One point for every 10,000 miles or 1,000 hours.

Service: 1, 3, or 5 points are assigned based on the service type received (e.g., a pumper would be given a 5 since it is classified as severe duty).

Condition:

This category considers body condition, rust, interior condition, accident history, anticipated repairs, etc. The better the condition, the lower the assignment of points.

Reliability:

Points are assigned as 1, 3, or 5, depending on the frequency a vehicle is in for repair (e.g., a 5 would be assigned to a vehicle in the shop 2 or more times per month on average, while a 1 would be assigned if in the shop on average once every 3 months or less.

Point Ranges Condition Rating Condition Description
Under 18 points Condition I Excellent
18–22 points Condition II Good
23–27 points Condition III Fair (consider replacement)
28 points or higher Condition IV Poor (immediate replacement)

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 55 The next figure lists the inventory of the Arcata Fire Protection District’s current frontline apparatus and other vehicles.

Figure 42: AFPD Fleet Inventory (2024)
Unit Type Manufacturer Year Condition Features
Engines & Other Apparatus
Engine 8217 Type 1 Ferrara 2011 Poor 1500 gpm/750 gal.

Engine 8218 Type 1 Ferrara 2007 Poor 1500 gpm/750 gal.

Engine 8219 Type 1 Pierce 2022 Excellent 1500 gpm/750 gal.

Engine 8239 Type 3 West-Mark 2004 Poor 500 gpm/500 gal.

Command/Utility Vehicles
Chief 8200 Command Chevrolet 2016 Excellent Chief
Chief 8201 Command Chevrolet 2020 Excellent Chief
Utility 8206 Staff Hyundai 2019 Excellent Fire Marshal
Utility 8208 Staff Chevrolet 2015 Fair Prevention Specialist Utility 8295 Support Ford 2019 Excellent
The fire district also maintains three units in reserve status: a 2011 Ferrara engine, a 2009 Ford utility vehicle in “Poor” conditions, and a 2010 Ford utility vehicle in “Fair” condition.

Apparatus Maintenance & Replacement Planning
No piece of mechanical equipment or vehicle is built to last forever. As apparatus and vehicles age, they require more frequent and complex repairs, parts may become harder to source, and downtime for maintenance increases. In the context of fire protection, EMS, and other emergency services, minimizing downtime is critical, making it one of the primary drivers for apparatus replacement.

Due to the significant expense of fire apparatus and medic units (ambulances), many communities adopt formal replacement plans. These plans are typically based on the accepted practice of establishing a life cycle for each type of apparatus, which includes an anticipated replacement timeline.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 56 However, to achieve greater cost-effectiveness, it may be beneficial to use a dual approach. While life cycles are essential for long-term planning and funding, the actual replacement date can be determined through a maintenance and performance review.

This method allows departments to extend the service life of apparatus when performance remains reliable, balancing fiscal responsibility with operational readiness.

Economic Theory of Apparatus Replacement
Some fire districts apply the Economic Theory of Vehicle Replacement as a conceptual model to guide apparatus replacement decisions. According to this theory, as a vehicle ages, the cost of capital (initial investment) decreases while operating costs, such as maintenance and repairs, increase. The combined capital and operating costs produce a total cost curve, which identifies the optimal time for vehicle replacement.

The theory suggests that the ideal replacement point occurs when operating costs begin to exceed capital costs. This is often not a precise point but rather a range within which replacement can yield the greatest savings for the fire district.

Shortening the replacement cycle to fall within this optimal range allows the district to maximize cost savings while maintaining operational efficiency. However, failing to replace equipment in a timely manner can lead to unintended consequences, such as:
• Shifting Costs: Deferring replacements transfers expenses from the capital budget to the operating budget, increasing maintenance and repair expenditures. • Rising Fleet Costs: Prolonged deferrals can escalate overall fleet costs due to compounding maintenance needs and reduced reliability.

Fire officials aiming to balance budgets by delaying apparatus replacement must weigh these potential outcomes carefully to avoid long-term financial and operational inefficiencies.

The following figure illustrates the Economic Theory of Vehicle Replacement, highlighting the relationship between capital costs, operating costs, and the optimal replacement age.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 57 Figure 43: Economic Theory of Vehicle Replacement
Deferring apparatus and vehicle replacement purchases, while temporarily reducing current costs, inevitably leads to increased future replacement spending. Moreover, such deferrals can negatively affect operational capabilities, potentially compromising the safe and efficient use of apparatus. This approach may create financial and operational challenges that outweigh any short-term budgetary relief.

Future Apparatus Serviceability
An important consideration for fire departments is the cost associated with the future replacement of major equipment. Apparatus service life can readily be predicted based on factors including vehicle type, call volume, age, and maintenance considerations.

NFPA 1910: Standard for Inspection, Maintenance, Refurbishment, Testing, and Retirement of In-Service Emergency Vehicles and Marine Firefighting Vessels recommends that fire apparatus 15 years of age or older be placed into reserve status and that apparatus 25 years or older be replaced. This is a general guideline, and the standard recommends using the following objective criteria in evaluating fire apparatus lifespan:
• Vehicle road mileage.
• Engine operating hours.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 58 • Quality of preventative maintenance program and replacement parts availability. • Quality of the driver-training program.
• Whether the fire apparatus was used within its design parameters. • Whether the fire apparatus was manufactured on a custom or commercial chassis. • Quality of workmanship by the original manufacturer.
• Quality of the components used in the manufacturing process.

It is important to recognize that age alone does not determine the need for vehicle serviceability or replacement. Mileage and engine hours are also critical factors. For instance, an engine with high mileage and extensive pump hours may require replacement sooner than an older apparatus with minimal use.

AFPD provides minor maintenance with in-house staff, while other maintenance is outsourced. Mechanics are not qualified as Emergency Vehicle Technicians (EVT) as recommended by NFPA 1910. The fire district conducts regular preventative maintenance, keeps maintenance records, and performs annual pump tests as recommended in NFPA Standard 1910.

Other Capital Equipment
Extrication & Other Equipment
The fire district maintains a Holmatro® gas-powered Combi Tools extrication system and a Holmatro® battery-powered system that includes cutter, spreader, and ram.

Medical Equipment
AFPD maintains 13 Physio-Control® Automated External Defibrillators (AED) and three LUCAS® Chest Compression systems.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 59 COMMUNICATIONS & DISPATCH
Dispatch services for the AFPD are provided by CAL FIRE under the terms of the Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement. In addition to the AFPD, the CAL FIRE HumboldtDel Norte Emergency Command Center (ECC or “Fortuna ECC”) located in Fortuna provides secondary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) dispatch services for the CAL FIRE Humboldt-Del Norte Unit (HUU), 36 volunteer fire departments, Arcata Fire Protection District, City Ambulance, Arcata Ambulance, and Hoopa Ambulance. The CAL FIRE ECC dispatches all fires, structure fires, medicals, and traffic accidents in Humboldt County, except for Humboldt Bay Fire and Fortuna Fire District. CAL FIRE ECC is also the central ordering point for medical helicopter responses in Humboldt and Del Norte Counties. The ECC is the fire and rescue ordering point for the counties of Humboldt and Del Norte Fire & Rescue operational areas.

As the primary hub for emergency communication, the ECC is responsible for fielding 911 calls and ensuring the rapid deployment of fire and rescue resources to incidents within the region. This includes the management of resources for a vast area that spans approximately 180 miles along the California coastline and 50 miles inland, covering both state responsibility lands and direct protection areas. The ECC's efficient and effective service is vital for the safety and well-being of the communities it serves, including the AFPD, which relies on the ECC for timely and coordinated response to fire emergencies.

The strategic planning and resource management provided by the ECC are essential; the ECC also plays a pivotal role during active fire incidents, coordinating resources and personnel to effectively combat fires and minimize damage.

Staffing
Unlike many other communications centers, CAL FIRE’s Fortuna ECC is directly linked to field operations, with a Fire Captain (Floor Captain) serving as the initial Incident Commander (IC) until the arrival of the first engine and assumption of command by the officer on scene. A Battalion Chief supervises five Fire Captains and five Communication Operators, and a Data Specialist. During the peak-fire season, the center may add additional communications personnel.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 60 Emergency Command Centers are integral components of CAL FIRE’s three-level command and control structure (Department, Region, and Unit) essential for the day-today operations of the department (CAL FIRE). Command centers receive reports of emergencies from a variety of sources, and are responsible for the allocation of resources, coordination of interagency incident activities, and support of incidents as necessary. This becomes important when considering the area comprising the CAL FIRE Humboldt-Del Norte Unit, which encompasses six counties and nearly 9,000 square miles. Dispatching resources for the AFPD represents only a small portion of the total workload of the center. 911 Call Processing
When a 911 call is placed in the AFPD, the call is immediately routed to the primary public safety answering points (PSAP) or the California Highway Patrol in Eureka. The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) and Arcata Police Department (APD) serve as the local Primary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for the AFPD communities. HCSO and APD do not provide fire and EMS dispatch services but instead may transfer callers to the appropriate local agency dispatch center. The California Highway Patrol receives 911 calls from cell phones and transfers calls. Fire, rescue and emergency medical incidents within the AFPD are then transferred to the Fortuna ECC.

Overall, the CAL FIRE Fortuna ECC processed calls at approximately 6 minutes, 36 seconds or faster, 90% of the time. It is important to note that the ECC’s call processing follows the primary PSAP (law enforcement) call processing so overall call processing is greater than 6 minutes, 36 seconds.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 61 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is an integrated emergency care system that has evolved steadily over the past several decades. When an individual needs medical help, the process typically begins with the dispatch center. The dispatch center coordinates with first responders, who use prehospital medical techniques to stabilize and start treatment.

Finally, the patient is delivered to emergency room doctors who continue the stabilization and treatments that began in the field and transfer them to definitive care.

Immediate prehospital care in a medical emergency can make a difference in a patient’s ability to continue a productive life. Lifesaving interventions, such as resuscitation, defibrillation, and medications, must be applied rapidly to be successful. In addition, understanding the most common incident types can help an agency determine where to place its limited resources.

The following figure lists California's top five causes of death.

Figure 44: Leading Causes of Death in California (2019)31 Condition CA Deaths CA Rate*

1. Heart Disease 399,891 10.05

2. Cancer 359,502 9.04

3. Alzheimer’s Disease 112,701 2.83

4. Accidents 111,165 2.80

5. Stroke 107,553 2.70
*Crude death rate calculation, not adjusted for age
The AFPD provides emergency medical services as part of its mission to safeguard the community. The department staffs three basic life support (BLS or EMT) fire engines across its three fire stations. With a focus on rapid response and high-quality medical care, the AFPD's emergency medical services are a critical component of their public safety efforts.

The district's personnel are trained to deliver basic life support in emergencies, ensuring that residents and visitors receive prompt and efficient medical attention in times of need. 31 data.chhs.ca.gov/dataset/statewide-death-profiles.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 62 Through its Logistics Unit and the Arcata Volunteer Firefighters’ Association (AVFA), the AFPD offers CPR, AED, and First-Aid classes to the public, empowering community members with the skills to assist in a medical emergency before professional help arrives. The district's commitment to community education and preparedness is a testament to its dedication to the well-being of the people it serves.

Since 1980, the number of residential and commercial structure fires in the United States has reduced by 52%. Conversely, the demand for EMS has gradually increased nationwide.

Along those lines, data shows that 57% of emergency response calls in AFPD are EMSrelated. The AFPD responded to over 7,100 EMS calls during the study period.

Emergency medical services in Humboldt County are a critical component of the healthcare infrastructure, providing rapid, lifesaving care to residents and visitors alike. The county's emergency services are designed to respond swiftly to medical crises, ensuring that those in need receive immediate attention. Facilities like Providence St. Joseph Hospital Eureka, which operates as a Level III trauma center and has cardiac catheterization capabilities, offer comprehensive emergency care and are equipped to handle a wide range of medical emergencies in addition to Mad River Hospital and Redwood Memorial.

Medical Control & Oversight
The AFPD provides EMS system oversight for its medical services and personnel, the North Coast Medical Services Agency provides regional management and regulation, and the California Emergency Medical Services Authority provides state oversight and regulation.

North Coast EMS has served as the Local Emergency Medical Service Agency (LEMSA) since 1974 and the designated EMS agency for the counties of Del Norte, Humboldt, and Lake. The EMS Authority has determined that the North Coast EMS Plan meets all EMS system components identified in Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 1797.103 and approved it for implementation pursuant to HSC § 1797.105(b).

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 63 AFPD has been providing emergency medical services for decades. However, it does not retain Health and Safety Code—HSC § 1797.201 rights, meaning Humboldt County through North Coast EMS has created the exclusive operating area (EOA) and awards the 911- ambulance provider contract without opportunity for local control. Moreover, North Coast EMS maintains administrative oversight and guidance for pre-hospital EMS. In this case, it enters into a written exclusive operating agreement for services with Arcata Mad River Ambulance. Arcata Mad River Ambulance, staffed with one Paramedic and one Basic Emergency Medical Technician, has exclusive ambulance transport in a single Exclusive Operating Area (EOA).

AFPD does not employ or contract for a Medical Director. Most BLS fire agencies do not employ a Medical Director. Advanced Life Support fire and rescue agencies must utilize a Medical Director to function as a prescribing physician and many times this physician assists in localized medical direction. The AFPD relies on the North Coast EMS Medical Director for direction.

Quality Management Mechanisms
A quality improvement/quality assurance (QI/QA) plan is a comprehensive approach to improving and maintaining the quality of an organization's products, services, or processes.

The plan outlines the methods and procedures for measuring, evaluating, and improving quality and consistently meeting quality standards. The QI/QA plan aims to improve efficiency, customer satisfaction, and overall performance while reducing errors and costs.

It may include performance metrics, data collection and analysis, process improvement initiatives, employee training, and regular management review. The QI/QA plan is an essential part of a quality management system, and it helps organizations meet regulatory requirements and industry standards.

A quality QI/QA plan should include the following elements:
• Clearly defined goals and objectives.
• A clear definition of the areas and processes to be covered. • Performance measures.
• Data collection.
• Continuous improvement process.
• Communication plan.
• Training plan to support QI/QA.
• Management review of the QI/QA plan to ensure it remains relevant.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 64 System Integrity Regarding Required Credentialing
As a minimum job requirement, AFPD mandates that candidates possess a current valid California Driver’s License, a high school diploma, EMT certification, and CPR certification.

Regardless of rank, every Firefighter must hold and maintain at least an EMT license. The department employs all EMTs and no Paramedics.

At a minimum, EMTs must earn 24 hours of Continuing Education (CE) every two years specific to their skill set and established scope of practice, including the expanded scope of practice allowable in each county. AFPD achieves this by offering in-house training scheduled, facilitated, or taught by subject matter experts within the organization and through North Coast Emergency Medical Services Agency (EMSA). AFPD manages and tracks required training hours using the online Vector Solutions® (formerly TargetSolutions® suite. This allows an agency to set up a “credentialing” system to track and manage required training hours.

Adequacy of Records Management System and Data Collection The AFPD was asked for a more detailed breakdown of EMS calls; however, the data was unavailable or too difficult to obtain. While data is necessary for compliance and reporting, with accurate and comprehensive data, fire departments can make informed decisions about resource allocation, training needs, and operational improvements. This leads to better preparedness and response strategies. Interested fire departments and public health agencies can use detailed medical data to develop community health programs, such as vaccination drives or health screenings, targeting areas with higher medical need. Overall, robust data collection ultimately leads to improved safety and service for the community.

Correct documentation of events is critical, especially for those requesting them. In addition, a reliable and accurate performance analysis cannot occur without quality control. The AFPD should monitor incident types, especially emergency medical services, with more detail to correlate required changes or improvements. Data is necessary for compliance and reporting. With accurate and comprehensive data, fire departments can make informed decisions about resource allocation, training needs, and operational improvements. This leads to better preparedness and response strategies. Detailed medical data can be used to develop community health programs, such as vaccination drives or health screenings, targeting areas with higher medical needs. Overall, robust data collection ultimately leads to improved safety and service for the community.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 65 PREVENTION SERVICES & PUBLIC EDUCATION
The life safety services and public education programs within a fire district should be the foundation of all prevention activities. These programs prevent fires, injuries, loss of life for civilians and firefighters, environmental harm, and property damage. In addition, a fire district's proactive involvement in delivering these programs can provide a high degree of return on investment of funding.

The following seven fundamental components can be utilized to create effective life safety services and public education programs.
• Code enforcement.
• General inspections.
• New construction inspections.
• Fire and Life-Safety public education.
• Fire investigations.
• Pre-incident planning.
• Data collection and statistical analysis.

Life Safety Program
Code Enforcement & General Inspection Program
The most efficient and effective way to combat fires is to prevent them from occurring.

Based on locally identified risks and relevant codes and ordinances, a comprehensive life safety program reduces the loss of life, property and the personal and community-wide disruption accompanying a catastrophic fire event.

AFPD has adopted several national, state, and local codes and ordinances as a component of its code enforcement and general inspection program. This includes the 2021 International Fire Code (IFC) edition with the California state and local amendments, known as the 2022 California Fire Code. Additionally, the AFPD reviews and approves local ordinances that include Knox Boxes® and 6” addressing requirements.

The district’s Fire Marshal manages the AFPD general inspection program. AFPD completes 100% of the state-mandated inspections each year, and all other occupancies are conducted every two years, with 50% completed one year and the additional 50% the following year.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 66 The fire prevention staff completes the more complicated inspections, and operations crews complete the other occupancies. There are no fees associated with an initial inspection or first follow-up inspection. All inspection records are stored electronically utilizing the ImageTrend software system.

AFPD also has vegetation management enforcement that is only conducted when a citizen complaint is received. It is also being completed during the plan review process for new residences and subdivisions. This program is vital to managing wildland fire risk. The topography, climate (including extreme heat, drought and water shortage, high winds, and tornadoes), and vegetation throughout the AFPD are conducive to the spread of wildfires. Risk areas contain extensive grasslands and oak woodlands in rolling terrain. Some of this vegetation is an invasive species, which chokes out native flora. In times of drought, the invasive species tend to increase. These invasive species can also serve as ladder fuels during periods of wildfire.

New Construction Inspection
AFPD is involved in the early stages of new construction throughout the district. The new construction inspection includes reviewing site, building, and fire protection plans. The intent is to ensure fire safety features are included in the design of the building and construction sites. Specific features reviewed include fire access roads, fire hydrant placement, fire sprinklers, smoke alarms, fire alarm systems, egress systems, and other special extinguishing systems. A third-party contractor completes some commercial plan reviews, fire suppression systems, and fire alarm plan reviews, with the cost being the applicant’s responsibility. All other reviews are conducted by the Prevention staff, which consists of the Fire Marshal and an Administrative Assistant.

In addition, AFPD utilizes a KNOX® Rapid Access System for commercial occupancies.

Detailed information for business owners and occupants on the new construction inspection program, including plan reviews, planning, permits, and acceptance tests, can be found on the district’s website.

Public Education
Fire and life safety public education aim to minimize the number of emergencies by training citizens in the community to take appropriate action should an incident occur. A comprehensive fire and life safety public education provides the best chance to minimize the effects of fire, injury, and illness on the community.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 67 Additionally, public education can directly affect the overall safety of an organization’s firefighters. AFPD utilizes the Fire Marshal, the Prevention Administrative Assistant, and duty crews for its public education and information activities.

The 2019 NFPA Standard on Organization and Deployment of Fire Prevention Inspection and Code Enforcement, Plan Review, Investigation, and Public Education Operations specifically identifies public education programs. Each program is based on the agency’s community risk assessment, targets specific ages, and includes directions to provide information to each program’s caregivers or adult supervisors.

Figure 45: NFPA Recommended Programs
Program AFPD
Pre-K–6th grade School Education Yes
Middle School – High School Education Yes
Independent Senior Adult Education No
Adult and Community-Wide Education No
Workplace Education Yes
Youth Fire Setter Education No
Home Safety Education Yes
Wildfire Safety Education Yes
In addition, various community programs are offered, with the following list providing examples.
• Calling 911.
• Smoke Alarm program.
• Carbon monoxide program.
• Fire extinguisher use.
• Elder care and safety.

As with most public education programs, the COVID-19 pandemic has altered many community interactions necessary to ensure a robust public education program.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 68 Fire Investigation
According to NFPA 921, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, there are four determinations when investigating a fire’s cause: accidental, natural, incendiary, and undetermined. In addition, the National Fire Incident Reporting System requires documenting the types of ignitions for all fires, which is necessary for fire investigations.

Accurately determining the cause of fires often provides clues to prevent future incidents.

For example, identifying fires intentionally set (incendiary) and identifying or prosecuting the responsible parties can prevent additional fires. If the cause of a fire is natural or accidental, it is also of great value to know and understand its origin. This critical information can be used to direct fire prevention and public education efforts to reduce or prevent future events.

AFPD coordinates with local law enforcement agencies as appropriate, with evidence collection and scene photography handled internally by law enforcement. All arson and juvenile investigations are turned over to law enforcement; depending on the area of jurisdiction, these can be turned over to the Arcata Police, Humboldt County Sheriffs, University PD, and California State Highway Patrol.

Pre-Incident Planning
Pre-incident planning provides firefighters with information on specific structures and processes. It is a tool for firefighters to engage in strategic and tactical tabletop discussions before an incident occurs. Comprehensive pre-incident planning involves evaluating protection systems, building construction, contents, and operating procedures that may influence emergency operations.

Retrieving up-to-date pre-incident plans during an operation is essential to assist on-scene firefighters when making decisions during the incident. Strategies and tactics can be developed based on potential problems during an event identified during the pre-incident planning process. Other items to consider may include the location of the closest water sources and mutual aid resources.

AFPD operations personnel previously created pre-incident plans for target hazards throughout the district. However, this process is currently not being completed for new buildings or updates. This information includes critical building features, access points, fire protection systems, and special hazards and is entered into an electronic database for quick retrieval via mobile data computers in each apparatus.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 69 Community Risk Reduction
The following is part of an overall Community Risk Reduction program (CRR): “The identification and prioritization of risks followed by the integrated application of resources to improve public safety and reduce increasing call volumes.”32 The goal is to incorporate emergency operations with prevention efforts at the fire station level. The station-level approach is preferred because risks vary from one station to another and even within a station’s response area. CRR examines problems and develops prevention or mitigation strategies to reduce hazards.

Data collected for this community risk assessment, standards of coverage analysis, and continued analysis in the future creates an opportunity to determine if specific hazards are increasing or decreasing based on incident response. Additionally, risks may shift as new developments or demographic changes occur in the overall service area, impacting AFPD.

Preparing a CRR plan should align with the department’s mission and strategic plan.

Creating a plan at the station level allows personnel to engage in the community they serve. It empowers staff to interact, learn more about their community, and take ownership of the program. Station personnel will begin to understand the importance of collecting accurate data to support their plan, developing strategies using partnerships, gaining their input, soliciting feedback from the community, and deciding which risks to prioritize.

The following figure is one basic methodology offered by Vision 20/20 to identify and analyze risks within a community. In addition, Vision 20/20 includes a coalition of national organizations and experts that exemplify how collaboration, communication, and commitment to data-based solutions can save lives and properties. 32 Vision 20/20, Community Risk Assessment guide.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 70 Figure 46: The Community Risk Assessment Process
Identify Risks
The initial component of a CRR plan is to identify the risks in the community. Intuitively, firefighters know where the most significant risks are in their first-in-response area. Reviewing fire incident data at the station level allows AFPD to deliver prevention and mitigation strategies to the community. Other data sources are available from local government, a chamber of commerce, school systems, public health, and geographical information systems (GIS). Each of these sources can potentially provide additional data to identify risks.

Community partners can play an essential role in risk reduction. As the identification of risks begins, AFPD must determine potential community partners. These other groups in the community may have programs similar to what AFPD may offer, and understanding their mission may prevent duplication of efforts.

Data from this report provides demographic information for at-risk populations. What must be understood is that a CRR plan looks at all risks, not just fires. The fire district responds to many emergencies, including EMS, fire alarm activations, automobile crashes, technical rescue, and hazardous materials. Each of these incident types presents a risk to the community.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 71 Prioritize Risks
After identifying the risks, AFPD must prioritize what risks should receive prevention, mitigation, or operational efforts. This can be a difficult task when AFPD has identified many risks. Using data from the risk analysis process can assist AFPD in deciding the top risks. It should be remembered that when developing a program to reduce risks, several factors should be reviewed, including the probability of it occurring, the consequence to the community, and the impact on the organization.

The staff’s enthusiasm is essential since it would be considered their program, not something that is assigned to them by organizational leadership. This creates ownership by the individual companies.

Another essential component of risk prioritization is soliciting input from personnel in the department (firefighters, company officers, inspectors) and other community partners.

These groups understand the problems well and can provide valuable information to decide what risks to prevent or mitigate first. Remember, risks vary in AFPD’s response area and can change from one station to another.

Develop Strategies & Tactics to Mitigate Risks
Although AFPD provides risk reduction, it should begin focusing on a coordinated effort throughout the entire organization. When developing their strategies, the "Five E's" can be used to develop risk reduction programs, as listed below. • Education—Will education help the public: who, where, when? • Engineering—What engineering or technology is available to help? • Enforcement—Is additional or more substantial enforcement needed? • Economic Incentives—Could incentives increase compliance? • Emergency Response—Would changes in response make a difference? More than one of the “Five E’s” could be used to develop prevention, mitigation strategies, or operational changes for many risks. Examples of potential programs may include drowning prevention, pedestrian injuries or deaths, or bike helmet safety.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 72 When developing a CRR plan, AFPD must determine what strategies have already been implemented in the community to prevent duplication. Outside resources may be available through partnerships with community organizations such as law enforcement, nonprofit organizations, health departments, EMS providers, religious groups, and local businesses. These groups may provide staff with a different perspective and offer additional funding and resources to mitigate limitations within the fire department.

As AFPD begins finalizing its risk reduction programs, the department or individual fire stations should consider the pros and cons of each strategy. They should consider:
• Financial ability.
• Political influences.
• Logistical concerns.
• Organizational Vision and Priorities.
• Culture of the organization.

Preparing the CRR Plan
A CRR plan can be in-depth or a simple document that provides a road map to prevent or mitigate the risk. A complex plan may be short- or long-term (three to five years) and use GIS mapping, while another may use basic data from incident reports.

The plan allows personnel to follow a systematic process to develop a program for the community that aligns with the organization’s vision and goals. It empowers staff and engages them at the station level, ultimately allowing them to focus their efforts.

The plan identifies specific action items that reduce risks and integrates prevention and mitigation strategies. It provides information on who participates in the plan and their roles and responsibilities for accountability. A CRR plan should include the following, but the depth of the information may vary based on the program. • Outline the vision, mission, values, and priorities.
• Describe the community and service area.
• Identify and prioritize the risks.
• Identify prevention and mitigation strategies.
• Provide a basic implementation plan for the strategies. • Identify measures for monitoring and evaluation.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 73 Implementing a CRR Plan
Implementation of a CRR plan may require assistance from internal and external partners.

Plan implementation typically consists of the following steps. • Identify and allocate the resources needed for the plan. • Prepare a timeline for implementation.
• Assign responsibilities.
• Communicate the goals and expectations of each person involved with the plan. • Monitor the progress of the plan and program.
• Make modifications when necessary.

Every organization’s CRR plan looks different but is designed to meet its goals and objectives. It is important to realize that a plan may use partnerships with outside agencies to develop it with internal resources or a combination of both.

Monitoring & Evaluation
The objective of monitoring and evaluating a CRR plan allows AFPD to make adjustments if it is not working. The adjustments could be simple or may require significant changes. As with any program offered by AFPD, the monitoring can determine if the plan accomplishes its intended desires. In other circumstances, it provides information on unexpected benefits and may uncover problems that need adjusting.

A significant component of this final part of a CRR plan is developing process or outcome performance measures to determine whether the program works correctly. Typically, formative measures are not part of a station-based CRR plan since they involve research and more detailed analysis. Vision 20/20 has created a guide to help develop outcome performance measures and explain why they are essential.

Many fire departments use process and impact evaluations for monthly or annual reports.

Process evaluations, called output measures, quantify what an organization does daily.

These evaluations measure the number of activities we complete (i.e., incidents, inspections, station tours).

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 74 Impact evaluations help the organization measure programs to determine if they change behavior or knowledge (fall hazards for seniors). Reasons for developing outcome measures include the following:33
• Identify effective practices.
• Measure program effectiveness
• Identify any practices that need to be improved.
• Build transparency and understanding for the program.

Developing a CRR plan requires AFPD to consider all risks, not just fires. Like other fire departments in the United States, most incidents are not fire-related and involve other types of emergencies.

Creating a CRR plan that reviews all the risks provides an enhanced level of community service and engagement. It is recommended that AFPD create station-based CRR plans for each station response area, allowing for ownership at the company level for the program(s) they develop.

Program Review
A community risk reduction plan must have specific goals and objectives to remain effective, including education, enforcement, engineering, economic incentives, and emergency response. Periodic reviews describe the performance and how programs address a community’s risk. The review process includes the three key aspects of data collection, outcome definitions, and program analysis. A lack of current and effective reviews turns a well-meaning plan into a less relevant document. AFPD does not currently review its programs.

Statistical Collection & Analysis
A records management system is essential for any fire and EMS organization. As noted by the U.S. Fire Administration, organizations have a legal requirement to document fire and EMS incidents, as insurance companies, victims, regulatory agencies, and others may require this information regarding the facts surrounding an incident. 33 Vision 20/20, Outcome: A Guide for Measuring Success.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 75 AFPD currently utilizes Emergency Reporting (ER) to document its NFIRS-compliant reports.

The following information is collected in all NFIRS reports: fire incidents by cause/location, time-of-day and day-of-week, alarm method, dispatch times, and arrival times.

Outcomes
Understanding outcomes of risk prevention tasks such as education and enforcement can be complex. In most cases, it requires inferring how a program affects the total number and severity of incidents by assessing those that did not occur. However, defining expected outcomes is essential to judge the program’s effectiveness fairly. Identifying atrisk populations and analyzing the number of incidents an agency responds to within that population before program implementation and after meeting specific benchmarks may help guide the program analysis.

The Vision 20/20’s Outcomes: A Guide for Measuring Success provides examples of identified risks and describes strategies to cope with those risks. Currently, the AFPD outcomes are not well-established or nonexistent.

Analysis
After the outcome identification and the data collection, the final step is to analyze the information periodically to determine program effectiveness. Typically, this analysis will evaluate historical loss or injury types against current loss trends across each program. A loss reduction may indicate the program is having an effect, while no changes or increases may require more research to understand the root cause of the apparent lack of progress.

For example, an agency has reviewed incident information and has determined a potential problem with smoker-initiated fires, and then the agency introduces a program to reduce these fires. For analysis, the first step would be to generate a list of fires caused by smokers. Then, it would generate a new list after program completion to compare preprogram and post-program statistics to evaluate the strategy’s impact.

The Outcomes: A Guide for Measuring Success for reference provides several examples of programs and potential outcomes. The 2019 NFPA 1730 Standard on Organization and Deployment of Fire Prevention Inspection and Code Enforcement, Plan Review, Investigation, and Public Education Operations also has an example of a program with outcome evaluations, including a yearly summary of stated efforts. Another example could be reporting the annual dollar loss in AFPD instead of reporting the annual dollar saved within AFPD. AFPD currently does not conduct performance analysis.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 76 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SERVICES SUPPORT & RESPONSE
Hazardous materials are found in every community, homes and businesses, and transported on roadways, by air, and by sea. Responding to actual or potentially hazardous materials incidents is one of the many tasks performed by AFPD. Although these types of incidents are less common than other types, hazardous materials, if released, may cause harm to people, the environment, critical infrastructure, and property.

The AFPD, along with most other agencies in Humboldt County, are equipped to handle uncomplicated hazardous materials incidents at first responder operations level then rely on a regional network that includes Humboldt and Del Norte and the Cal OES mutual aid system. Locally, the Humboldt Bay Fire Protection District hosts a regional hazardous materials response team that does include AFPD members. This approach to hazardous materials response in the AFPD and Humboldt County reflects a commitment to public safety and environmental protection within budgetary constraints, ensuring that both the community and its natural surroundings are safeguarded against the risks associated with hazardous materials.

Should any hazardous chemical or materials incident exceed AFPD’s resource capabilities, the district is part of a larger network that includes the Humboldt/Del Norte Hazardous Material Response Authority (HMRA), formed to provide round-the-clock responses to hazardous materials incidents, consultations, and training for the region. This collaborative effort ensures that the AFPD has access to specialized equipment and trained personnel to manage a variety of hazardous situations. Additionally, Humboldt County conducts biannual hazardous material response drills to maintain readiness in accordance with the Humboldt County Hazmat Response Plan. These drills are crucial for preparing the responders for real-world scenarios, ranging from industrial accidents to natural disasters that may involve hazardous substances.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 77 Firefighters responding to any situation involving hazardous chemicals or materials must have adequate training and proper personal protective equipment (PPE) to handle any such incident. All AFPD personnel are trained, at a minimum, to the Hazardous Materials, First Responder Operational (FRO) level certified by the State of California, and as required by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 1910.120[q]). In addition to FRO certification, AFPD has one person certified at the Hazardous Materials Technician/Specialist level; nobody certified at the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) level; and no one certified as Haz-Mat Safety Officers. At the time of this report, the number of certified Haz-Mat Incident Commanders was undetermined.

When responding to a hazardous materials incident, the primary responsibility of the firstarriving engine company is to secure the scene, identify the substance (if possible), and make proper notifications. This initial action ensures that the safety of the public and emergency responders is the foremost priority.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 78 TECHNICAL RESCUE SERVICES
The AFPD is equipped to handle a variety of emergency situations with a technical rescue response that is both comprehensive and efficient. Technical rescue operations often involve complex and high-risk scenarios such as confined space rescue, high-angle rescue, trench rescue, and structural collapse. The district's firefighters and rescue personnel are trained to use specialized equipment and techniques to safely navigate these dangerous situations.

All AFPD personnel are certified at the Awareness-Level in confined space rescue, trench rescue, and swift water rescue. The department is certified at the Operations Level for lowangle rope rescue operations (LARRO). Training courses for these disciplines are provided internally and externally through courses sponsored by the State Fire Training, the California Specialized Training Institute, and through didactic training using Vector Solutions, the department’s training platform. In addition, AFPD personnel participate in annual confined space training consistent with the standards set forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 29 CFR 1910.146.

Collaboration with the Humboldt Urban Search and Rescue (HUSAR) Team enhances their capabilities, particularly in urban disaster scenarios involving building collapses, where skills in shoring, concrete breaking, breaching, lifting, and rope rescue are critical.

Additionally, the Arcata Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), which is managed by the Arcata Police Department, plays a vital role in disaster preparedness and response, with volunteers trained in fire prevention, search and rescue, and medical operations, ready to assist their community in times of need. The district's commitment to emergency preparedness is further exemplified by its active engagement with local, state, and federal fire service providers to ensure a coordinated response across all levels of government. This multi-tiered approach to technical rescue and emergency management ensures that the AFPD is prepared to protect and serve its community in the face of disaster.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 79 WATER RESCUE SERVICES
The district, which covers a diverse area including urban environments, forested regions, and coastal zones, is equipped to handle a variety of water-related emergencies. Water rescue operations within the Arcata Fire Protection District are critical components of the emergency response services provided to the community. AFPD personnel are trained in shore-based water rescue techniques that are essential for responding to incidents in fastmoving waterways that are common in this region.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 80 TRAINING & CONTINUING EDUCATION
The Arcata Fire Protection District is committed to ensuring the highest level of preparedness for its personnel through rigorous training and continuing education programs. The district's training regimen encompasses a comprehensive range of activities, from fire prevention and safety to advanced emergency response techniques. Firefighters in the district are required to undergo regular training sessions that include both theoretical knowledge and practical skills. These sessions cover fire behavior, equipment handling, rescue operations, and emergency medical services, ensuring that all personnel are wellversed in the latest firefighting and life-saving methods.

Training refers to the specific programs, resources, and capabilities of the personnel within a fire department. A comprehensive training program tailored to the department's needs is integral to day-to-day activities. Proper training ensures the safe and effective delivery of emergency services to the community and is crucial for all departments, regardless of their size or staffing composition (career, volunteer, or combination).

Although the number of incidents varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the types of incidents are often similar. Developing initial and ongoing training in fire, EMS, rescue, and hazardous materials is critical for AFPD to be effective and safe during incidents. A welldesigned and comprehensive training program fosters team dynamics, cohesiveness, and improved incident outcomes while lowering liabilities for AFPD.

The National Fire Protection Association has created several standards relating to the training and certification of fire personnel. These standards are designed as minimum recommendations for Firefighters, Fire Officers, Prevention Staff, Fire Investigators, Public Education staff, and other position-specific personnel. AFPD meets several of the recommended standards, as well as requirements set forth by State Fire Training (SFT), a division of the California State Fire Marshal’s Office, the California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Cal OSHA), the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and recognized standards outlined within the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) curriculum for the department’s response to wildland and interface incidents. In addition, AFPD utilizes policies and procedures developed and adopted by the department.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 81 To deliver a comprehensive training program, fire departments must have access to certified and qualified instructors and resources. These resources are typically found within the organization, externally with regional partners, through contract services, or a combination of all three. Given the remote nature of the AFPD on the north coast, AFPD primarily utilizes members of fire departments in the region who are subject matter experts registered with State Fire Training to instruct various didactic and manipulative courses.

Continuing education is also a cornerstone of the AFPD's commitment to excellence.

Firefighters are encouraged to pursue further education in fire science and emergency management, often through partnerships with local educational institutions. This not only enhances their capabilities but also ensures that the district is at the forefront of fire service innovation and effectiveness.

AFPD shift Captains manage training with the Assistant Chief’s oversight. This training generally includes the development, delivery, and recordkeeping of fire and EMS-related curriculum, including general and mandated courses required by local, state, and federal regulations.

The following figure reflects general training competencies for AFFD.

Figure 47: General Training Competencies
Program Description AFPD Source
Incident Command System (ICS) Cal OES/CSTI/FEMA 100, 200, 300, 700, 800 Personnel Accountability NFPA 101(various), AFPD Policies, Vector Solutions Basic and Advanced Firefighting SFT/Vector Solutions
Wildland Firefighting NWCG RT-130 (annually), CICCS ENGB, STL, SO, Single Resource, Driver-Operator
Rescue (Basic) SFT, Local/County SOGs
Safety Procedures AFPD Policies/SOGs, IIPP
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Local and State Protocols, AFPD Policies/SOGs Hazardous Materials HazMat FRO (CSFM/CSTI)
Vehicle Extrication SFT/Vector Solutions
Driver-Operator SFT Driver-Operator-1 & 1B
Radio Use, Dispatch Procedures AFPD & CAL FIRE Policies

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 82 The training Assistant Chief is responsible for developing an annual training plan and a multi-year calendar. Topics of scheduled training vary but include manipulative, instructional, and computer-based subject matter using formal lesson plans produced inhouse or through commercial vendors, task books, and other topics based on AFPD policies, procedures, and standard operating guides (SOGs). In addition, safety is a priority for AFPD personnel. It is discussed before each training session or drill and at post-incident analysis (after-action reviews [AARs]) conducted with all personnel following significant incidents.

The following figure reflects the training drill type and frequency for the AFPD.

Figure 48: Drill-type & Frequency
Drill-Type Frequency
Manipulative Skills Exercised Monthly
Inter-Station Drills Monthly
Multi-Company Drills Quarterly
Night Drills Annual with CPH
Disaster Drills Annually (Active Shooter, MCI, HazMat, etc.) Pre-Incident Planning Varies by shift & station
Multi-Agency Drills Annually
Training Budget
AFPD has a training budget of $15,000 to pay for in-house training courses, tuition for outside training, and other industry-specific training, such as technical rescue and wildland firefighting.

Training Facilities & Resources
The Mad River Fire Station serves as the department’s training location with a mobile tower and several props. Most of the department’s manipulative training is conducted at the fire stations. No multi-story training tower for firefighting operations, rescue, and roof-top evolutions exist in the region. Moreover, due to the inherent limitation of a mobile tower, live-fire activities cannot be performed. Additionally, no props for firefighter-entanglement, forcible entry, or commercial roof were observed. There is also a lack of fire training facilities in the region.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 83 Training Records
Training records and fire/EMS certifications are tracked and maintained electronically using the Vector Solutions platform. All career personnel have the authority to enter individual training records and access their respective training files.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 84 SECTION II:

Community Risk Assessment

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 85 DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITIES SERVED
The Arcata Fire Protection District serves the City of Arcata, a small city in Humboldt County on the northern coast of California. It lies approximately 280 miles north of San Francisco and about 80 miles south of the Oregon border. Founded in 1850, Arcata has a rich history rooted in the California Gold Rush era. Initially, The City was Union Town, serving as a supply hub for nearby gold mining operations. It was later renamed Arcata, derived from a Native American term meaning “where there is a lagoon.” The City of Eureka borders the AFPD area to the south and the unincorporated community of McKinleyville to the north. Other nearby jurisdictions include the towns of Blue Lake and Trinidad and various unincorporated areas within Humboldt County. The district is situated along the shores of Humboldt Bay and is surrounded by a diverse landscape that includes coastal dunes, wetlands, redwood forests, and the nearby Pacific Ocean. The city's topography is characterized by its coastal plain, which gently rises to meet the foothills of the Coast Range.

The district experiences a cool-summer Mediterranean climate, marked by mild, wet winters and cool, dry summers. The proximity to the Pacific Ocean moderates temperatures year-round, with average highs ranging from the mid-50s to mid-60s Fahrenheit and average lows in the 40s. Fog is a common occurrence, particularly during the summer months.

The City of Arcata operates under a council-manager form of government. The City Council comprises elected officials who appoint a City Manager to oversee daily operations. AFPD serves the City of Arcata and the surrounding areas, covering a jurisdictional area of approximately 62 square miles, including rural and suburban communities.

Arcata has a population of approximately 18,000 residents, and the district serves a population of 38,950. The fire district serves a youthful demographic, largely influenced by the presence of Cal Pol Humboldt (CPH), which enrolls around 6,000 students. This results in a significant portion of the population being in the 18–24 age range. The population density is about 2,700 people per square mile. During the academic year, the daytime population swells due to the influx of students, faculty, and staff associated with CPH.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 86 Arcata’s transient population includes a mix of seasonal visitors, tourists, and temporary residents, such as university students. The fire district sees an influx of tourists attracted to the region’s natural beauty, including the nearby Redwood National and State Parks. This transient demographic contributes to the community’s diversity, bringing various cultural influences and economic activity.

The AFPD service area is expected to experience modest population growth over the next decade, with estimates suggesting an annual growth rate of around 0.5–1%. This growth is likely to be influenced by the expansion of Cal Poly Humboldt, increased housing development, and the City's appeal as a destination for eco-tourism. Demographically, the population may become more diverse, with an increase in younger families and professionals attracted to the area's quality of life and educational opportunities.

The fire district and the City of Arcata are also well-connected through a network of transportation options. U.S. Highway 101 runs through the city, providing north-south access along the California coast. The Arcata-Eureka Airport, located in nearby McKinleyville, offers regional flights. Public transportation is available via the Redwood Transit System and the Arcata & Mad River Transit System, which provide bus services within the city and to surrounding areas. Bicycle infrastructure is also prominent, with numerous bike lanes and trails.

The AFPD service area is a vibrant community with a rich history, diverse geography, and a dynamic population. The Arcata Fire Department serves an area characterized by its unique blend of urban, suburban, and rural environments, requiring a comprehensive and adaptable approach to fire protection and emergency services.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 87 ALL-HAZARDS COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT
Risk factors influence the types of services a community provides. Identification of hazards is the process of recognizing the natural or human-caused events that threaten a community. Every community must prepare for and respond to events, including natural disasters like an earthquake, pandemics, or wildfires. In addition, the degree to which a community exhibits certain social conditions, including poverty levels, vehicle access, or the number of individuals in a household, may affect the community’s ability to prevent suffering and financial loss in the event of a disaster. These factors describe community risk.

A community’s risk assessment is based on numerous factors, including socioeconomic status, household composition, minority status and language, population density and housing types, local land use and development, and the geography and natural hazards present throughout the community. These factors affect the number and type of resources—both personnel and apparatus—necessary to control or mitigate an emergency. The community’s risk assessment provides relevant information to help public officials and agencies better prepare their communities to respond to emergency events and help them recover faster.

Community Risk Overview
• The fire district serves a youthful demographic, primarily influenced by the presence of Cal Poly Humboldt (CPH), which enrolls around 6,000 students. This results in a significant portion of the population being in the 18–24 age range. • The physical characteristics of the area and the resultant natural hazards are risk factors. For example, AFPD is located along the shores of Humboldt Bay and surrounded by a diverse landscape that includes coastal dunes, wetlands, redwood forests, and the nearby Pacific Ocean and they are at risk of entirely different hazards like wildland fires and earthquakes.
• Land use and zoning risk can be characterized as low (e.g., agricultural or lowdensity housing); moderate (e.g., small commercial and office); or high (e.g., large commercial, industrial, wildland exposures, and high-density residential).

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 88 Population & Demographics
The AFPD has seen an increase in population based on the U.S. Census data from the American Community Survey, except for the last couple of years.34 As a result, the fire and EMS response area’s population increased from 34,314 in 2011 to 38,950 in 2021. This population density is evident based on the number of fire and EMS incidents in the service area. The following figures illustrate the population growth in AFPD’s service area between 2011 and 2021.

Figure 49: AFPD Population (2011–2021)
34 www.census.gov/data.html. 34,31435,000
35,700
36,414
37,142
37,254
38,212
38,594
38,742
38,866
38,950
31,000
32,000
33,000
34,000
35,000
36,000
37,000
38,000
39,000
40,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 89 Figure 50: AFPD Population Distribution

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 90 At-Risk Populations
Specific populations are at higher risk of fires and other unintentional injuries, and these incidents directly affect service delivery. Several factors place groups of people in higherrisk categories in urban and suburban areas. NFPA reports identified groups with a higher risk of injury or death in a fire as follows:
• Children under 5 years of age.
• Older adults over 65 years of age.
• People with disabilities.
• Those that speak a language other than English.
• People in low-income communities.

Information from the U.S. Census data estimates identified several groups that fall into these categories.35 These groups are more likely to need additional emergency services, specifically EMS, than other population groups.

Age
The age of young children and older adults may directly relate to increased medical responses. For example, young children under five may need additional assistance when evacuating a building during a fire or other event, which poses a higher risk to this age group. In AFPD’s response area, percentages of the population under five years of age is

3.5%. This compares to the state at 5.1%.

As people age, their mobility decreases, placing them at a higher risk during a fire, and they are more likely to fall and need assistance from AFPD. The percentage of adults older than 65 is 14.2% in AFPD, which means the AFPD response area is higher than the state average of 9.9%.
35 www.census.gov/data.html.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 91 Figure 51: AFPD Vulnerable Population by Age
Disabilities
Residents with disabilities comprise 5% of the population in the AFPD response area, which is lower than California at 10.6%. This group may have more difficulty or be unable to evacuate during an emergency. Additionally, as this group ages, their demand for emergency medical services is likely to increase, further impacting AFPD’s response needs.

The following figure illustrates the percentage of individuals with disabilities in the region.

Figure 52: AFPD Residents with Disabilities
4%
14%
5%
10%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
< 5 years > 65 years
Arcata Fire District California
5%
11%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
APFD California

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 92 Persons Without Health Insurance
Individuals without health insurance are more likely to require emergency medical assistance due to untreated chronic illnesses. The lack of insurance disproportionately affects lower-income populations who may delay or forgo medical visits due to financial constraints. In the AFPD response area, 6.8% of residents under the age of 65 lack health insurance, which is lower than the California average of 8.9%. This demographic places an additional demand on emergency services, as they often rely on these services as a primary source of care.

Figure 53: AFPD Percentage of Population Without Health Insurance 7%
9%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
Arcata Fire District California

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 93 Low-Income Persons
Low-income individuals face a heightened risk of fires and medical emergencies due to challenges in maintaining safe housing and accessing adequate medical care. Those living below the poverty level are particularly vulnerable, especially when additional factors such as limited education, disabilities, or unemployment are present. In the AFPD response area, 6.0% of the population lives in poverty, significantly lower than the California average of 11.8%.

The median household income in the AFPD area is $43,444, considerably lower than the state average of $75,149. This disparity underscores economic challenges that may contribute to increased reliance on emergency services and highlights the need for targeted community support and prevention strategies.

Figure 54: AFPD Percent of Population Below the Poverty Level 6%
12%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Arcata Fire District California

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 94 Language Barriers
Language barriers can pose significant challenges, including difficulties in understanding safety information, cultural differences, and unfamiliarity with fire safety measures such as smoke alarms. These factors can increase the risk of fires or injuries in the home.

According to U.S. Census data, the primary racial demographics in the AFPD response area include Hispanic residents (4,330), White residents (29,233), and Asian residents (1,469).

While 94.1% of AFPD residents speak English at home, 16.8% of the population is foreignborn, with 3.7% originating from Asia and 8.2% from Latin America. This percentage is significantly lower than California's overall foreign-born population of 26.8%.

Figure 55: AFPD Race and Ethnicity
Race and Ethnicity Arcata Fire
District California
White alone 75.6% 40.0%
Black of African American alone 2.0% 5.8%
American Indian & Alaskan Native alone 2.3% 1.4%
Asian alone 3.8% 14.9%
Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander alone 0.4% 0.5% Some other race alone 4.4% 19.2%
Two or more races 11.2% 10.3%
Hispanic or Latino 11.4% 14.5%

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 95 Education Levels
Education levels have a significant impact on economic stability and community wellbeing, with higher educational attainment correlating to increased wages and lower unemployment rates. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 2021 Current Population Survey (CPS), workers aged 25 and over with less than a high school diploma had the lowest median weekly earnings at $626 and the highest unemployment rate at

8.3%, highlighting the economic challenges faced by individuals with limited education.36 The following figure illustrates the percentage of residents at each education level in the communities served by AFPD.

Figure 56: AFPD Educational Levels
Figure 57: Educational Levels, 25 years and Older
36 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
5%
26% 9%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Arcata Fire District California
No High School Diploma Bachelor Degree or higher
16%
10%
26% 21%
16%
36%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
High School Graduate Associate's Degree Bachelor's Degree or Higher Arcata Fire District California

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 96 Housing
While housing is not typically viewed as a primary risk factor compared to income or age, it provides valuable insights into community characteristics, including housing types, age, ownership status, and occupancy rates. Certain housing categories, such as older multifamily units built before fire sprinkler requirements or vacant homes, present specific risks to public safety.

In AFPD's response area, there are approximately 22,410 housing units, with 9,907 owneroccupied and 12,503 renter-occupied. The homeownership rate is 46%, significantly lower than the state average of 57%. This disparity underscores a higher reliance on rental housing, which may present unique challenges in ensuring fire safety compliance and maintenance.

Vacant structures are an additional concern, as unsecured buildings can attract vandalism, degrade structurally, and pose hazards during a fire. Such conditions increase risks for both the fire department and the community. Understanding housing trends and risks supports targeted prevention efforts and informs strategic planning. The following figure illustrates the percentage of owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing within AFPD.

Figure 58: Owner & Renter-Occupied Housing
46%
57%
53%
45%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Arcata Fire District California
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 97 Age of Housing
The age of housing plays a critical role in fire safety, as older homes may lack modern smoke alarms and were often built before the adoption of updated building and fire codes. Aging homes also present an increased risk of fires due to deteriorating infrastructure, particularly electrical systems that may not meet current safety standards. In AFPD, 61% of the housing was built after 1960, lower than the state at 62.5%. The highest percentage of housing was built in the 1990s, at 15.5%, as noted in the following figure.

Figure 59: AFPD Percentage of Homes Built by Year
1%
7%
13%
16%
12%
12%
9%
14%
8%
2%
1%
7%
11%
10%
15%
17%
13%
12%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
2020 or
later
2010 or
2019
2000–
2009
1990–
1999
1980–
1989
1970–
1979
1960–
1969
1950–
1959
1940–
1949
Arcata Fire District California

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 98 Housing Units
In the AFPD response area, 64% of residents live in one- or two-family dwellings, which is slightly lower than the California state average of 65%. The following figure provides a breakdown of housing unit types by percentage within the AFPD response area.

Figure 60: Housing Units per Building
64%
3%
8%
4% 4% 5% 6%
0%
65%
2% 5% 6% 5%
13%
4% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1 2 3–4 5–9 10–19 > 20 Mobile Other
Arcata Fire District California

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 99 ENVIRONMENTAL & PHYSICAL HAZARDS
A physical hazard is a natural or human-caused event that has the potential to cause impacts on people, buildings, infrastructure, agriculture, environmental assets, and communities. Every community faces the risk of being struck by a physical hazard of one type or another, including natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, ice storms, wildfires, earthquakes, or technological disasters such as chemical spills or explosions. When disaster strikes, it can wreak havoc on a community—destroying homes and businesses and leaving people homeless and out of work. Nationwide, property damage from disasters has been increasing steadily, partly because of more significant disaster events and because more and more people live in hazard-prone areas. For example, high wind event damage alone has cost the nation billions of dollars.

We need knowledge of the past to predict what might happen in the future. Historical catalogs are used to understand the frequency of hazardous events. They help us develop simulated events, which are used to predict events based on advanced modeling, represent, for example, up to 10,000 years of events. This allows us to understand what might be possible in the future and prepare for events we have not seen in our lifetime. For rarer hazards such as earthquakes, seismological investigations play a critical role in identifying and characterizing individual pre-historic events that make up the active tectonics record.

Reducing risk can only be achieved by decreasing the contribution from one or more of these three components. Examples of risk reduction or managing the risk in these components are:
• Hazard: building a flood levee to alter the course of flood events. • Exposure: land-use planning decisions to ensure that new development is not exposed to hazardous events or to influence the type of development. • Vulnerability: retrofitting older buildings built to lower building standards or before building codes were enforced.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 100
The number of natural disasters in Humboldt County (21) is greater than the U.S. average (15).37 Major Disasters (Presidential) Declared: 15. In the history of the AFPD response area, emergencies declared have been the following: Floods: 17, Storms: 10, Winter Storms: 7, Landslides: 5, Mudslides: 5, Earthquake: 1, Fire: 1, Heavy Rain: 1, Hurricane: 1, Tornado: 1. 38 Temperature
The weather conditions in an area can impact the fire department and the entire community. High or low temperatures affect firefighters during extended incident operations and require rehabilitation to prevent exhaustion. However, the average temperature in AFPD is 59.7˚ Fahrenheit (F) and an average low of 45.3˚F; the average high-temperature ranges from 52˚F during February and March to a high of 68˚F in August, as shown in the following figure.

Figure 61: Average Daily High Temperatures (˚F)
The average minimum temperature is 40˚F, but decreases from 35˚F in February to a high low of 55˚F in August, as shown in the following figure. 37 https://www.city-data.com/city/Arcata-California.html. 38 https://www.city-data.com/city/Arcata-California.html. 57 52 52
55 58
61 65
68 65 64
61 58
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 101
Figure 62: Average Daily Low Temperatures (˚F)
Drought
A drought may impact the community, such as the lack of rainfall to replenish groundwater or aqua filters when wells are used for drinking water. In addition, droughts may last for an extended period and create secondary problems during peak wildfire conditions as the vegetation becomes dry and highly combustible. This area of California receives more precipitation than others because of the climate conditions and proximity to the Pacific Ocean. Most precipitation occurs from December through March, as shown in the following figure.

Figure 63: Average Monthly Precipitation (inches)
40 35
37 41
47 50
54 55
51 47
43 44
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

6.4 6.5

9.6 3.4

1.2 0.1 0.0 0.1

2.6 3.2

4.1 8.5

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 102
As of June 2024, there were no drought conditions in Humboldt County, as shown in the following figure.39
Figure 64: Drought Conditions (June 2024)
Winds
The direction and speed of winds directly influence how AFPD plans for daily operations, specifically during wildland fire danger. Other factors affecting AFPD's day-to-day operations regarding weather could be the visibility that fog can limit. All of these can increase risk to the community and firefighters. The highest average wind speed occurs during January at 8.4 miles per hour, as shown in the next figure. 39 U.S. Drought Monitor, https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 103
Figure 65: AFPD Average Wind Speeds (MPH)
The prevalent winds are from the northwest and southeast, as shown in the following figure from the wind rose from the NWS Arcata/Eureka Airport reporting station.

Figure 66: Wind Rose—Arcata Eureka Airport

8.4 6.0

7.2 5.8

6.2 5.9 5.8

4.8 5.2

4.1 4.4

5.3 2.0

3.0 4.0

5.0 6.0

7.0 8.0

9.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 104
Environmental Hazards
Earthquakes
AFPD is located in a seismic area, and the United States Geological Society has identified several faults. A couple of faults in the Humboldt County area run through the AFPD response area, including the Mad River Fault and Freshwater Fault zones.

Data suggests an 81.28% probability of a 5.0 magnitude earthquake within the next 50 years. The AFPD area has a very high earthquake risk, totaling 1,112 earthquakes since 1931. The largest earthquake within 30 miles of Arcata was 7.3 in 1980.40 An area of concern is the possibility of soil liquefaction. There are locations where high-severity groundwater and liquefaction may present problems during a major earthquake.

Figure 67: Earthquake Probability in AFPD
40 Homefacts. Earthquake Information for Arcata, California.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 105
Figure 68: Liquefaction Map
Landslides
The risk of a landslide in AFPD is considered a low hazard for the area. Areas in the AFPD have the potential for landslides, especially along hills or canyons. Landslides usually occur because of slope failure due to erosion from surface water runoff, mudflows when the water has saturated the ground, or debris flows after a wildland fire. This area has had a minimum of five mudslides and five landslides that caused natural disasters over the years.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 106
Wildland Fires
Wildland fire risks in AFPD are moderate. The AFPD area is at a 55% risk level compared to other communities throughout California.41 However, much of the Arcata populated area has been designated as high risk, with 75% of the area exposed to indirect wildfire sources such as embers or home-to-home ignition. There are 4,712 properties in Arcata that have some risk of being affected by wildfire over the next 30 years. This represents 92% of all properties in Arcata.42 The most significant wildfire threat to the AFPD response area comes from fires spreading out of the Tip Top Ridge or undeveloped Humboldt County lands.

Therefore, the ability to protect the community and those living in the area is a primary goal. Limited access to areas due to narrow and steep roads similar to those in specific subdivisions, reduced right-of-way from overgrown vegetation, properties without proper addressing, and dead-end roads with limited abilities to turn around fire apparatus or vehicles are all wildland-urban interface (WUI) issues.

Almost half of the community wildfire costs, including those of homeowners, businesses, and government agencies, are paid for locally. Many of these costs are due to long-term damages to community and environmental services, such as landscape rehabilitation, lost business and tax revenues, and property and infrastructure repairs. By comparison, our analysis suggests suppression costs comprise around 9% of total wildfire costs. The remaining costs include short-term expenses, or those occurring within the first six months— and long-term damages accruing during many months and years following a wildfire.

Communities at risk of wildfires can reduce wildfire impacts and associated costs through land-use planning and fire prevention measures.
41 Riskfactor.com.
42 Riskfactor.com.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 107
Figure 69: AFPD Wildfire Risk Map
It should be noted that the classification of all lands within State Responsibility Areas into fire hazard severity zones is required by law. Therefore, the fire hazard severity zone designations and accompanying maps must follow the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and be approved by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). The regulation can be found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 1280.01 and entitled “Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the SRA.”

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 108
On February 4, 2025, the Office of the State Fire Marshal released Phase 2 of the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) maps which include Humboldt County. It appears that much of the AFPD may be reclassified from high to moderated risk.

Floods
AFPD is at moderate risk of flooding along the rivers and creeks flowing into the Mad River and the Pacific Ocean. Flooding typically occurs with the highest rainfall. These seasonal variations can cause localized flooding along the creek channels during high-intensity rainfall events. Like offshore storms, deeper floods from significant events are less likely to occur but cause greater damage than shallower flood events, like heavy rains. As a result, 1,031 properties in AFPD have a chance of being severely affected by flooding over the next 30 years. This represents 20.3% of all properties in the City of Arcata. 43 In addition to the damage to properties, flooding can cut off access to utilities, emergency services, and transportation and may impact the overall economic well-being of an area.

Overall, the City of Arcata has a significant risk of flooding over the next 30 years, meaning flooding will likely impact the community's daily life.

A changing environment means higher seas, new weather patterns, and stronger storms. In addition, as the atmosphere warms, more evaporation and water are available when it rains. As a result, additional problems occur with flash flooding in the district’s urban areas, but they are usually short-lived.
43 Riskfactor.com.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 109
The following figure shows the AFPD area at risk of flooding.

Figure 70: AFPD Flood Zones

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 110

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTED
Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR) explain what is crucial for a community to function in a modern economy. Critical infrastructure is defined as a sector “whose assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.” There are sixteen defined Critical Infrastructure Sectors (CIS):
• Chemical Sector
• Financial Services Sector
• Commercial Facilities Sector
• Food & Agriculture Sector
• Communications Sector
• Government Facilities Sector
• Critical Manufacturing Sector
• Information Technology Sector
• Dams Sector
• Nuclear Reactors, Materials, & Waste Sector
• Defense Industrial Base Sector
• Transportation Systems Sector
• Emergency Services Sector
• Healthcare and Public Health Sector
• Water & Wastewater Systems Sector
• Energy Sector
Not all of these sectors are represented in the AFPD service area. However, each community must determine critical infrastructure locations and develop pre-incident plans for responding personnel.

Other buildings to consider as target hazards include occupancies with a potential for a significant loss of life, such as places of public assembly, schools and childcare centers, medical and residential care facilities, and multifamily dwellings. Other considerations include buildings with substantial value to the community—economic loss, replacement cost, or historical significance—that, if damaged or destroyed, would have a significant negative impact. Responses to target hazards may require numerous AFPD resources and mutual aid during an incident.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 111
Energy
Electrical power is required for many day-to-day activities. Electricity requires lines throughout the district, which are broken down into a distribution network. Within the district’s response area, multiple high voltage supply lines transverse AFPD and mainly run north to south just east of Highway 101, supplying a maximum of 60 V, owned and operated by Pacific Gas & Electric. There is another high-voltage line running east and west that is located just to the north side of Humboldt Bay, and this line is owned and operated by Pacific Gas & Electric. Two significant natural gas transmission lines pass along the east side of the AFPD and are operated by the California Gas Transmission Company.

For the service level within the AFPD area, Pacific Gas & Electric operates the electric distribution and serves natural gas. The following figure shows the location of electrical high tension power lines.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 112
Figure 71: Electrical High Tension Power Lines

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 113
The following figure provides the locations of major gas pipelines.

Figure 72: Major Gas Pipeline

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 114
Transportation Network
Most of the transportation network consists of collector streets fed by residential roads throughout AFPD. These roads provide interconnectivity for emergency responders, but many cul-de-sac roads could impact response if the roads are impassable during an evacuation. In addition, these roads may be narrow in some areas and should be identified to prevent a slow response.

It is unknown how many trucks or trucks transport hazardous materials. The two major routes for the AFPD area are Highway 101 and State Highway 299. Records indicate that almost all fatal car incidents occurred on one of these highways.

Water Supply
Controlling and extinguishing fires requires adequate water distribution and storage systems. This requires a system of well-distributed hydrants and adequate-sized water mains to provide the essential water for fire ground use.

Three water companies provide water for fire protection services for AFPD. The City of Arcata provides water for the City of Arcata boundaries, McKinleyville Community Service District provides services to McKinleyville and north of the City of Arcata, and Humboldt Municipal Water District serves the unincorporated area outside the city limits. Each water company repairs hydrants on its water systems. The following figure shows the hydranted area in the district.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 115
Figure 73: Hydrant Map

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 116
Arcata-Eureka Airport
The California Redwood Coast Humboldt County Airport is located in the northern part of the AFPD. The airport has two runways, 14/32 and 1/19. The longest and primary runway is 14/32, and it is 6,046 feet long. The airport is an Index B facility that allows aircraft to be at least 90 feet but less than 126 feet in length. The terminal is open from 4:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. each day. Fuel (100LL and Jet A) is available at the airport.

The airport provides the initial fire protection for aircraft only, and AFPD provides all ground firefighting and rescue services if a crash occurs. The airport firefighters only operate the aircraft rescue firefighting (ARFF) truck. The ARFF truck is staffed by two to four personnel approximately 30 to 60 minutes before and after commercial aircraft arrive and depart.

The airport firefighters have other responsibilities, including driving the fuel truck and fueling the plane. AFPD provides all structural and EMS incident responses on airport property.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 117

LAND USE & GROWTH IMPACT ANALYSIS
The concept of land use regulation is to provide attractive social and environmental outcomes to assist in the efficient management of development. Land use for a community is designed to assign a classification for properties within a geographical area generally under governmental control. Zoning areas may vary from one portion of the service area with a mixture of low-, moderate-, and high-risk properties. • Low Risk: Areas zoned for agricultural purposes, open spaces, low-density residential, and other low-intensity use.
• Moderate Risk: Areas zoned for medium-density single-family properties, small commercial and office uses, low-intensity retail sales, and similarly sized business activities.
• High Risk: High-intensity business districts, mixed-use areas, high-density residential, industrial, storage facilities, and large mercantile centers.

The City of Arcata’s General Plan identified opportunities and challenges over the next 20 years. Opportunities include updating active transportation infrastructure, improving interaction with local nonprofit organizations, continued recognition of Indigenous rights, technology improvements to recruit new industries and businesses, and Cal Poly Humboldt’s expansion. Challenges include rising sea levels, changing weather cycles, increased infrastructure capacity for the limited undeveloped land, and houselessness as housing prices increase.

Arcata Land Use
The Land Use Element identified existing activity centers and infill opportunities. These activity centers are places within the City where a diversity of economic, physical, social, and civic assets cluster at a walkable neighborhood scale. Over the General Plan planning period, the City will target investment in economic development, infrastructure, and placemaking resources in ways that strengthen these centers, support their growth and development in more equitable ways, improve connectivity within and between them, and ensure that existing residents and businesses benefit from this new investment. The existing activity centers included:
• Downtown/Uniontown
• Valley West
• Northtown

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 118
• West End/Aldergrove
• Samoa Boulevard and South G Street
• Westwood/Sunset
• Sunnybrea Neighborhood
Infill opportunity zones are near transit and current activity centers, provide residents with a place to live close to their workplaces and encourage alternative transportation methods.

These areas are expected to create about half of the infill growth in the next 20 years.

Those areas are:
• Downtown: This area is approximately 54 acres and is mainly built out, but there are some locations prime for significant redevelopment.
• Valley West: This opportunity zone is about 34 acres in the City's northern area and could support housing and economic redevelopment.
• Gateway: This 138-acre zone includes existing businesses, residential, and industrial uses. The City adopted the Gateway Area Plan in 2024, which includes a zoning ordinance detailing development standards, allowances, and requirements for this area. This redevelopment would allow a broad range of high- and medium-density residential and mixed-use redevelopment with an emphasis on housing creation in this area due to its proximity to Downtown and other community services and destinations.

The following figure provides the number of anticipated units and population increases in growth areas in Arcata.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 119
Figure 74: Growth Areas
Area Units Population
Growth
Parcels 351 800
Accessory Dwelling Units 300 684
Northtown 100 228
Uniontown/CC 60 137
St. Louis Rd 880 2,006
Valley West 300 684
Westwood Apartments 100 228
Alliance Acres 40 91
Total 2,131 4,858
Increased growth and density in Arcata will affect how the fire department delivers service to the community. Few projects have been permitted or are approved for new commercial development. A mixed-use development with four commercial and four residential units in the Valley West area is permitted. Another project has been submitted with 20 apartments and two commercial units.

The City of Arcata’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element 2019–2027 discusses development trends and areas expected to grow the most. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) assigned Arcata 610 units between 2019 and 2027. It has been challenging to meet the housing allocation for the above-moderate population because of insufficient land for single-family homes. The following shows the RHNA allocations for Arcata through 2027.

Figure 75: Arcata Regional Housing Needs Allocation (2019–2027) Income Level RHNA
Allocation
Units Permitted
to Date
Total
Remaining
Very Low 142 167 0
Low 95 83 12
Moderate 111 139 0
Above Moderate 262 94 168
Total 610 483 180

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 120
McKinleyville Land Use
AFPD protects the McKinleyville area of unincorporated Humboldt County. The Humboldt County Planning and Building Department developed a McKinleyville Community Plan to guide future growth in a 14-square-mile area bounded by the Mad River to the south and the Little River to the north. The Arcata-Eureka Airport is included in this area. McKinleyville is the most developed unincorporated area of Humboldt County. Much of this area’s land use is residential, but they have a town center on Central Ave where much commercial growth has developed. The County is working on a plan to develop the area behind the McKinleyville Shopping Center for mixed-use development, which may include additional commercial and residential housing. The County is updating its ordinances to allow residential development in commercial areas to meet new California laws, which may increase housing. Humboldt County does not have RHNA housing numbers, except for all of the unincorporated portions of the County.

Cal Poly Humboldt
The university has received a one-time funding of $433 million and $25 million in recurring funds to support the school. The additional funding allows for an enrollment increase of 50% in the next three years and to double within seven years, but growth has been slower than expected. The university will add 12 new programs and buildings to support the students and faculty.

A new engineering and technology building, renovations to existing science and lab buildings, energy research and sustainability center, and Eureka Research Lab are planned. The new three-story, 72,000-square-foot engineering and technology building will be located on the main campus and is expected to begin construction in summer 2024.

Renovations to the science building were divided into two phases. Phase I, consisting of nine renovations, was completed in 2023, and Phase II is currently under development. The energy research and sustainability center is in design and will be approximately 17,000 square feet and two stories. It is expected to begin construction in 2025.

Non-academic projects include a mixed-use housing development, a new housing, dining, and health building, and renovations for ceramics and sculpture. The new mixed-use seven-story off-campus housing at Craftsman’s Mall will have 964 student beds. The housing, dining, and health facility will be located south of the campus apartments and will provide new freshman housing and a new home for student health and well-being services.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 121
The following figure provides the zoning in the district.

Figure 76: District Zoning

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 122

PHYSICAL ASSETS PROTECTED
Commercial occupancies or properties are considered target hazards in every community because of the special or unique risks to emergency responders and the occupants during an incident or event. Each of these occupancies should have up-to-date pre-incident surveys completed annually. The surveys allow responders to become familiar with the building, property, and special hazards. All target hazards and, ultimately, all commercial buildings should have up-to-date pre-incident plans.

Structural Risks
The risks created by residential or commercial occupancies for those in a building and emergency responders increase based on the type.

Educational and Childcare Facilities
Public and private schools and childcare facilities increase risks in any community and require substantial assistance during a significant event, such as a mass casualty or fire response. In the AFPD, numerous schools and childcare facilities require inspections and pre-incident plans to ensure the property is safe and that emergency responders are familiar with the location and site-specific hazards. The district has numerous public and private schools. These schools provide education from kindergarten through 12th grade.

The following figure provides the location of schools in the AFPD.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 123
Figure 77: School Locations

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 124
Higher Education
The Cal Poly Humboldt campus resides in the City of Arcata. The university recently changed its name from Humboldt University to Cal Poly Humboldt. This is the third polytechnic university and the first in Northern California. The university offers many undergraduate and graduate programs, and the current student population is approximately 6,000, with 2,150 sleeping beds on campus. Although the state has jurisdiction over the university, AFPD is active with campus representatives, has conducted training, and meets with staff to discuss fire protection services. Additional information regarding the additional funding and expansion of the campus is discussed in the land use section of this report.

Assembly
Gathering large groups of people in a single location or building increases risks in places such as worship, entertainment venues, or eating establishments. Outdoor special events such as street fairs or mass gatherings may require a public safety plan per the California Fire Code. This plan should include emergency vehicle access and egress, fire protection, emergency medical services, public assembly areas, directing of vehicular traffic and attendees, vendor and food concessions, need for law enforcement, fire or EMS personnel, and weather monitoring.

Health Care Facilities
These types of buildings are where occupants may be unable to leave without assistance from the staff. These locations may contain medical gases that can create additional risks for emergency responders during a fire, and completing up-to-date pre-incident plans is necessary. As people age, additional care may require them to seek a facility to meet their needs. Depending on their mobility or cognitive conditions, they may need more assistance evacuating the building. Staff should have developed plans to remove occupants or patients during an emergency. These locations require additional fire protection systems to protect the occupants, like a hospital. Special locking arrangements for areas where patients with dementia or Alzheimer's are living are allowed to prevent them from leaving the facility.

The closest hospital is the Mad River Community Hospital, which provides 24-hour emergency care and is a Level IV trauma center. The hospital has a landing pad for helicopter transport to other more advanced facilities.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 125
The following figure provides the location of AFPD's primary hospital and medical clinics.

Figure 78: Clinical Facilities and Hospitals

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 126
Multifamily Occupancies
Although multifamily housing has fewer fires caused by electrical or heating malfunctions, the risk of cooking fires is twice the rate of other building fires.44 Updated building and fire codes now require these buildings to have a residential fire sprinkler system installed and interconnected smoke alarms in all bedrooms, hallways, and floors. These fire protection systems are designed to provide enough time for the occupants to evacuate the building.

The following figure shows the location of multifamily housing units (three or more units) in the district.

Figure 79: Multi-Family Housing Units
44 Topical Fire Report Series, Multifamily Residential Building Fires (2013–2015), June 2017.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 127
Buildings Three or More Stories in Height
Structures three or more stories in height require a response of an aerial apparatus with elevated master stream capabilities. The Insurance Services Office (ISO) reviews the coverage area for a ladder truck for all buildings within 2.5 miles. A ladder truck may be necessary to access these higher buildings' upper floors or roofs since most ground ladders cannot reach these heights. The following figures display these buildings.

Figure 80: Buildings Three Stories or More

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 128
Large Square Footage Buildings
Large buildings, such as warehouses, strip malls, and large “box” stores, need greater volumes of water for firefighting and require more firefighters to advance hose lines long distances into the building. Although the number of large square footage buildings is low, the fire flow may be greater for smaller buildings because of construction type, distance to exposures, and lack of built-in fire protection systems such as fire sprinklers. The following figure is based on data from ISO and shows the locations for buildings 50,000 square feet and larger.

Figure 81: Buildings 50,000 Square Feet and Greater

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 129
High Fire-Flow Occupancies
Other buildings may require a higher amount of water to extinguish a fire. These occupancies can present a problem if the needed water is less than what is available from the water supply from hydrants or other water sources. The following figure shows the occupancies with a needed fire flow greater than 2,000 gallons per minute.

Figure 82: Buildings with Large Fire Flows (> 2,000 gallons per minute)

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 130

RISK CLASSIFICATION
Risk Assessment Methodology
Developing a risk score to determine risks in a community is necessary to provide an organization with a method for creating response protocols for an incident. The Three-Axis Heron model establishes a score by reviewing probability, consequence, and impact factors and assigning a score between 2–8 in each category.45 A description of the incident types for each risk is located in Appendix C of this report.

Use of the Three-Axis Heron Formula includes the following equation:

The risk is graphically illustrated through a three-axis model as follows:
• P = Probability (Y-Axis)
• C = Consequences (X-Axis)
• I = Impact (Z-Axis)
Figure 83: Three-Axis Risk Classification Process
45 Quality Improvement for the Fire and Emergency Services.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 131
For example, a 31-B call (BLS response low) can be used. The likelihood (probability) of this occurring would be high (it occurs multiple times every day), a factor of 10. The consequence would be minor (affects one person) by a factor of 2. The impact on the district’s ability to respond would be minor (one crew) by a factor of 2. Using the calculator, here is what it looks like: Heron’s formula value is 20.2. This equates to a “Moderate Risk” incident.

Figure 84: Risk Score
Probability = 10 Consequence = 2 Impact on District = 2 Different criteria were evaluated to create a numeric value for each axis. The three-axis scoring methodology uses the square root of each risk element to determine the “surface area.” The Magnitude of the Risk or Risk Classification is based on the greater the total surface area of mass, the greater the surface area of the Risk Category level. The scores from this method indicate the risk level associated with certain incident response types. The scores are sorted into three risk classifications: Low, Moderate, and High. The following figure demonstrates the score range for each type.

Figure 85: Three-Axis Scoring Ranges
Low Risk
0–14.99
Moderate Risk
15–24.99
High Risk
25–100

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 132
Probability
Probability is the likelihood of an incident occurring in the community over time. This axis reflects the probability of a particular type of incident occurring (which contributes to the level of risk). Many factors are considered, such as time of day, location, hazard present, the season of the year, building construction and maintenance, demographic factors, and more. It can range from a rare event to one that occurs often.

Figure 86: Probability or Likelihood of Occurrence
Score Category Probability/Likelihood Description
2 Minor Unlikely: < 0.02% of total call volume. Expected to occur rarely. 4 Low Possible: 0.02%–0.07% of total call volume. Occurs rarely. 6 Moderate Probable: 0.07%–0.3% of total call volume. Occurs monthly. 8 High Likely: 0.3%–2% of total call volume. Expected to occur multiple times weekly.
10 Extreme Frequent: > 2% of total call volume. Expected to occur once or more times daily.

Consequence
The consequences of an incident can vary from minor casualties to severe impacts that may destroy historical or major facilities in the community and create a large loss of employment or life.

Figure 87: Consequence to the Community
Score Category Consequence to the Community
2 Minor 1–2 people affected (injuries/deaths); < $10,000 loss. 4 Low 3–4 people affected (injuries/deaths); < $500,000 loss. 6 Moderate 5–50 people affected (injuries/deaths); $500,000-$1,000,000 loss. 8 High 51–100 people affected (injuries/deaths); $1,000,000–$5,000,000. 10 Extreme > 100 people affected (injuries/deaths); > $5,000,000 loss.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 133
Impact
The third factor in determining the risk is the fire district’s impact and the critical tasking needed to control or mitigate an incident. This includes the number of emergency responders and apparatus available internally or from external agencies. It measures the district’s ability to respond to a given risk or incident while providing service to the remaining parts of the district.

Figure 88: Impact on Operational Forces
Score Category Impact on Operational Forces
2 Minor ≥ 90% Remaining Apparatus/Crews
4 Low ≥ 75% Remaining Apparatus/Crews
6 Moderate ≥ 50% Remaining Apparatus/Crews
8 High ≥ 25% Remaining Apparatus/Crews
10 Extreme < 25% Remaining Apparatus/Crews

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 134
Fire Response
AFPD is the primary provider of prevention or mitigation of fire-related incidents. These range from low-risk incidents such as a vehicle fire to a maximum risk for a fire involving a school. Fire risks for a vehicle fire are considered low compared to a maximum risk for a school that houses students. This scoring is applied to four different categories of fire incidents in AFPD’s service area to provide staffing needs to meet critical tasks on the fire ground. The following figures provide the risk scores and classifications assigned to each type of fire risk in AFPD.

Figure 89: Fire Response Risk Assessment
Description Low Moderate High Maximum
Risk Score

P C I P C I P C I P C I
6 2 6 4 4 10 2 6 10 2 8 10
Score Assigned: 28.14 41.57 44.09 59.40
Figure 90: Fire Risk Classifications
0 2
4 6
8 10
Low
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability
0 2
4 6
8 10
Moderate
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability
0 2
4 6
8 10
High
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability
0 2
4 6
8 10
Maximum
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 135
Emergency Medical Services
AFPD provides advanced life support emergency medical care in its service area but does not offer transport services. Low-risk incidents range from a medical assist to a maximum for an active shooter. The following figures provide the risk score and classifications assigned to each type of EMS risk in AFPD.

Figure 91: EMS Response Risk Assessment
Description Low Moderate High Maximum
Risk Score

P C I P C I P C I P C I
10 2 4 6 4 6 2 6 8 2 8 10
Score Assigned: 32.12 34.99 36.80 59.40
Figure 92: EMS Risk Classifications
0 2
4 6
8 10
Low
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability
0 2
4 6
8 10
Moderate
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability
0 2
4 6
8 10
High
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability
0 2
4 6
8 10
Maximum
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 136
Technical Rescue
Rescue services can vary from a low-risk incident, such as accessing a locked vehicle with a child inside, to a confined space incident (maximum) that potentially requires many personnel to mitigate the incident. The following figures provide the risk scores and classifications assigned to each type of technical rescue risk in AFPD.

Figure 93: Technical Rescue Response Risk Assessment
Description Low Moderate High Maximum
Risk Score

P C I P C I P C I P C I
2 2 4 2 4 6 2 4 10 2 6 10
Score Assigned: 8.49 19.80 32.10 45.52
Figure 94: Technical Rescue Risk Classification
0 2
4 6
8 10
Low
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability
0 2
4 6
8 10
Moderate
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability
0 2
4 6
8 10
High
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability
0 2
4 6
8 10
Maximum
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 137
Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials responses can vary from low-risk odor investigations to the maximum risk for a fuel tanker fire in higher-population areas. Most of these incidents can be managed by AFPD, but higher risks may need assistance from outside resources. The following figures provide the risk scores and classifications assigned to each type of hazardous materials risk in AFPD.

Figure 95: Hazardous Materials Response Risk Assessment Description Low Moderate High Maximum
Risk Score

P C I P C I P C I P C I
2 2 4 2 4 6 2 4 10 2 6 10
Score Assigned: 8.49 19.80 32.10 45.52
Figure 96: Hazardous Materials Risk Classifications
0 2
4 6
8 10
Low
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability
0 2
4 6
8 10
Moderate
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability
0 2
4 6
8 10
High
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability
0 2
4 6
8 10
Maximum
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 138
Wildland Fires
The types of wildland fire risks vary from small grass fires to large forest fires requiring many internal and external resources. The following figures provide the risk scores and classifications assigned to each type of wildland fire risk in AFPD.

Figure 97: Wildland Fire Response Risk Assessment
Description Low Moderate Maximum
Risk Score

P C I P C I P C I
2 2 6 2 6 10 2 10 10
Score Assigned: 12.33 45.52 73.48
Figure 98: Wildland Response Risk Classification
0 2
4 6
8 10
Low
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability
0 2
4 6
8 10
Moderate
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability
0 2
4 6
8 10
High
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 139
Aircraft Rescue & Firefighting
Aircraft emergencies can range from minor fuel leaks to crashes involving multiple casualties or victims. A large incident requires additional internal and external resources to manage the incident. The following figures provide the risk scores and classifications assigned to each aircraft rescue and firefighting fire risk type in AFPD’s response area.

Figure 99: Aircraft Rescue & Firefighting Response Risk Assessment Description Low Moderate High Maximum
Risk Score

P C I P C I P C I P C I
2 2 8 2 4 8 2 6 8 2 8 10
Score Assigned: 16.2 25.9 36.8 59.4
0 2
4 6
8 10
Low
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability
0 2
4 6
8 10
Moderate
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability
0 2
4 6
8 10
High
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability
0 2
4 6
8 10
Maximum
Risk
Impact Consequence
Probability

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 140
SECTION III:

Standards of Cover

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 141

SERVICE DELIVERY & PERFORMANCE
This section will give AFPD a general understanding of service demand and response performance. It is developed to assist the department with quantifying its recent performance and creating baseline performance expectations. The AFPD and political leaders can then use this information to understand how their decisions, policies, and changing external pressures affect performance.

Research Information
The information within this section was developed from various sources provided by AFPD.

The data provided in April 2024 included information from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2023.

Statistics Discussion
Mathematical and technological methodologies must be used judiciously to evaluate something as complex as an emergency incident response. This analysis is designed to quantify and analyze available information. It is intended to be a starting place for the agency as it seeks to improve performance. However, there are limitations on making decisions based solely on statistical studies, and leaders should incorporate sound judgment with proven analytics.

Statistical Tools
Various statistical analytical tools were employed to create this section. The fundamental tools were categorization, percentile, and regression analysis. This helps paint a picture of historical performance, with some inferences that may help leaders identify positive and negative performance trends.
90th Percentile
The time performance measures for this report are conveyed using the 90th percentile measure. The most common reason to use this measure is that the industry has adopted it.

If a fire agency wishes to judge its performance against standards or other agencies, it must use the 90th percentile. For example, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) utilizes the 90th percentile measure in most of its standards. In addition, the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) requires reporting performance measures at the 90th percentile.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 142
The statistical reason to use the measure is that it more fully captures performance and will identify trends in performance without the impact of data skew. As with most emergency services systems, the time performance data used in this study has a skew. When the data is skewed, it makes using other statistical measures less sensitive and representative. The following figure is a general example of data skew.

Figure 100: Data Skew46
In a symmetric distribution, the mean (average), median (middle of the data), and mode (the most frequent) are all equal. When the distribution skews, these three measures of the middle shift. Using the average, or mean, in data skewed left would underrepresent the bulk of the performance, while the opposite is true when skewed right. In AFPD's case, most of the time-performance data is skewed right. In this case, using the average would overrepresent the performance. This skew is typical and in a similar direction to other emergency services agencies. It is presented here as information only and not as a performance definition or an area of concern. The following figure shows the combined total response times and travel times in minutes for AFPD to identify the skew in the data. 46 Pipis, G. (2020, November 9). Skewness and Kurtosis in Statistics. R-Bloggers. https://www.rbloggers.com/2020/11/skewness-and-kurtosis-in-statistics/.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 143
Figure 101: AFPD Data Skew
Data Discussion
Detailed data were provided from AFPD's primary incident reporting software (RMS) and the CAL FIRE ECC computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system. These different database tables were combined utilizing proven data engineering techniques into one analytical data set.

Data Engineering Findings
The numbers of incident records for the RMS and CAD systems were similar but had some differences. There were 13,071 individual incidents in CAD and 13,893 in the RMS. In addition, 1,500 incidents were tracked in the RMS that did not come from CAD. These incidents were not included in the analysis. This indicated a data drop of 678 incidents, or 5%, from CAD to RMS. Unit dispatches with no arrival constitute 94% of missing incidents.

Unit records within the CAD data were merged with the RMS data to form a full analytic incident record for each incident. This analysis's total number of incidents is 12,393, with 12,163 incidents in the jurisdiction.

0.00 200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1,000.00
1,200.00
1,400.00
1,600.00
1,800.00
01:00 04:00 07:00 10:00 13:00 16:00 19:00 22:00 25:00 28:00 Incidents
Total Time Travel Time

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 144
Data Error Handling
Data collection within the various data sets has the potential for significant errors. Although there can be many reasons for incorrect information, these errors are typically a combination of human input and collection errors. Various methods exist to manage these errors, including statistical exclusion, real-time exclusion, formula manipulation, and logic testing.

For AFPD, the information in the data fields had an average volume of error-prone data.

Therefore, most of the data did not require statistical intervention. However, to mitigate extremes that were likely inaccurate information, some data was excluded by formula or logic tests. The time segment math utilized a logic tree to eliminate negative and null sets.

The steps taken for each time segment are identified within those analyses.

Service Demand
The first dimension of the analysis is the overall system call load. Because this is a simple count of the incidents by type and location, no data was excluded after the previously described data engineering steps.

Volume Analysis
A simple volume analysis can indicate how often the department is called upon to respond to an incident. The first look is at the overall RMS call counts grouped by primary categories in the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). Establishing the incidents within the jurisdiction required a match between the geocoded information and the provided geographic boundaries. The following figure is the total number of responses recorded by the agency and the percentage of the categorized responses.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 145
Figure 102: Total Incident Count (2020–2023)
Incident (NIFRS Group) Count Percentage of Total Responses AFPD Responses
Fire (100) 797 6.4%
Overpressure (200) 14 0.1%
Rescue-Medical (300) 7,168 57.8%
Hazardous condition (400) 211 1.7%
Service (500) 1,209 9.8%
Good Intent (600) 2,197 17.7%
False Alarm (700) 796 6.4%
Natural Disaster (800) 1 0.1%
Special (900) — 0%
Total AFPD 12,393 100%
Mutual Aid*
Auto and Mutual Aid Received 216
Auto and Mutual Aid Given 230
*Based on mapped incidents and units assigned.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 146
Geographic Analysis
A call density analysis is helpful when reviewing the best location for apparatus placement.

It is also useful when evaluating where prevention programs may have the most impact.

The following figure geographically represents the incident density for the study period.

Figure 103: Incident Density (2020–2023)

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 147
As indicated in the previous figure, incident density is more pronounced around McKinleyville and Arcata. Overall, incident density is driven primarily by medical responses.

EMS incidents account for nearly 58% of the response volume. This creates a strong correlation between the overall and EMS incident densities. The following figure shows the EMS and rescue incident density.

Figure 104: EMS Incident Density (2020–2023)

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 148
The distribution of fire incidents reveals a slightly different pattern. Mad River and Arcata stand out with higher occurrences than the McKinleyville area. The following figure shows the incident densities for fire-related incidents.

Figure 105: Fire Incident Density (2020–2023)

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 149
Temporal Analysis
The annual incident count for AFPD within the jurisdiction has fluctuated slightly but seems to remain centered around 3,040 yearly incidents. There was a significantly lower incident volume in 2020. However, this is likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent societal shutdown. Removing 2020 results in an average volume of 3,476. The following figure shows the annual incident volume for the Arcata Fire Protection District response area from 2020 through 2023.

Figure 106: Annual Incident Volume (2020–2023)
Analyzing the incident volume by month, day of the week, and hour of the day is valuable when attempting to schedule events or add staffing. Additionally, months may reveal seasonality for the service needs. At the same time, days and hours may indicate population movement and activities throughout the week. The following figure analyzes incident percentages by month for January 2020 through December 2023. 1,735
3,294
3,676
3,458
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2020 2021 2022 2023
Incident Volume

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 150
Figure 107: Incident Volume Percentage by Month (2020–2023) There appears to be a minor deviation from the expected norm throughout the months.

January, September, and October are slightly higher than expected, while December is somewhat lower. This indicates a slight seasonality, as incident volume increases late summer through fall. It should be noted that the variation is less than +/- 1% from the norm, with the most considerable variations in September and December.

Another dimension for evaluation is the percentage of incidents that happen by day of the week. The following figure is the percentage of incidents that occurred by day of the week.

Figure 108: Incident Volume Percentage by Weekday (2020–2023) 0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
% of Incidents
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
% of Incidents

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 151
In this case, there is little deviation from the normal distribution of 14.3% per day. Demand on Saturday and Sunday is lower than expected, while on Thursday and Friday it is marginally higher.

It can be helpful to combine the month and day dimensions to identify potentially significant combinations of the month and weekday, as shown in the following figure of call volume by month and weekday from 2020 through 2023.

Figure 109: Month and Weekday Volume (2020–2023)
Month Mon Tues Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Jan Color Incidents
Feb 170–177
Mar 158–170
Apr 149–158
May 143–149
Jun 132–143
Jul 77–132
Aug 30–77
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
In this case, it is difficult to identify any specific pattern. The range of incident volume from 30 to 177 is significant. However, the distribution of the highs and lows is less telling.

Weekends in September and October stand out, along with the low weekend volume in early winter and early spring.

Another analytic dimension is to evaluate call volume throughout the hours of the day. For example, fire and EMS incidents are distributed unequally throughout most systems through the day. The daytime is typically more active than the evening, night, and early morning.

The driving force behind this phenomenon is likely that people are awake and moving. The following figure indicates that AFPD closely follows this daytime pattern, with nearly 66% of incidents occurring between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 152
Figure 110: Percentage of Incidents by Hour (2020–2023) It is essential to understand the combination of the hour of the day and the day of the week. By evaluating that density, some hot spot times can be identified. In AFPD's case, the evaluation shows a consistent and statistically significant pattern of daytime calls regardless of the day of the week. A slight shift toward the later hours on Friday, Saturday, and Saturday indicates later waking hours and a weekend social scene. However, this shift is not especially dramatic compared to some systems. The following figure indicates incident density by the hour and day of the week for all incidents between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2023.
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 % of Incidents
Hour of the Day

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 153
Figure 111: Weekday and Hour Volume (2020–2023)
Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
0 Color Incidents
1 111–119
2 96–111
3 85–96
4 67–85
5 46–67
6 33–46
7 28–33
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 154
Resource Distribution
Several key performance metrics help to identify the effectiveness of resource distribution.

A broad allocation of resources allows for a more rapid first response to any given area.

However, the first unit is only a portion of the deployment question. It is critical to have enough units to respond to incident volume, type, and severity. It is also essential to attempt to equalize the unit responses.

Geographic Distribution Analysis
Units and stations should be distributed to allow the best chance of reaching an incident in its earliest stages. There are two primary sources for performance standards that address this geographic distribution. The Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) defines distance, while the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) utilizes time as a criterion.

The ISO uses 5 miles from a fire station as its standard for minimal coverage. The AFPD has three stations within the jurisdiction. Except for difficult-to-access areas, the city limits are all within 5 miles of Mad River or Arcata stations. McKinleyville station has 5-mile access to most of the northern part of the jurisdiction. The following figure shows the 5-mile travel distance from a fire station.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 155
Figure 112: ISO 5 Mile Distance
For full credit in an ISO Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS), any building within the jurisdiction should be within 1.5 miles of an engine company and 2.5 miles of a truck company.47
47 Verisk. (2024). Criteria for Deployment Analysis of Companies. https://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/technical/criteria-for-deployment-analysis-of-companies.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 156
Arcata Fire has an engine at each station. This provides decent coverage for most of central Arcata, but the eastern half and extreme southern end of the city limits are beyond the immediate reach of an engine. Unfortunately, these gaps coincide with some of the more densely populated areas in the city limits. The following figure shows the 1.5-mile travel distance from each station with an engine company.

Figure 113: ISO 1.5 Mile Engine Company Distance

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 157
The ISO judges specialized equipment, such as a truck company, separately from an engine company. While engine companies are typically found at most fire stations, truck companies are only located at specific locations. ISO requires these truck companies to be within 2.5 miles of any building. There are no truck companies within AFPD.

Unit Workload Analysis
Unit workload should be balanced to maintain readiness, resiliency, and service availability. While it is prevalent for one unit to be busier than others, no crew should carry a load that is too heavy, making them less effective.

Incidents by Unit
AFPD had 31 unique units responding to all incidents within the incident records. However, over 87% of all unit responses were accomplished by the frontline engines and command (battalion/chief) units. The reserve engine accounts for 11% of the responses. The remaining Miscellaneous units include specialty units and other response vehicles. The following figure shows the units by response within AFPD for 2020 through 2023.

Figure 114: Workload by Apparatus Type (2020–2023)
The workload is not evenly distributed across all the apparatus. Engine 8216 with the addition of Engine 8211 sees 25% of engine responses, while Engine 8215 is found on 35% of all engine responses. Adding the volume for Engine 8217 to 8219’s cumulative workload results in 37% of all engine responses. The Type 3 Engine 8239 is considerably less utilized at 7%. The following figure shows the response volume of each engine unit for each year in the study period.
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Misc
Command
Engine-Reserve
Engine
Fire Medical Other

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 158
Figure 115: Annual Incident Volume by Unit and Year (2020–2023) Each incident requires a unit to remain on the scene to handle the situation. Therefore, a general idea of how long a specific crew will stay on the incident can assist operational planning. AFPD has two primary types of units that respond to emergencies. First, engines are the most flexible type of apparatus for general work. Second, command officers are any chief officers within the AFPD system. All other unit types are captured in a miscellaneous category. The following figure shows the average minutes each apparatus type was committed to a given incident category for the entire study period. Commit times greater than 12 hours and Natural Disaster incidents were omitted from this analysis. 1,120
953 1,001
4 950
1,152
1,309
73 822
1,456 1,481
149
861
1,356 1,381
155
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
E8211/E8216 E8215 E8217/E8219 E8239
2020 2021 2022 2023

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 159
Figure 116: Unit Type Average Commit Time by Incident Category (2020–2023) Generally, command personnel remain on an incident for approximately 36 minutes, engines for just over 20 minutes, and other support and specialty units for 45 minutes on average. As expected, AFPD apparatus are committed to fire incidents the longest on average. EMS and other incident types have average commit times under 30 minutes. The following figure shows the average unit commit time by broad incident type and apparatus type groupings.
46 22
18 24
20 11
15 70
20 28
40 48
18 18
118
36 38
26 11
40 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Fire
Overpressure
EMS
Hazardous Condition
Service Call
Good Intent Call
False Alarm
Minutes Committed
Engine Command Misc

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 160
Figure 117: Unit Type Average Incident Commit Times (2020–2023) One final dimension of unit workload is how much time each unit is committed to incidents throughout the year. The unit hour utilization (UHU) calculation evaluates how much time a crew is committed to an incident versus the total time on duty during a specific time frame.

The formula for this calculation is the total time committed to an incident divided by the sum of all time the unit is staffed.

𝑈𝐻𝑈 =
∑ 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑒
∑ 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐼𝑛 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒
The desire is for the primary unit at a station, typically an engine or quint company, the most flexible response unit, to be under 10% UHU. Maintaining 10% UHU should indicate the area has 90% availability from unscheduled events. Stations with multiple engine companies should aggregate to less than 10% UHU for all similar units.

Crew unit usage in AFPD is unevenly distributed. However, none of the units are approaching cautionary UHU numbers. Since all units at each station are cross staffed, it would be wise to combine UHU by station. However, the data provided was not specific enough to allow aggregation by station. 46
1860
70 28
54 118
36 95
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
Fire Medical Other
Engine Command Misc

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 161
Figure 118: UHU By Unit Groupings (2020–2023)
Unit Average 2023 2022 2021 2020
B8201 0.7% 0.0% 0.1% 1.1% 1.6%
B8202 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%
B8203 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
C8200 1.0% 1.2% 0.9% 1.2% 0.9%
C8201 0.3% 0.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0%
C8202 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%
CPT03 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%
CPT05 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
E8211 1.6% 3.2% 1.3% 1.0% 0.9%
E8215 4.6% 4.9% 4.9% 4.1% 4.7%
E8216 1.9% 0.0% 1.7% 1.9% 4.0%
E8217 4.3% 3.1% 4.9% 4.6% 4.7%
E8219 0.5% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
E8239 0.4% 0.8% 0.5% 0.4% 0.0%
L8291 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1%
R8274 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
T8283 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
U8207 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%
U8209 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.8%
U8295 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
W8258 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5%
While the UHU information helps identify if any single unit is overly burdened with the response, not all the time committed is apparent in the data. Crews may be out of service for maintenance, training, or other events that do not appear in this analysis.

Approximately half of a crew's day is spent in administrative, training, or recovery activities.

For example, assuming the crews are allowed 8 hours of rest and recovery daily, 2 hours for meals, and 2 hours for station, equipment, and vehicle maintenance, that totals 12 hours.

Additional time is usually given to physical fitness, training, and public education.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 162
Concurrency Analysis
Incidents that happen simultaneously can impact an agency's ability to respond. There may be times when all crews are engaged, leaving the jurisdiction reliant on outside aid.

The primary dimension of the concurrency evaluation is how often, within AFPD's jurisdiction, there is more than one incident at any given time. The following figure shows how frequently multiple incidents occur simultaneously within Arcata’s jurisdiction.

Figure 119: Concurrent in the Jurisdiction
Incidents Operating Percentage of Incidents
2 18.7%
3 9.0%
4 5.0%
5 or More 7.5%
As is evident, it is not uncommon for AFPD to run simultaneous incidents within the jurisdiction. There is a nearly 20% chance that another incident will start before the first incident is completed. However, responding to more than four incidents is rare.

Another factor in unit workload is the number of units assigned to a specific incident. The majority of AFPD incidents, over 92%, are accomplished by one company. Over 95% are handled by one or two companies. The following figure shows the percentage of incidents where the specified number of response units were assigned to an incident.

Figure 120: Apparatus per Incident
Apparatus per Incident Percentage of Incidents
1 92.1%
2 3.0%
3 2.5%
4 0.9%
5 0.5%
6 or More 0.9%

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 163
Performance Review
When evaluating a system, having a set of objectives or standards against which to judge performance is helpful. While national and state standards may be recommended, in California, it is up to the authority having jurisdiction to adopt specific ones. In this case, the AFPD has adopted three standards. Other goal references will include the 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 (NFPA 1710).

Evaluating overall performance requires an understanding of the lifecycle of an incident. It starts with a normal state and should end with a new normal state, but there are many measurable time segments in between. Some elements, such as call processing and turnout time, can be improved by tactical management techniques such as training and policy. However, other time segment performances, such as travel time, are typically managed by a strategic methodology such as station location.

The RMS data provided allowed an evaluation of call processing, turnout, travel, fire department response, and total response time. The dispatching PSAP performs checkbacks and these timestamps are part of the incident record. The CAL FIRE checkback practice skews both turnout and travel time. This is not unique to CAL FIRE Fortuna. The performance of these segments is presented below, but the data is likely inaccurate. While AFPD has adopted call processing, turnout, and response time standards, other available time segments do not have an associated standard. Therefore, the NFPA standards will be used as a performance benchmark. The following figure indicates each time segment, standards referenced, and the most influential organizational actions.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 164
Figure 121: Incident Segment KPIs
Incident Segment Primary Agency
Influence Standard Benchmark
Normalcy Prevention
Local
Codes &
Ordinances
Community Risk Assessment
Discovery Public Education TBD
Notification Public Education TBD
Call Answer1
Dispatch Staffing,
Systems, Policy, &
Training
NFPA 1225
15 Sec 90th Percentile
20 Sec 95th Percentile
Call Transfer 30 Sec 90th Percentile
Call Processing Agency 60 Sec 90th Percentile (priority)2 Turnout Time Station Design,
Policy & Training Agency 120 Sec 90th Percentile (Day)180 Sec 90th Percentile (Night) Travel Time (1st Due)
Station Location,
Systems, & Training
Agency
and
NFPA 1710
4 Min 90th Percentile
Travel Time (2nd Due) 8 Min 90th Percentile
Travel Time (ERF)
8 Min 90th Percentile
(Low or Moderate Risk)
10 Min 10 Sec 90th percentile
(High Risk)
Action Initiation or
Patient Contact
Station Location,
Systems, Staffing,
& Training
TBD
Control/Mitigation TBD
Recovery Prevention &
Public Education
Updated
Codes &
Ordinances
Community Risk Assessment
New Normal Prevention
Local
Codes &
Ordinances
Community Risk Assessment
1 Applies to both PSAP and Secondary Answering (Agency) Dispatch Centers 2 Non-Priority Incidents are exempt from NFPA 1225. Agencies are expected to set standards.

The time segment performance standards are evaluated as a percentile. This will allow AFPD to compare its performance against other agencies and the standard with a similar statistical technique.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 165
Call Processing Analysis
There are several time measures of a dispatch center. The metrics identified in NFPA 1225 and NFPA 1710 are ring time and call processing. Ring time measures when the phone in dispatch begins to ring until someone answers. NFPA 1225 requires the ring time to be less than 15 seconds, 90% of the time and less than 20 seconds, 95% of the time. Call processing indicates the time it takes from when a person answers the call for help until the first unit is notified of an incident. Ring time is typically captured in a separate system, and the raw data was unavailable for this report. However, sufficient data were available to evaluate call processing.

Call processing should start from when the phone is answered until the first, preferably correct, unit has been notified an incident is in progress. However, there is typically a short period, usually seconds, from when the phone is answered, and the incident is started in the computer-aided dispatch system. For this analysis, it is assumed this short period, while not captured, is inconsequential. The NFPA 1710 standard indicates that a high-priority incident should be processed within 60 seconds, 90% of the time. NFPA further defines specific call types to be processed within 90 seconds, 90% of the time and 120 seconds, 99% of the time. These incident types include those requiring emergency medical questioning, hazardous materials incidents, and technical rescue incidents. This additional time is available for persons needing translation, calls from devices used by hard-of-hearing individuals, text messages, and calls requiring location determination.

Specific incidents were excluded to find the emergency call processing times. The criteria for exclusion were mutual and automatic aid responses outside the jurisdiction, no arrival time, call processing greater than 10 minutes, and "null" incident categories. However, that did leave 10,635 incidents for evaluation. Overall, the CAL FIRE Fortuna Emergency Command Center (Fortuna ECC) processed calls at approximately 6 minutes, 36 seconds or faster, 90% of the time. The following figure shows the call processing time at the 90th percentile based on the NFIRS incident grouping for 2020 through 2023.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 166
Figure 122: Call Processing by NFIRS Category (2020–2023) Turnout Time Analysis
Turnout time is the difference between when the unit is notified of an incident and when they begin to respond. The agency’s goal for this time segment is 120 seconds for day hours and 180 seconds for night. For this analysis, the incidents will be grouped by EMS and others. As with other time measures, the checkback process from Fortuna ECC influences timestamps.

Some incident data was removed to create the most realistic turnout time evaluation. First, data missing either the dispatch time, the enroute time, or where the dispatch time was later than the enroute time was eliminated as erroneous. In addition, units without arrival times and incidents where automatic or mutual aid was given or received were removed.

Finally, only AFPD frontline units were evaluated, and the turnout time was limited to a 5- minute maximum as it was a natural break between the meaningful data and the extremes outside the maximum limit.

Over 11,000 unit records could be measured. This represents approximately 80% of the recorded information, a typical percentage in this type of analysis. Overall, AFPD staffed apparatus has a turnout time of 2 minutes or faster, 90% of the time. 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00
False Alarm
Good Intent Call
Service Call
Hazardous Condition
EMS
Overpressure
Fire
2023 2022 2021 2020

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 167
The following figure shows the turnout percentile by the hour of the day, with the workload by general incident type added for reference. Turnout time is clearly impacted by the checkbacks performed by CAL FIRE ECC and is not a useful measure of performance.

Figure 123: Turnout Time by Hour (2020–2023)
Travel Time Analysis
NFPA 1710 lists several travel time requirements for apparatus. The first defined travel time is the first unit, either an engine or a truck that can operate as an engine, should be 4 minutes. The second-due engine should travel within 6 minutes, and the first alarm should arrive within 8 minutes for a moderate-risk structure fire.

Travel time is the difference between when the apparatus goes en route and when it arrives on the scene. Travel time for the incident is from when the first arriving unit is en route until it comes on the scene. Travel times were limited to those incidents listed as an emergent response where the dispatch times and arrival times were not "null" and where dispatch times were less than the arrival time. In addition, the maximum travel time was limited to 31 minutes as that is the estimated time to drive from one end of the jurisdiction to the other. Note that travel time performance is also impacted by the FICC checkback process.
0 50
100
150
200
250
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Turnout Time (seconds)
% Incidents
Hour of the Day
Other EMS % Other % EMS

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 168
First Due Apparatus
The first due performance for AFPD is 8 minutes, 36 seconds or faster for 90% of incidents within the jurisdiction. The following figure shows the first due travel time for emergency responses by incident type and year.

Figure 124: First Due Travel Time by Incident Type (2020–2023) Because EMS calls are the most significant percentage of emergent incidents and the stations are so similarly staffed, the EMS times appear to be the primary driver of the overall performance time.

Time of day can have an enormous impact on travel times. In addition, crew readiness, traffic patterns, and incident volume can impact travel times. Travel times show some improvement outside of peak travel hours in the morning and mid-afternoon. The following figure shows the first due travel times by the hour, with the workload shown for reference.

The workload does not appear to directly influence travel time. 03:02 11:05 09:21 08:29
07:37
07:09
07:28
06:45
07:35
11:16
10:14
10:32
00:00
02:00
04:00
06:00
08:00
10:00
12:00
2020 2021 2022 2023
Fire Medical Other

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 169
Figure 125: Travel Time by Hour (2020–2023)
Effective Response Force
The second dimension of the travel time analysis is how well the effective response force (ERF) needed for a type of incident can be assembled. ERFs change with the complexity and resources required of any incident. They can range from one unit to multiple units with specialty equipment. The following figure shows the travel time for emergent incidents of the first three units arriving. There is little difference between the third unit's arrival and subsequent times.

Figure 126: Historical Travel, First Three Units (2020–2023) 0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
00:00
02:00
04:00
06:00
08:00
10:00
12:00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 08:36
09:36
11:37
00:00
02:00
04:00
06:00
08:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
0 20
40 60
80 100
1 2 3
Travel Time
% of Incidents
Order of Arrival
% of Incidents Travel Time

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 170
Fire Department Response Time Analysis
One time segment not identified by the NFPA or Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) is from when the fire department is notified until it arrives on the scene.

The value of this measure is in how the fire department evaluates its specific performance, regardless of how the communications center performs. The overall fire department response time for AFPD is 9 minutes, 17 seconds, or faster, for 90% of the responses. The following figure shows the annual fire department performance by incident type.

Figure 127: Annual Fire Department Response Times by Group (2020–2023) 04:04 12:25 09:49 09:25 09:23 07:45 07:45 07:19 08:25 11:49 10:42 11:16 00:00
02:00
04:00
06:00
08:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
2020 2021 2022 2023
Fire Medical Other

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 171
Total Response Time Analysis
The reason each time segment is analyzed is to get an understanding of where performance can be measured and improved. However, the primary performance measurement is the total response time. The person in need sees this as the fire department's performance. For example, as previously discussed, AFPD's fire department time for all incidents is 9 minutes, 17 seconds or faster, 90% of the time. However, the total response time is 13 minutes, 33 seconds or faster 90% of the time. The following figure shows the annual first due total response time by incident type.

Figure 128: Annual Total Response Time by Group (2020–2023) 10:26 16:02 13:48 12:54 12:21 13:15 13:10 11:56 11:46 15:54 14:55 14:50
00:00
02:00
04:00
06:00
08:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
18:00
2020 2021 2022 2023
Total Response Time
Fire Medical Other

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 172

POPULATION GROWTH & SERVICE DEMAND PROJECTIONS
In evaluating the deployment of facilities, resources, and staffing, consideration must be given to potential changes in workload that could directly affect such deployment. Any changes in service demand can require changes and adjustments in the deployment of staff and resources to maintain acceptable performance levels.

For this study, AP Triton utilized population projections for the response area obtained through community development research48. We multiplied these by a forecasted incident rate derived from a four-year history of incident per capita rates to identify workload potential through 2034. The results of the analysis are shown in the following figure. The dramatic increase in incidents between 2020 and 2021 introduces significant uncertainty in the future incident rate.

Figure 129: Future Service Demand Projection
Based on population projections, service demand for AFPD will potentially increase by 2% through 2034 if population trends continue. Policymakers should keep an eye on annual service demand and how it is impacted by development.
48 Esri. (2024). Data Enrichment. https://doc.arcgis.com/en/esri-demographics/latest/reference/dataallocation-method.htm. 0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
36,500
37,000
37,500
38,000
38,500
39,000
39,500
40,000
40,500
41,000
2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034
Incidents
Population
Population Estimate Forecast Incidents Incident Forecast

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 173

EFFECTIVENESS OF INTER-JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSE
It is in the best interest of the AFPD and its State and local partners to cooperate to achieve objectives of common interest and concern. A functionally integrated fire protection system involving Federal, State, and local government resources is the most effective method of delivering fire protection where life, property, and natural resource values are at risk.

There are various agreements at various levels of government and between agencies that allow for and aid during emergencies. These agreements may help in the form of automatic aid or mutual aid, where assistance is rendered free of charge (nonreimbursable) for generally a short-duration assignment. The AFPD is a party to the Humboldt County Mutual Aid Agreement in addition to the California State Office of Emergency Services Mutual Aid Plan.

Figure 130: Fire Mutual Aid Partners

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 174
The Humboldt County Mutual Aid Agreement is a voluntary agreement between local entities that describes the initial responses to incidents occurring within the Humboldt County Operational Area. Additionally, local agreements determine whether the responses are automatic aid instead of mutual aid. Automatic aid is generally the most effective and efficient way to provide aid between two or more adjoining areas of close proximity, especially when regional dispatch such as CAL FIRE’s Fortuna ECC is in place. There is real strength in the automatic aid agreements between the career fire departments and districts within Humboldt County. These agreements reduce response times, improve interagency coordination, and make better use of limited fire and emergency service resources.

Humboldt County has thirty-six volunteer and paid departments that respond to emergencies 365 days a year. These agencies are quick to assist each other within Mutual Aid zones, even outside their response areas. When this type of interdependence exists, there are sometimes challenges. This means that decisions and subsequent actions taken in one jurisdiction can have consequences for a partner or adjoining jurisdictions. During our stakeholder interviews, there were some shortcomings noted primarily related to distance, staffing, and resource availability between agencies. This concern existed with both paid and volunteer agencies, but with so many volunteer agencies in Humboldt County supplementing the system; there are inherent availability concerns.

The California Office of Emergency Services Fire & Rescue Division plan makes participating local government jurisdictions' emergency apparatus and personnel available for dispatch and use through the state in the spirit of cooperation. The system is managed through Operational Areas (Counties) to six regions to the North and South then State. For local government agencies, like the AFPD, reimbursement begins 12 hours after the initial dispatch and is retroactive to the time of the initial dispatch. If the duration of the assignment is less than 12 hours, there is no reimbursement.

Regionalization of Services
Regional fire and emergency services are a critical aspect of public safety, offering both advantages and challenges. On the positive side, regionalization can lead to improved resource sharing, enhanced specialized training, and greater consistency in service delivery across different areas. It allows for a unified command structure, which can be particularly beneficial during large-scale emergencies where a coordinated response is essential. Moreover, regional services can benefit from economies of scale, potentially reducing costs and increasing efficiency.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 175
However, there are also downsides to consider. Regional services may face challenges related to the diversity of the communities they cover, such as varying risk profiles and community needs, which can complicate the provision of tailored services. There's also the potential for decreased local control and input, which can lead to a disconnect between emergency services and the communities they serve. Additionally, the initial transition to a regional system can be complex and costly, requiring significant upfront investment in terms of both time and money.

In the context of the AFPD and Humboldt County, public safety and communities have evolved over time, reflecting local funding and needs. The county's current model illustrates the complexity of designing a system that balances regional coordination with local control.

Public safety consolidation can include the merging of both fire and emergency medical services. However, including EMS transport has some historical roots and presents its own set of pros and cons. While it can lead to increased savings and improved coverage, opponents argue it involves a significant identity shift, which can help with buy-in from both elected officials and firefighters but also requires an initial investment.

Training for emergency services personnel is another area where regionalization has an impact. It can create greater opportunities for networking and improved regional services without too much loss of local autonomy.

Finally, regional collaboration in fire services involves more than just working together; it requires contributions from each member agency and often necessitates some sacrifice of individual autonomy for the greater good. The AFPD, other fire agencies, and Humboldt County would benefit from a thorough analysis of how regional fire and emergency services can offer improved efficiency and coordination while being careful to address the unique needs of the communities they serve, ensuring that the benefits outweigh any potential drawbacks.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 176
SECTION IV:

Findings & Recommendations

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 177

ESTABLISHMENT OF PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
Adoption of Performance Objectives
When evaluating a system, having a set of objectives or standards against which to judge performance is helpful. While national and state standards may be recommended, in California, it is up to the authority having jurisdiction to adopt specific ones. In this case, the AFPD has adopted three standards—call processing, turnout, and response time standards.

Other goal references will include the 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 (NFPA 1710).

An emergency incident has several identifiable segments. By adopting objectives based on time segments, an agency can begin to understand how its actions affect an incident’s total response time. While much of the analytics available for the fire service is based on time, this is not the only performance that can be measured.

Each segment can help identify areas where the performance objective may be other than time, such as quality or prevention. However, the most widely available and used metrics center around time. Once the time analysis is mastered, the agency should expand into the less traditional performance evaluation methods.

The initial step for AFPD is to determine the key performance metrics that will be monitored and managed. Currently, AFPD’s performance reports are primarily focused on call volumes, with limited attention to evaluating time metrics for performance enhancement or management. Nonetheless, the performance evaluation information in this document serves as a valuable starting point for understanding and defining the objectives the agency wishes to assess. AP Triton provides performance data for our clients; however, we don’t recommend specific metric. The Board must decide on the performance metrics to be managed. This document should provide direction and a foundation for these discussions. Additionally, the time components being managed should align with an overarching service objective or area. For instance, a benchmark for the first due unit in an urban area for medical calls could be set at 7 minutes.

Understanding the total time requirements establishes the basis for setting call segment benchmarks. For example, this report indicates that the 90th percentile total response time for all medical calls is 8 minutes, 16 seconds. Combining the requirement with historical performance suggests that the benchmark for medical calls should be 7 minutes, with the baseline being 8 minutes, 16 seconds.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 178
As discussed earlier in the performance section, evaluating overall performance requires an understanding of the lifecycle of an incident. It starts with a normal state and should end with a new normal state, but there are many measurable time segments in between.

Some elements, such as call processing and turnout time, can be improved by tactical management techniques such as training and policy. However, other time segment performances, such as travel time, are typically managed by a strategic methodology such as station location.

The following figure identifies performance metrics for emergency incident segments with the applicable standards, and other comments. The AFPD has adopted a 120 second daytime and 180 second nighttime turnout time performance metric. NFPA 1710 recommends 60 seconds for EMS responses and 80 seconds for fire responses, however most fire departments have difficulty meeting this measure. CAL FIRE has a 60-second, 90th percentile standard.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 179
Figure 131: Traditional Performance Metrics
Standard Incident Segment Benchmark
State of Normalcy
Discovery of Event
9-1-1 Notification
Total Response Time
(NFPA 1710)
Call Processing
(NFPA 1225)
Primary PSAP
Call Answer
15 Sec 90th Percentile1
20 Sec 95th Percentile
Call Processing/Transfer Time 30 Sec 90th Percentile
Alarm Transfer Time Needed for organizations
that are not primary PSAP
Call
Processing Time 60 Sec 90th Percentile (priority)2
Response Time
(NFPA 1710)
Turnout Time 120 Sec 90th Percentile (Day)
180 Sec 90th Percentile (Night)
Travel Time
(1st Due) 4 Min 90th Percentile
Travel Time
(2nd Due) 8 Min 90th Percentile
Travel Time
Effective Response Force
8 Min 90th Percentile
(Low or Moderate Risk)
10 Min 10 Sec 90th percentile
(High Risk)
Action Initiation/Patient Contact
Mitigation/Treatment
NIH
EMS travel to Destination 30–80 minutes per
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
APOT
(AB40)
Ambulance patient offload time
(APOT)
< 30 Min 90th Percentile
Recovery
State of Normalcy
Unit Hour Utilization (UHU)
No standard exists however 25-30% is
generally accepted threshold for
firefighters on 24-hour shift
1 Applies to both PSAP and Secondary Answering (Agency) Dispatch Centers. 2 Non-Priority Incidents are exempt from NFPA 1225. Agencies are expected to set standards.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 180
The time segment performance standards are evaluated as a percentile. This will allow AFPD to compare its performance against other agencies and the standard with a similar statistical technique.

Critical Tasking
AFPD’s service area combines areas with unique risks and response requirements. Specific critical tasks must be accomplished with each type of incident, and certain numbers and types of apparatus should be dispatched.

Tasks that must be performed at a fire can be broken down into two key components: life safety and fire flow. Life safety tasks are based on the number of building occupants, and their location, status, and ability to take self-preservation action. Life safety-related tasks involve the search, rescue, and evacuation of victims. The fire-flow component involves delivering sufficient water to extinguish the fire and create an environment within the building that allows entry by firefighters.

The number and types of tasks needing simultaneous action will dictate the minimum number of firefighters required to combat different types of fires. In the absence of adequate personnel to perform concurrent action, the commanding officer must prioritize the tasks and complete some in chronological order rather than concurrently. These tasks include the following:
• Command
• Scene safety
• Search and rescue
• Fire attack
• Water supply
• Pump operation
• Ventilation
• Backup/rapid intervention
AFPD can deploy six firefighters from three stations utilizing three engines to initial dispatch of a structure fire to perform fire suppression, rescue, ventilation, forcible entry, salvage, and overhaul operations. A chief officer can respond from the AFPD office or home to assume command function from one of the engine captains. Additional automatic and mutual aid firefighters are available.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 181
The current fire department's response is insufficient for incidents beyond emergency medical services, even with mutual aid. AFPD does not meet NFPA standards for fires in garden apartments, strip malls, and high-rise buildings. The risk is significant, particularly in multistory and student housing. APFD should prioritize adding firefighters and expanding automatic aid to ensure effective response.

OSHA
OSHA states that “once firefighters begin the interior attack on an interior structural fire, the atmosphere is assumed to be Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) and paragraph 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(4) [two-in/two-out] applies.” OSHA defines interior structural firefighting “as the physical activity of fire suppression, rescue or both inside of buildings or enclosed structures which are involved in a fire situation beyond the incipient stage.” Any structural fire beyond the incipient stage is considered to be an IDLH atmosphere by OSHA.

NFPA 1710
An effective fire response force that adheres to established standards, such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1710, is recommended to provide effective, efficient, and safe protective services to help prevent fires, reduce risk to lives and property, deal with incidents that occur, and help prepare for anticipated incidents. This standard outlines the minimum initial response requirements for resource deployment for fire suppression based on occupancy type.
• Single-Family Dwelling: The initial full alarm assignment to a structure fire in a typical 2,000 ft2 (186 m2), two-story, single-family dwelling without a basement and with no exposures must provide for a minimum of 16 members (17 if an aerial device is used).
• Garden-Style Apartment: The initial full alarm assignment to a structure fire in a typical 1,200 ft2 (111 m²) apartment within a three-story, garden-style apartment building must provide for a minimum of 27 members (28 if an aerial device is used). • Open-Air Strip Mall: The initial full alarm assignment to a structure fire in a typical open-air strip shopping center ranging from 13,000 ft2to 196,000 ft2 (1,203 m2to 18,209 m2) in size must provide for a minimum of 27 members (28 if an aerial device is used).
• High-Rise: The initial full alarm assignment to a fire in a building with the highest floor greater than 75 ft (23 m) above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access must provide for a minimum of 42 members (43 if the building is equipped with a fire pump).

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 182
Critical task analyses also apply to non-fire-type emergencies, including medical, technical rescue, and hazardous materials emergencies. Numerous simultaneous tasks must be completed to handle an emergency effectively. The department’s ability to quickly muster needed numbers of trained personnel to make a difference is critical to successful incident outcomes.

EMS
As discussed previously, the North Coast Medical Services Agency provides regional management and regulation, and the California Emergency Medical Services Authority provides state oversight and regulation for emergency medical services.

EMS staffing shall be staffed with the minimum number of members necessary for emergency medical care relative to the level of EMS priority. EMS treatment levels included basic life support (BLS), advanced life support (ALS), and Critical Care Transport (CCT). BLS units shall have two emergency medical technicians (EMT) currently certified in the State of California. ALS units shall have one accredited paramedic licensed in the State and one EMT currently certified in the State of California. First Response EMS unit operations in the AFPD shall be organized to ensure BLS capability and includes members, equipment and resources to deploy the initial arriving company and additional alarm assignments as needed.

In closing, the relationship between deployment of resources, response time and positive outcomes is circular. If fire department response times and effective response force assembly times are low, it is more likely that sufficient resources have been deployed, which is associated with more positive outcomes from risk events. Conversely, if response times and effective response force assembly times are high, it is more likely that insufficient resources have been deployed, which is associated with more negative outcomes.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 183

OVERVIEW OF COMPLIANCE METHODOLOGY
AP Triton conducted a review of Records Management Systems (RMS) policies that included assessment of oversight responsibilities and review requirements to address current data integrity issues. Some common data issues exist that include:

1. Incomplete or Inaccurate Data: Errors in data entry can lead to incorrect information being recorded, affecting decision-making.

2. Duplication of Information: Using codes that duplicate existing data can create redundancies and inconsistencies.

3. Generalization of Data: Overuse of codes like "unknown" or "none" can obscure meaningful insights.

4. High Dollar Loss Misreporting: Incorrect estimations of property loss can skew data analysis.

To address the current data integrity issues within the Arcata Fire Protection District, it is crucial to implement a robust framework that ensures accuracy, consistency, and reliability of data. Establish clear guidelines for the RMS, ensuring that all data entered is accurate, timely, and relevant. This will involve training personnel on data entry standards and conducting periodic audits to verify compliance.

Designate oversight roles to specific individuals responsible for monitoring data integrity and performance metrics. These roles will include regular reporting to the district's leadership and recommending corrective actions when necessary.

Implement a schedule for regular monthly and annual assessments of the RMS and other data-related systems. These assessments should evaluate the effectiveness of the technology in capturing and reporting data, as well as ensuring adherence to data integrity standards.

By adopting such a methodology, the Arcata Fire Protection District can establish a cycle of continuous improvement, leveraging data to enhance response times, resource allocation, and overall community safety. The integration of modern technology and a quality assurance framework will position the district at the forefront of continuous improvement.