Arcata City Council
September 10, 2025

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 184

STRATEGIES & RECOMMENDATIONS
The following section entails various strategies and recommendations developed by AP Triton for this project with the assistance of AFPD staff. AP Triton recognizes that not all recommendations can be implemented immediately; some may need to wait until economic conditions permit. Nonetheless, each recommendation charts a course to improve AFPD’s capabilities and services.

General Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Review Policies and Guidelines Annually.

Description: Clear and pertinent policies and guidelines ensure everyone in the organization operates consistently and effectively. To maintain relevance, these documents must be regularly evaluated using a specific process. These evaluations should include presentations to ensure everyone is informed and understands any updates or changes. This practice ensures that all personnel are on the same page and can perform their duties efficiently and safely.

Outcomes: Consistently updated and relevant core employment, performance, financial, and standard operating policies. Communicated and effective documentation.

Estimated Financial Cost: Staff time. Additional costs may apply if software solutions are purchased.

Recommendation 2: Update the AFPD 2019 Strategic Plan.

Description: AFPD has a strategic plan, which should be reviewed and updated. This guiding document should be reviewed annually and thoroughly updated about every 3 to 5 years to help identify immediate and longer-term strategies to address challenges. It can also help maintain consistency during staffing changes. It is common for agencies to with combine CRA-SOC with strategic planning or move from CRA-SOC to Strategic Plan immediately while the CRA-SOC is current.

Outcomes: An updated, adopted, published, and managed strategic plan.

Estimated Financial Cost: Costs will vary depending on the approach adopted. If updated internally, staff time would be required. If a consultant is used, the cost could be approximately $25,000–$30,000.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 185
Recommendation 3: Develop a Master Plan.

Description: The AFPD should utilize much of the information within this study to develop a master plan, which is a high-level plan that typically spans a timeframe of 10 to 15 years.

This multifaceted longer-range approach will allow 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. It is common for agencies to combine CRA-SOC with strategic planning then move to develop a Master Plan.

Outcomes: An adopted, published, and managed master plan.

Estimated Financial Cost: Costs will vary depending on the approach adopted and timing.

Much of the information within this CRA-SOC could be used to develop a master plan.

Recommendation 4: Establish a capital improvement and replacement program.

Description: AFPD should work to develop, adopt, and fund a capital improvement and replacement program for the purpose of replacing or significantly repairing major assets (like buildings, infrastructure, apparatus or equipment) when they reach the end of their useful life, essentially acting as a long-term savings plan to cover large future capital improvement costs. Each capital system should be identified and put on a repair and replacement schedule. Each building should continue to be evaluated for its ability to meet the agency's needs, and a replacement schedule should be negotiated years in advance.

Outcomes: Systematically evaluate, repair, and potentially improve the facilities required for ongoing operations.

Estimated Cost: Initial costs will include staff time to audit facilities and equipment, and finalize and adopt a plan. Ongoing costs will consist of maintenance requirements such as system repair and replacement of consumable.

Recommendation 5: Quality assurance of RMS data inputs and report writing.

Description: Correct documentation of events for the fire department 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.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 186
Outcomes: AP Triton recommends the review of all or sampling of reports with unsatisfactory reports being sent back to the author. 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 need. Overall, robust data collection ultimately leads to improved safety and service for the community.

Estimated Cost: Existing RMS is capable of more detailed reporting. Cost would be tied to staff updating policies and training personnel on RMS to improve data collection then ongoing reviews for compliance.

Recommendation 6: Expand AFPD public education program.

Description: The AFPD should place strong emphasis on public education, offering programs to schools and community groups to promote fire safety awareness.

Outcomes: The department should begin to see a measurable improvement in preparedness and a reduction in losses through public education efforts that are focused on preparedness (e.g. CPR7 and “Don’t Get Caught Off Guard”) and mitigation.

Estimated Cost: Currently, public education is primarily done by volunteers. A comprehensive program would require additional training and staff focused on community outreach. There could be an opportunity to partner with CPH School of Education for school programs that focus on elementary and middle school students.

Recommendation 7: Add dedicated staff to the Training Division.

Description: The AFPD training is currently overseen by Assistant Chief and on-duty Captains. Training is vitally important to every organization as it provides the required continuing education, changes in best practices, and legal mandates. This cannot be accomplished at the appropriate level without proper staffing. Since it is reported that other Humboldt County agencies are understaffed in training, longer-term the AFPD should study, opportunities to form a regional training consortium.

Outcomes: Add dedicated staff to ensure required continuing education and mandated training are being achieved as well as adherence to the AFPD training plan.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 187
Estimated Cost: Costs will vary depending on the approach adopted. Given existing financial constraints, the AFPD should consider adding a non-safety staff person capable of managing training records, continuing education and calendars.

Recommendation 8: Develop a Training Needs and Evaluation Process.

Description: Staff skills evaluations and post-incident analysis can help the agency understand where to focus its training efforts. While no one likes to get critiqued, honest reflection about service performance can provide the training division with valuable information. Without formal review processes, training may be focused on programs where responders are already very proficient, or worse, do not address a weakness.

Outcomes: A formal, collaborative evaluation system to direct training activities.

Estimated Cost: Staff time.

Recommendation 9: Create a Community Risk Reduction Plan.

Description: The Community Risk Reduction Plan (CRRP) and its drafting and implementation process are included in this document's Prevention Services & Public Education portion. The CRRP should be developed from AFPD incident data thoroughly reviewed for accuracy and completeness. If the data quality is not high, it may be necessary to implement an incident report review process within the department. AFPD does not have an adopted CRRP.

Outcomes: The department should begin to see a measurable reduction in fire and injury losses as specific risks are targeted by population group and geographic region, and efforts are more focused on preventing the incident than mitigating impacts. When developing a CRRP, the most effective and efficient method is to utilize the entire organization, not just the fire prevention division.

Estimated Cost: This is a shift in focus and effort by the entire department, making costs minimal. Training should be the only cost other than time and change management strategies. Additional training requires personnel and funding.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 188
Recommendation 10: Consider regionalization of fire and emergency services.

Description: 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.

Outcomes: Feasibility study on regional fire and emergency services.

Estimated Cost: AFPD and other interested agencies should approach Humboldt County LAFCo to investigate funding opportunities.

Recommendation 11: Adopt a response time objective for each element of the total response time.

Description: AFPD falls short of several recommended national standards and did not communicate that they have an adopted response performance policy for total response time or each element of response time. Each portion of the total response time needs an adopted standard.

Outcomes: After comparing NFPA 1710 and baseline results, the AFPD should develop a policy for Board consideration. Once approved, routine performance monitoring and reporting should take place.

Estimated Cost: Staff time to develop response time objectives for each time segment in the response time continuum.

Recommendation 12: Begin tracking performance and outcome measurements.

Description: AFPD needs to look at ways to provide performance and outcome measurements to share with the community and elected officials. This could be done with some of the following examples but should not be limited to only these items. • How often is the fire contained to the room of origin? • How long does it take to get water on the fire?
• How long does it take to get a fire under control?
• When was OSHA “Two In/Two Out” achieved?
• When was an effective NFPA firefighting force on the scene? Outcomes: Outcome measures will determine if a strategy, program or practice is working.

Estimated Financial Cost: Staff time to review and develop a measurement system.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 189
Recommendation 13: Evaluate methods to add additional firefighters to response force.

Description: AFPD should evaluate methods to add additional personnel to its overall emergency response. 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. As funding allows, the APFD should prioritize adding firefighters and expanding automatic aid to ensure effective response.

Outcomes: Deploy an effective emergency response force that is more consistent with established standards 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.

Estimated Financial Cost: Depends on the method chosen. Cost would range from enhanced automatic aid to adding firefighter staff to each AFPD engine company.

Recommendation 14: Continue Long Range Financial Planning.

Description: Fire districts commonly prepare long-range financial forecasts. Although it is difficult to predict certain economic variables, utilizing a conservative forecast model would help the AFPD prepare for upcoming fiscal years and provide the public with a picture of the anticipated financial future.

Outcomes: Financial planning for a rolling 5-year period would be appropriate for the AFPD.

Estimated Financial Cost: Staff time.

Recommendation 15: Renewal/Updating of Special Taxes and Assessments.

Description: The district must engage the public and plan for the renewal of Measure F, or a similar tax measure, before its expiration to avoid a severe revenue shortfall. Additionally, consideration should be given to updating the 2006 Benefit Assessment to include an inflationary clause.

Outcomes: Voter approval is required but is necessary to maintain essential services especially as operating costs increase.

Estimated Cost: The cost to implement includes internal staff time and legal counsel as well as County cost associated with ballot measure(s).

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 190
Recommendation 16: Work with the city and county on impact/mitigation fees.

Description: Although the district itself may not charge such impact/mitigation fees, it is quite common in California for cities and counties to impose fire impact fees for fire protection districts that provide services within their jurisdiction. The AFPD would be well served to open dialogue with the City of Arcata and Humboldt County for their respective areas within the district where the reasonable need or impact, benefit, and cost proportionality can be demonstrated.

Outcomes: Dialogue with the City of Arcata and Humboldt County for their respective areas within the district where the reasonable need or impact, benefit, and cost proportionality can be demonstrated.

Estimated Cost: The cost to implement such a program could be either internal staff time to analyze the applicable costs, develop the fee structure, and work with legal counsel to implement.

Recommendation 17: Consider implementing a First Responder Fee.

Description: AFPD should consider implementing a first responder fee to recover a portion of the costs incurred in dispatching an engine company for emergency medical calls.

California State legislation allows agencies to recover the costs of providing such services.

This cost recovery may mitigate the expense of deploying fire apparatus with qualified Firefighters responding to medical emergencies.

Outcomes: The cost of providing first responder services with fire department apparatus and personnel is significant. Responding with a medically equipped fire apparatus greatly burdens the fire department’s budget. Implementing a first responder fee may help recover some of these costs, alleviate some financial pressure on the department, and ensure continued high-quality emergency response services.

Estimated Cost to Implement: The cost to implement such a program could be either internal staff time to analyze the applicable costs, develop the fee structure, and create the Fee Ordinance or obtain the services of an independent consultant to perform those services.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 191
Recommendation 18: Consider Enhance Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) Description: AFPD should have dialogue with the City of Arcata and Humboldt County to further understand the advantages and disadvantages of an EIFD.

Outcomes: Identification of projects that benefit the AFPD.

Estimated Cost to Implement: The cost to implement such a program could be either internal staff time to analyze or obtain the services of an independent consultant to perform those services.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 192

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
Potential Impact of Development on Revenue Streams
The Arcata Fire Protection District serves a diverse area with a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural zones. Its ability to generate tax revenue is closely tied to property taxes and the projected growth and development outlined in plans such as the City of Arcata’s 2045 General Plan and Gateway Area Plan, McKinleyville Community Plan and Coastal Area Plan and McKinleyville Town Center Plan, and the Cal Poly Humboldt Development Plan.

City of Arcata’s 2045 General Plan emphasizes strategic infill and redevelopment, particularly in the Gateway Area, which is expected to see higher-density housing and mixed-use developments. Increased property values and new developments in these areas could significantly boost property tax revenue for the AFPD. The Gateway Area Plan also includes infrastructure improvements, which could attract businesses and residents, further enhancing the tax base. The Gateway Area's focus on higher-density housing and mixed-use developments could increase property tax revenue significantly. With higher property values, the base on which taxes are levied expands. Even without changes to the tax rate, increased assessments drive more revenue. However, specific projections for AFPD are not available with confidence.

The McKinleyville Community Plan focuses on preserving rural character while supporting economic development. The Town Center Plan, in particular, aims to create a mixed-use hub with higher-density housing and commercial spaces. These developments could lead to an increase in sales tax revenue from new businesses and property tax from higherdensity housing. The emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle-friendly infrastructure may also attract younger, tax-contributing demographics. The Town Center Plan's emphasis on mixed-use hubs and economic development could lead to increased property tax and sales tax revenue. While the McKinleyville Community Services District has detailed assessments for parks and recreation, similar assessments are not in place for the AFPD.

Coastal development is often subject to stricter regulations, but the plan aims to balance environmental preservation with sustainable growth. Limited but targeted development in coastal areas could contribute modestly to the tax base, particularly through tourismrelated businesses. Coastal development often boosts tourism-related revenue, such as bed taxes and sales taxes. Despite these enhancements, the direct contribution of coastal development to AFPD’s property and other tax revenues remains less predictable.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 193
As Cal Poly Humboldt expands its facilities and student population, there will likely be increased demand for housing, services, and retail. This growth could lead to higher property and sales tax revenues, as well as increased funding opportunities tied to educational institutions. Although California public universities such as Cal Poly Humboldt are exempt from property taxes, their presence and expansion drives secondary development, which in turn contributes to increased local and state tax revenues. While this benefits the region broadly, specific allocations to AFPD are not detailed.

Generally, property taxes are expected to rise due to higher-density housing and commercial developments in the Gateway Area and McKinleyville Town Center. It is likely sales taxes will increase with the addition of new businesses and retail spaces in these growth areas. With much less certainty, coastal and educational developments could contribute additional revenue streams.

Despite optimistic projections, specific revenue estimates for AFPD remain uncertain.

Projections depend on fluctuating market conditions, regulatory changes, and how aggressively development plans are executed. The AFPD will still need to align its funding strategies with these growth projections to ensure adequate fire protection services. This could include exploring fees, bonds, or special assessments to supplement tax revenue.

Aligning service strategies with revenue projections ensures that as new developments drive economic activity, AFPD also captures and allocates funds efficiently to manage growing risks and responsibilities.

Financial Reserves Monitoring
Maintaining an adequate and safe level of financial reserves is critical for ensuring the fiscal stability and operational readiness of the Arcata Fire Protection District.

To determine an appropriate level of financial reserves, AP Triton analyzed financial data from several comparable fire districts in California, including:
• Marin County Fire Department
• San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
• Monterey County Regional Fire District
• Central County Fire Department
• South Placer Fire District
These districts were chosen based on similarities in population served, call volumes, and staffing configurations.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 194
Based on a comparative analysis of the departments listed above, as well as a sample of other fire departments across the state, reserve levels among these fire departments and districts range from 35% to 60% of annual operating expenses or revenues. This aligns with and exceeds the Government Finance Officers Association's (GFOA) recommendation of maintaining at least two months of operating expenditures or revenues in reserve. AP Triton believes that AFPD’s current policy of maintaining reserves of at least 50% of operating costs is reasonable.49
Financial Sustainability Considerations
A core component of the financial sustainability of AFPD is its ability to effectively manage existing financial resources while preparing for future growth and potential challenges.

This section brings forward several recommendations for the Arcata Fire Protection District’s consideration:
• Renewal of Measure F: The district should engage the public and plan for the renewal of Measure F, or a similar tax measure, before its expiration to avoid a severe revenue shortfall.
• Benefit Assessment Adjustment: Consideration should be given to updating the 2006 Benefit Assessment to include an inflationary clause. This would require voter approval, but is necessary to maintain purchasing power as operating costs increase.
• Impact Fees: Consider the imposition of development impact fees to generate revenue for infrastructure and service expansions required to meet the demands of new development.
• University Funding: AFPD should explore the potential for impact fees or service agreements with Cal Poly Humboldt. Although state universities are exempt from property taxes, a clearly defined and negotiated service agreement could provide additional revenue to support fire protection services, especially in light of the university’s expansion plans.
49 Board Policy Manual: Section 5.11 - Board Philosophy for Fire District Reserves. 49 www.isomitigation.com/ppc/technical/criteria-for-deployment-analysis-of-companies. 49 National Fire Protection Association. Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Departmentss.2020) [Appendix D].
49 Esri. (2024). Data Enrichment. https://doc.arcgis.com/en/esri-demographics/latest/reference/dataallocation-method.htm.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 195
• Capital Improvement Planning (CIP): AFPD should formalize a multi-year Capital Improvement Plan to ensure the systematic replacement of apparatus and facility upgrades. This will allow AFPD to spread out major capital expenditures over several years, improving financial planning and stability.
• Reserve Fund Policy: AFPD’s reserve policy, which mandates maintaining a reserve of at least 50% of operating revenues, is reasonable and in line with GFOA best practices.

The primary driver of AFPD’s financial feasibility is its capacity to generate adequate tax revenues to fund operations in the face of population growth. Tax revenues, which make up 94% of the district’s income, are crucial for sustaining service levels, funding capital improvements, and ensuring that reserves remain at a healthy level. The projected population growth within AFPD’s jurisdiction is expected to increase the demand for services, thereby placing additional pressure on available resources.

AP Triton’s analysis draws upon population and development projections from several key planning documents. The City of Arcata’s 2045 General Plan projects significant population growth over the next two decades, driven by both residential and commercial development. In particular, the Cal Poly Humboldt Development Plan outlines a series of expansions that will increase the university’s student population and require additional fire protection services. Similarly, the McKinleyville Community Plan and the Coastal Area Plan identify areas within AFPD’s jurisdiction that are slated for new housing developments, further contributing to population growth.

The key financial challenge facing AFPD is the expiration of Measure F in 2030. Without the continuation of this revenue stream, the district could face significant service reductions, including staffing cuts and potential fire station closures. As such, proactive planning to secure new funding sources will be essential.

Measure F Planning
The impending expiration of Measure F in 2030 presents a substantial financial challenge for the Arcata Fire Protection District. Measure F, a special tax passed in 2020, provided AFPD with essential revenue to restore staffing levels and reopen the closed fire station after Measure R’s defeat. However, with a sunset provision ending this revenue stream in 2030, AFPD faces potential service reductions, including cuts to staffing and the possibility of rotating fire station closures like those experienced prior to Measure F. As such, proactive planning is critical to securing sustainable funding sources beyond 2030.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 196
Prior to the approval of Measure F, AFPD contended with severe financial constraints, as both rising operational costs and static revenues placed AFPD in a vulnerable position. This situation was further compounded by the failure of Measure R, a previous tax initiative, which narrowly missed the required 66 2/3 percent approval threshold in March 2020. The defeat of Measure R forced AFPD to reduce operational staffing and implement rotating closures among its three fire stations. While AFPD managed to avoid direct layoffs through retirements and general attrition, the reduced staffing levels and service coverage affected AFPD’s ability to meet community needs effectively.

The approval of Measure F in 2020 alleviated some of these challenges, providing AFPD with the financial stability to restore service levels. However, the 10-year sunset clause means that AFPD will lose this vital revenue in 2030 unless a replacement measure is passed. The absence of Measure F’s funding would likely result in reduced staffing, limited station availability, and deferred investments in essential equipment and infrastructure, placing AFPD at a significant operational disadvantage.

APFD’s ongoing financial health relies heavily on stable revenue from property taxes and special parcel taxes, which historically have been consistent sources of income. However, the expiration of Measure F would leave a substantial gap in the budget, one that cannot be offset solely by existing revenue streams. Proactive measures, including seeking voter approval for a new funding initiative, will be necessary to sustain AFPD’s service capacity.

The renewal or replacement of Measure F will require a two-thirds majority vote, underscoring the importance of community engagement and education to convey the implications of this funding on public safety and service levels.

This impending expiration poses significant challenges and risks for AFPD. Without the continuation of Measure F, the district could face severe financial shortfalls, leading to:
• Reduced Staffing: The inability to sustain current staffing levels, potentially resulting in layoffs and reduced emergency response capabilities.
• Service Cuts: Possible closure of fire stations and reduced service coverage, compromising the safety and security of the community.
• Deferred Maintenance and Capital Investments: Insufficient funds to invest in necessary equipment and infrastructure, hindering the district’s ability to meet evolving service demands.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 197
Ideally, AFPD should aim to bring the renewed ballot measure before voters sometime in FY 2026. Targeting FY 2026 allows AFPD to build awareness and ensure that the public fully understands the importance of this funding. Engaging stakeholders now and maintaining transparent communication will be key to securing the two-thirds majority needed to pass the renewed measure.

Benefit Assessment Revision
A benefit assessment is a funding mechanism used to generate revenue from property owners based on the specific benefits their parcels receive from a service, such as fire protection. Unlike a general election ballot, a Benefit Assessment is approved through a weighted vote of parcel owners, with a 50% plus 1 threshold for approval, making it a more achievable option in terms of required support. Each parcel is assessed a fee based on its use type (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial), with the fee structure aimed to fairly distribute costs based on the level of benefit each parcel receives from AFPD.

AFPD’s 2006 Benefit Assessment was designated for acquiring, operating, and maintaining fire suppression equipment and for funding the salaries of firefighting and prevention personnel. To implement or revise a Benefit Assessment, an engineering study is required to accurately estimate the costs and assign an appropriate benefit level to each category of parcel. This assessment process ensures transparency and fairness, linking the fees directly to the benefits provided, which is essential for maintaining community support.

In the case of AFPD, revisiting and potentially revising the existing 2006 Benefit Assessment inflationary provision could provide a viable source of additional funding to help offset the anticipated expiration of Measure F. Engaging stakeholders early, conducting a comprehensive engineering study, and communicating the direct benefits to property owners will be vital if AFPD pursues this approach as part of its long-term funding strategy.

To illustrate the potential impact of adding an inflationary adjustment, consider how the 2006 Benefit Assessment could have changed from FY 2020 to FY 2024 with a hypothetical annual inflation rate of 3%.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 198
Figure 132: 2006 Benefit Assessment with 3% Inflationary Adjustment Fiscal Year 2006 Benefit Assessment
Current
2006 Benefit Assessment
3% Inflationary Provision
FY 2020 $1,411,255 $1,411,255
FY 2021 $1,421,382 $1,453,593
FY 2022 $1,434,870 $1,497,201
FY 2023 $1,435,417 $1,542,117
FY 2024 $1,434,000 $1,588,380
Using FY 2020 as the base year for the purposes of this illustration, with a 3% inflationary provision, the Benefit Assessment revenue in FY 2024 would be approximately $1,588,380, compared to the current $1,434,000. This additional funding of over $150,000 would help address rising costs without requiring further immediate tax increases or additional special tax initiatives.

Impact Fees
In an effort to generate revenue without burdening existing taxpayers with the cost of providing services to new development, the AFPD should give prudent consideration to the implementation of development impact fees. Impact fees are one-time charges imposed on new residential, commercial, or institutional projects to help offset the increased demand for public infrastructure and services resulting from growth.

Impact fees provide a predictable revenue source to support initiatives such as hiring personnel, acquiring equipment, or constructing fire stations, all while maintaining service levels as the district grows. As they are considered regulatory fees and not taxes, impact fees have the advantage of being exempt from Proposition 218’s voter approval requirement. Instead, implementation requires a simple majority vote of the legislative body imposing the fees, in this case, the AFPD Board of Directors.50 To comply with California’s Mitigation Fee Act, AFPD would need to demonstrate a clear nexus, or reasonable relationship, between a development project and the improvement funded by the fee.
50 California Mitigation Fee Act.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 199
This process involves several key steps:
• Defining the purpose of the fee, specifying how fee revenues will be used. • Establish a reasonable link between the fee's use and the type of development responsible for paying it.
• Demonstrate a connection between the need for the fee and the development type.
• Ensure the fee amount is proportionate to the facility costs attributable to the development.

AFPD would need to conduct a nexus study to establish the connection between new development and the increased demand for fire and emergency services. This study would quantify the costs of additional infrastructure and determine appropriate fee levels based on development type and size. Revenue collected through these fees would be placed in a dedicated fund to guarantee that the funds are used exclusively for improvements related to new development. It is also recommended that AFPD include an inflationary provision to account for rising costs over time.

While impact fees offer clear benefits, their implementation comes with challenges.

Developers often view such fees as additional costs that could discourage investment, especially in areas with high existing fees. AFPD would need to balance the fee levels to ensure they cover necessary costs without discouraging growth. Additionally, securing public and stakeholder support for the fees would require clear communication about their purpose, fairness, and benefits to the community.

University Funding
Given Cal Poly Humboldt’s expansion plans, AFPD could explore funding mechanisms to ensure the University’s growth does not place undue strain on AFPD’s resources. While the University is exempt from property taxes, AFPD can consider the imposition of impact fees or a renewed service agreement.

Of those two options, it is recommended that AFPD and the University consider a mutually beneficial negotiation of a new service agreement. This agreement should clearly outline the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of both AFPD and the University.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 200
A new service agreement would allow both AFPD and Cal Poly Humboldt to set transparent expectations regarding financial contributions, response times, service availability, and coordination during large-scale events or emergencies. All responsibilities and expectations can be mutually negotiated.

Enhanced Incremental Financing District (EIFD)
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs) are a public financing mechanism authorized under California Senate Bill 628 (2014).51 EIFDs provide a means for local governments to fund public infrastructure and community development projects using a form of tax increment financing (TIF). Unlike the redevelopment agency model, EIFDs are more flexible and can support a wide range of projects, including public safety facilities, roads, utilities, and affordable housing. They are funded through the incremental increase in property tax revenues generated within the EIFD’s boundaries over time.

EIFDs capture incremental property tax revenue—the increase in revenue above the baseline established at the time of the EIFD’s creation—and use it to fund designated projects.52 The baseline tax revenue remains unaffected, ensuring that existing allocations to taxing entities like AFPD are preserved. However, incremental revenues for the designated EIFD that would have otherwise gone to AFPD are diverted to the EIFD for up to 45 years.

This diversion poses a risk to AFPD’s ability to grow its revenue alongside increasing service demands. Since fire protection districts in California, such as the AFPD, cannot independently form EIFDs, the district would need to collaborate with Humboldt County or the City of Arcata to participate.

EIFDs are governed by a Public Financing Authority, typically composed of county and city officials. As a result, AFPD’s participation and input may be limited, potentially leaving the district with minimal control over how EIFD funds are allocated. This could lead to fire protection projects being underfunded while other priorities take precedence. 51 California Senate Bill No. 628, Chapter 785 (2014).
52 Ibid.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 201
Participation in an EIFD requires AFPD to ensure that the benefits of the funded infrastructure projects exceed the incremental revenue it forgoes. This involves a careful assessment of the opportunity costs associated with committing to an EIFD. For example, if the EIFD funds infrastructure such as fire stations, apparatus, or road improvements that directly enhance AFPD’s operational capabilities, the investment may be worthwhile.

However, if the projects primarily benefit other entities, AFPD risks subsidizing initiatives that do not address its core needs. Moreover, the long-term nature of EIFDs means that AFPD would lose access to incremental revenue growth that could otherwise be used for staffing, apparatus, operating costs, etc.

Participation in an EIFD presents both opportunities and risks for AFPD. While it offers a mechanism to fund critical infrastructure, it also involves foregoing incremental tax revenue that is vital for sustaining operations. Since AFPD’s financial sustainability depends largely on predictable and flexible recurring revenue sources, the rigidity of EIFD funding limits its utility as a primary financial solution.

Capital Improvement Planning
A comprehensive capital improvement and replacement program is essential to the longterm financial and operational stability of any fire and or emergency medical service organization. These programs provide systematic development and renewal of the physical assets and rolling stock of the agency. A capital program must link with the planning process to anticipate and time capital expenditures in a manner that does not adversely influence the operation of the agency or otherwise place the agency in an unfavorable financial position. Items usually included in capital improvement and replacement programs are facilities, apparatus, land acquisition, and other major capital projects.

At the time of this writing, the Arcata Fire Protection District does not have a formally adopted multi-year capital improvement plan for facilities and major equipment inclusive of fire apparatus and fire stations. It is recommended that the district prioritize the creation and maintenance of a capital improvement plan that incorporates adopted recommendations from this report. Such a plan will help ensure that AFPD can meet future operational demands and maintain financial sustainability.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 202
While it is important for AFPD to consider recommendations from this report, not every recommendation will be feasible or necessarily deemed necessary. The capital improvement plan should be flexible and regularly reviewed, enabling AFPD to balance immediate operational needs with long-term financial considerations, while selectively implementing the most critical and achievable projects.

Maintaining reserves at 50% provides AFPD with the financial flexibility given the uncertainties presented by Measure F’s sunset, the need for capital equipment, and an increasing demand for services. Additionally, inflationary pressures on wages, benefits, and supplies are expected to continue, likely at a rate near or exceeding the growth in revenues.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 203
SECTION V:

Appendices

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 204
APPENDIX A: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
Introduction to the Stakeholder Interviews
AP Triton interviewed various Arcata Fire Protection District internal and external stakeholders to better understand issues, concerns, and options regarding the emergency service delivery system, opportunities for shared services, and community members' expectations.

It is important to note that the information solicited and provided during this process was "people inputs" (stakeholders individually responding to our questions), some of which are perceptions reported by stakeholders. All information was accepted at face value without an in-depth investigation of its origination or reliability. The project team reviewed the information to ensure consistency and frequency of comments and to identify specific patterns and trends. Based on the information reviewed, the team identified a series of observations and recommendations and felt they were significant enough to be included in this report.

Stakeholders were identified within the following groups: Government Partners, Business and Community Leaders, and Fire Department Members.

Government Partners (Elected Officials, Government Managers, and Service Partners)

1. Describe your interaction with the fire department.
▪ Not much interaction until recently.
▪ Participate with the chief on the management team.
▪ Collaborate with the fire dept in the general plan.
▪ Interaction with the board.

2. What strengths contribute to the success of the Fire Department? (What do they do well?)
▪ The personnel that make up the AFPD.
▪ The Fire Chief’s interest in balancing the needs of the community with fire safety. ▪ Desire to have a relationship with the community.
▪ Very committed to serving the community. The show up putting their best foot forward.
▪ Its people are dedicated and in the community.
▪ The people.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 205
▪ Very professional, committed staff, do a great job with their limited resources. ▪ Doing a lot with a little.
▪ Union seems happy.
▪ Good reputation in the community.

3. What are some areas in which you think the department could make improvements? ▪ Retention of employees.
▪ Impacts of the housing crisis.
▪ Disconnect, better interaction with the board and city council. ▪ Focus on true emergencies, asked about non-emergency incidents, they’re stretched very thin – potentially combining other districts. ▪ Fire station conditions, especially Mad River.
▪ Fiscal situation is dire.
▪ Improve retention – losing people to other areas/“we’re a training ground.” ▪ Staffing at least 3.
▪ Improve and unify EMS response.
▪ Maybe look at a name change to better reflect the community it serves.

4. What opportunities, in your view, are available to improve the service and capabilities of the fire department?
▪ Recruitment.
▪ Engage in the planning process rather than “be caught off guard.” ▪ Staffing.
▪ Leveraging community partners in a positive way.
▪ Paid vs volunteer consider a more regional approach.
▪ Improve retention.
▪ Help craft revenue sources to benefit the district – fire assessment district or impact fee – Enhanced infrastructure district.
▪ How many FFs live in Arcata? How to keep a new FF here and be able to afford to live here. Growth is a solution. Good at getting community development block grant funding.

5. Please share your thoughts regarding alternative staffing models utilizing 12-hour shifts and peak-hour units.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 206

6. What do you see as the top three critical issues faced by the fire department today? ▪ Limitation of funding.
▪ Cost of fire apparatus.
▪ Long tern funding, recruit and retain skilled FFs, fixing their debt service – Arcata station.
▪ Funding, staffing and equipment.
▪ Dilemma of pedestrian friendly versus fire department access. ▪ The need for a staffed ladder truck.
▪ Staffing, adequate financing – sustainable to keep up the increase in costs. ▪ A ladder truck.
▪ Stabilize funding and/or address Measure F and Benefit Assessment. ▪ Infrastructure for risk.

7. If you could change one thing in the fire department, what would it be? ▪ Arcata fire station ownership is confusing.
▪ Ability to balance community needs with those of the AFPD. ▪ Would have all the resources they need to be successful. ▪ Diversify the funding sources.
▪ Improved collaboration with the City of Arcata.
▪ Dispatch contract.
▪ Arcata fire station lease.
▪ Staffing.

8. How would you describe the level of services provided by the fire department? ▪ Doing a lot with a little
▪ They do their best to deliver high quality service
▪ The services are adequate
▪ Pretty high with their limited resources
Business & Community Leaders (Businesses, Community & Neighborhood Groups)

1. Describe your interaction with the fire department.
▪ Housing and facilities.
▪ Only Measure F.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 207
▪ Hydrant flow test for new capital projects, coordination with site plan review. ▪ Annual life safety training – drills.

2. Can you please describe your expectations of the Fire Department? ▪ Have all stations open and staffed adequately.
▪ Show up and be professional.
▪ Respond to call for service.
▪ Provide services to the community. Has not heard any complaints.

3. Which of these expectations are not being met to your satisfaction? ▪ Staffing needs are not being met especially in Arcata.

4. What do you think the Fire Department is doing particularly well? ▪ They’re in the community.
▪ Personal relationships.
▪ Scheduling building inspections.
▪ Always responsive to the university.
▪ Incident response has always been quick.

5. Are there services that you think the department should be providing that they are not providing now?
▪ Emergency medical services.
▪ More community education.
▪ Do more building surveys with fire personnel to better understand the systems.

6. Are there services the department is providing that you think should be discontinued or done differently?
▪ Not clear on the role of volunteers.

7. When you dial 9-1-1 to report an emergency, how long should it take for help to arrive?
▪ 5–10 minutes.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 208

8. Do you believe that expectations should change depending on where in the community you are located?
▪ Need to consider non-combustible construction and sprinklered buildings. ▪ Depending on where you live the level of service may be different.

9. Do you believe the Fire Department’s first arriving response units are staffed and equipped to take appropriate actions given the emergency? ▪ They show up with the engine seem to have the appropriate equipment.

Fire Department Members (Chief Officers, Firefighters, Labor, & Administrative)

1. Describe your role and any programs that you may oversee.

2. What strengths contribute to the success of the fire department? (What does it do well?)
▪ The members of the AFPD are its greatest asset.
▪ Camaraderie and work environment.
▪ A board that is focused on fire protection.
▪ Mitigating calls with minimal staffing.
▪ Can do bread and butter operations very well, entry level personnel is an engineer.
▪ Good baseline FF skills.
▪ Developing a good aggressive mind set for fires.

3. What are some areas in which you think the department could make improvements? ▪ Training program and facilities.
▪ Dispatch.
▪ Brand recognition among the three communities, “It’s all in the name.” ▪ Need for HR specialist.
▪ Steading funding source – consistent.
▪ Ability to project future improvement of facilities, apparatus, ▪ Try not to have a defeatist mindset when asked to do more. ▪ Taking classes out of town and learning from other agencies. ▪ Lack of staffing.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 209

4. What opportunities, in your view, are available to improve the service and capabilities of the fire department?
▪ Working closer with College of the Redwoods on fire programing. ▪ Increase automatic aid with HBFD – volunteer availability sometimes an issue. ▪ Work better with the City of Arcata and Cal Poly.
▪ Proactive community risk reduction program.
▪ Offer part time ALS, the district is without ALS if the units are on a call elsewhere in the county.
▪ Improve branding that they protect five communities – changed the station to add the community name.
▪ Improve relationships with Cal Poly Taking away tax money when they purchase land).
▪ Improve communications internally.
▪ Shift based battalion chief.
▪ Better explain the fire department’s funding method.

5. What do you see as the top three critical issues faced by the fire department today? ▪ Financial situation (everyone).
▪ EMS unit availability, sometime Hoopa ambulance.
▪ Staffing, apparatus replacement, and employee retention. ▪ Staffing, public education of the budgeting process, building political relationships with the neighboring partners.

6. Please share your thoughts/ideas regarding alternative staffing and dynamic deployment to enhance staffing levels.
▪ Create a program to develop people for the fire service. Maybe a paid on call or apprenticeship.
▪ Would need more staffing to do this.
▪ Can now brown out the middle station, if necessary.

7. If you could change one thing in the fire department, what would it be? ▪ Need more staffing
▪ Understand the vision of the department

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 210

8. On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate the level of emergency services provided by the fire department? Please provide a 1 sentence reason for that score. ▪ (3) We do a very good with the current staffing levels. ▪ (4) Not because they don’t want to do well, but need the staffing the improve services.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 211
APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY SURVEY
Introduction
AP Triton and the Arcata Fire Protection District (AFPD) conducted a comprehensive community survey to garner insights into public perception, priorities, and expectations of the fire services provided. With a strong participation of 267 respondents, the survey covered a range of topics from the evaluation of services to funding and resource allocation for the fire district. This analysis aims to summarize the key themes emerging from the survey responses and offer recommendations based on community feedback.

Survey Overview
The survey comprised multiple-choice questions, priority rankings, and open-ended responses, allowing respondents to express detailed opinions and preferences. Topics addressed included:
• Relationship and demographic alignment with AFPD.
• Evaluation of AFPD services and priorities.
• Opinions on funding adjustments based on inflation.
• Staffing and resource adequacy in the wake of demographic and structural changes within the service area.

Key Themes and Trends
• Community Engagement and Representation:
▪ The majority of respondents were residents within the AFPD’s service area, indicating high engagement and providing a clear reflection of local sentiment towards fire safety services.
▪ The demographic data suggests a predominantly older population's involvement, with sparse younger participation, highlighting a potential area for increased youth engagement.
• Service Evaluation and Prioritization:
▪ Fire suppression and emergency medical services were ranked as critical priorities, emphasizing the community’s reliance on these fundamental services. ▪ Lower priority was given to community events and public outreach, suggesting a focus on direct service provision over general community engagement.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 212
• Funding and Resource Concerns:
▪ There is strong support for adjusting funding based on inflation, indicating community recognition of the challenges posed by static funding in a dynamic economic environment.
▪ A significant portion of the community supports an assessment to increase staffing on fire engines, reflecting concerns about current resource adequacy for optimal service delivery.
• Infrastructure Needs and Growth:
▪ Respondents expressed concerns about the adequacy of AFPD’s infrastructure to meet the demands of new high-rise developments and population growth, particularly related to projects associated with California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt.
• Recommendations for Improvement:
▪ Enhanced Community Outreach: Develop targeted outreach programs to engage younger demographics and improve general community awareness and education about fire safety.
▪ Transparent Communication and Reporting: Increase transparency in funding usage and strategic planning to build trust and ensure community support for future initiatives.
▪ Resource and Staffing Adjustments: Consider community feedback on staffing and equipment needs to align AFPD’s capabilities with the evolving landscape of the district’s service area.
▪ Collaboration with Local Institutions: Strengthen partnerships with local entities like Cal Poly Humboldt to ensure that contributions towards fire safety infrastructure are proportionate to the demands placed by such institutions.

The survey results provide AFPD with valuable insights into community perceptions and expectations. While there is notable satisfaction with the services provided, there is also a clear call for strategic adjustments in funding, resources, and community engagement practices. Implementing the recommendations based on this survey can help AFPD enhance its service delivery and ensure safety and satisfaction within the community it serves.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 213
Which of the following best describes your relationship with AFPD? Based on the survey results, the majority of respondents, 85% or 226 individuals, identify as residents within the AFPD's service area. This strong local representation is crucial for understanding community perceptions and needs related to fire safety and emergency services. A small segment, 4% each, consists of business owners/employees and frequent visitors to the service area, highlighting a diverse yet predominantly resident-focused demographic. Public safety partners represent 2% of the responses, indicating some professional collaboration but suggesting room for increased partnership integration. The 'Other' category, comprising 5% of responses, includes varied roles such as landlords, retired employees, and volunteers within AFPD, indicating a wider range of community engagement.

Resident of the
AFPD’s service
area
85%
Student at Cal Poly
Humboldt University
0%
Business owner/
employee within the
AFPD’s service area
4%
Frequent visitor to
the service area
4%
Public safety
services partner
2% Other
5%

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 214
Which of the following best describes your age group?
The age distribution of respondents predominantly falls in the older age brackets, with individuals aged 65 and older representing the largest group at 43%, or 113 respondents.

This suggests that the older population is significantly engaged with AFPD services and potentially more impacted by or interested in fire safety and emergency response initiatives. The next largest groups are those aged 55–64 and 45–54, at 23% and 17% respectively, indicating a strong middle to older adult participation. Younger age groups, including those between 18–44, have markedly less representation in the survey, with combined responses totaling only 17%. This indicates a potential area for AFPD to increase outreach and engagement among younger residents to ensure their perspectives and needs are also considered in fire protection and emergency planning. No responses were recorded from individuals under 18, underscoring an area for community education and involvement initiatives targeting schools and youth organizations.

Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 215
Please rate the following services provided by AFPD using a scale of critical priority, important priority, or a low priority.

According to survey respondents, the community’s highest priority is Fire Suppression, with a significant 87% viewing it as a critical priority. This overwhelming emphasis underlines the community’s acknowledgment of the vital role AFPD plays in ensuring safety and managing emergencies. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) also emerged as a crucial area, with 78% classifying it as a critical priority, reflecting a significant community reliance on these services during medical emergencies.
2%
7%
14%
16%
18%
21%
26%
35%
40%
44%
47%
78%
87%
45%
57%
60%
57%
62%
53%
47%
50%
41%
46%
45%
19%
12%
53%
37%
26%
26%
20%
26%
27%
14%
19%
11%
9%
3%
1%
Community Events
Public Outreach
Public Education
Community Risk Reduction Services
Maintenance Fire Inspections
New Construction Plans Review, Permitting, and
Site Inspections
Water Rescue
Hazardous Materials Response
Wildland Firefighting
Technical Rescue
Emergency Management
Emergency Medical Services
Fire Suppression
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Critical Priority Important Priority Low Priority

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 216
On the other hand, less urgent priorities include Community Events and Public Outreach, perceived as critical by only 2% and 7% of respondents respectively. This suggests that while valued, these services are not seen as immediate necessities compared to direct emergency services. Technical Rescue and Hazardous Materials Response are prioritized somewhat higher, likely due to the specific risks associated with these types of emergencies, highlighting a recognition of the need for specialized intervention capabilities.

Water Rescue and Wildland Firefighting also received moderate to high priority levels, which could reflect the geographic and environmental concerns specific to the AFPD’s service area. It is notable that suggestions for new services or enhancements such as CPR classes for the community and increased funding for fuels reduction indicate a proactive interest in broadening the scope of community safety measures and emergency preparedness.

Other service suggestions included offering CPR classes to promote emergency preparedness, improving compensation for EMTs, and increasing funding for wildfire fuels reduction to mitigate fire risks. Respondents also recommended streamlining AFPD's responsibilities by possibly shifting non-core duties to other government entities or volunteer boards, allowing a sharper focus on essential emergency services. Additionally, other feedback also included enhancing public outreach through initiatives like a junior firefighter program and ensuring that AFPD's planning aligns with community goals and governance. Implementing these suggestions could improve AFPD’s service delivery, community engagement, and operational transparency.

Overall, the community values AFPD’s emergency response capabilities highly, with a desire for continued emphasis on specialized rescue operations and comprehensive medical services, while also recognizing the importance of preventive measures and public safety education.

Please rank the following first responder qualities in the order of importance, with 1 being the most important.

In the survey, respondents rated the importance of various first responder qualities. The results underscored that the highest valued traits are being "Highly trained" and "Prompt in arrival," scoring 5.45 and 5.03 respectively. These qualities are considered crucial, with the majority rating "Highly trained" as most important, emphasizing the community’s expectation for competent and skilled responders.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 217
"Friendliness, courtesy, and professionalism" and "Empathy and compassion" followed in importance, scoring 3.38 and 3.00 respectively, highlighting that interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence are also valued in first responders.

Qualities like being "Flexible and adaptable" and "Involved in the local community" were seen as less critical, scoring 2.69 and 1.45 respectively. This suggests that while these traits are appreciated, the community places a stronger emphasis on the direct impact of first responders' skills and responsiveness during emergencies.

If you would like to see a first responder quality added, please list it in the comment field.

The open-ended responses from the AFPD community survey reveal that the most frequently discussed category is the importance of the mental and physical wellbeing of first responders. Community members expressed a strong desire for first responders to be equipped with trauma-informed care and mental health support. Examples of actual responses include the need for "Mental health/ firefighter wellbeing, work/home balance, Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM)," and ensuring first responders are "Resilient - able to take care of their own mental health."

1.45 2.69
3 3.38

5.03 5.45
Involved in the local community
Flexible and adaptable
Empathetic and compassionate
Friendly, courteous, and professional
Prompt in arrival
Highly trained
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 218
The second most frequent category revolves around the skills and training of the first responders. Respondents suggest that training should not only focus on technical skills but also encompass social skills and diversity awareness, as seen in responses advocating for "Training should be focused on certifications in proficiencies" and "Diversity training." The third category highlights the community's appreciation and support for first responders, reflected in responses like "You are appreciated and vital to the community" and comments praising the responders as "amazing heroes." Additionally, there's a notable interest in ensuring that responders are "Listened to and heeded by local governments." These responses indicate a community deeply invested in the holistic support and effectiveness of their first responders, emphasizing the importance of both technical competency and mental resilience.

What methods would you prefer that the fire district utilize to deliver emergency preparedness, fire safety, and wildfire information to you? (Select all that apply.) For disseminating emergency preparedness, fire safety, and wildfire information, the preferred communication methods among the community, based on the survey, highlight a significant reliance on digital and direct messaging platforms. Here’s a breakdown prioritized by popularity:
• Text Message/Email is the most favored method with 67% of respondents selecting it, reflecting the community's preference for direct and immediate information delivery.
• Facebook follows at 53%, indicating strong support for using popular social media platforms to reach a broad audience.
• District Website and Public (in-person) Meetings each received 42% approval, suggesting a balanced preference for both online accessibility and face-to-face engagement for detailed information and training.
• Newsletters/Mailers and Newspaper are preferred by 40% and 35% of respondents respectively, showing that traditional print media remains an important tool for reaching segments of the community.
• Instagram and NextDoor are equally preferred at 25%, pointing to the use of varied social media platforms to cater to different demographic groups within the community.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 219
• YouTube and Twitter garnered lower preferences at 11% and 7%, suggesting these platforms might be less effective for urgent communications but could still serve as supplementary channels.

Other specified methods include a mix of localized and personalized communication strategies like local TV news, radio ads, and direct phone calls for urgent information.

Suggestions also point towards the desire for an app, highlighting a trend towards mobile solutions for continuous updates.

This information provides a clear direction for the fire district to diversify its communication strategies, ensuring both broad reach and targeted engagement through a combination of modern digital platforms and traditional methods to accommodate the varied preferences within the community.

Please compare each of the following elements to the others and rank the following planning considerations in the order of importance.

In the community survey focusing on the priorities for fire district planning, respondents clearly indicated that the most important consideration is ensuring the technical competence of all personnel, with a high average score of 4.3. This priority was ranked highest by the majority of participants, signifying a strong community emphasis on the skills and training of fire district staff.
7%
9%
11%
25%
25%
35%
40%
42%
42%
53%
67%
Twitter
Other (please specify)
YouTube
Instagram
NextDoor
Newspaper
Newsletters/Mailers
District Website
Public (in-person) meetings (i.e., educational
and/or training sessions)
Facebook
Text Message/Email
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 220
Maintaining the existing response time to emergencies is also highly valued, scoring 3.28.

This reflects the community’s satisfaction with current response rates and a desire to uphold these standards.

The reliability and maintenance of equipment and facilities are similarly crucial, evidenced by a score of 3.16. This underscores the importance of having well-maintained resources ready for emergency situations.

Improving the fire district's response time to emergencies received a lower priority score of

2.93, suggesting that while there is interest in enhancement, the current performance may generally meet community expectations.

Expanding the types of services provided by the fire district was seen as the least critical, scoring only 1.33. This indicates that the community might prefer the fire district to focus on enhancing and maintaining current services rather than broadening the scope of operations.

1.33 2.93

3.16 3.28

4.3 Expand the types of services provided by the fire
district.

Improve fire district response time to emergencies.

Equipment and facilities are reliable & wellmaintained.

Maintain existing response time to emergencies.

Ensure the technical competence of all personnel.
0 1 2 3 4 5

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 221
Have you received any services from the fire district?
In the survey responses, 44% of the participants, numbering 116 individuals, reported having received services from the fire district. This suggests a significant portion of the community has direct experience with the fire district's offerings. Conversely, a slightly larger group, 56% or 150 respondents, indicated they have not received any
services.

If you responded YES to the previous question, were you satisfied with the service? Among the survey participants who received services from the fire district, a significant majority, 70%, expressed that they were very satisfied with the service they received. This group comprised 82 respondents, indicating strong approval of the fire district's efforts.

Additionally, 13% reported being satisfied, adding to the positive feedback with a total of 83% respondents feeling content or
very content with the services.

On the other end of the spectrum, a
small fraction of respondents
expressed less satisfaction.

Specifically, 4% were somewhat
dissatisfied, another 3% were
dissatisfied, and 2% were very
dissatisfied. Together, these groups
represent a minority view but
nonetheless important feedback for
the fire district to consider in order to
identify areas for improvement.

This high level of satisfaction points to effective service delivery by the fire district, but the presence of any dissatisfied respondents also highlights the need for ongoing improvements and responsiveness to community concerns.

Yes
44%
No
56%
Very
satisfied
70%
Satisfied
13%
Somewhat
satisfied
3%
Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied
4%
Somewhat dissatisfied
4%
Dissatisfied
3%
Very dissatisfied
2%

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 222
How long do you think it should take for emergency resources to arrive after you call 911? Please take into consideration call processing times, travel times, time of day, concurrent incidents, etc., in your response.

The community survey regarding the expected response time for emergency services after calling 911 shows that the most preferred arrival time is between 4 and 5 minutes, as indicated by 25% of respondents. This expectation underscores the community's desire for rapid response to emergencies, likely driven by the critical nature of such situations where every minute can be decisive.

The next most common preference is for a response time of 5–6 minutes, chosen by 21% of the respondents. Following this, 19% of respondents feel that a 7–8-minute response time is reasonable, while 13% are comfortable with 6–7 minutes.

Responses categorized under "Other" make up 12% of the total and include a range of expectations, some citing specific circumstances like distance from the nearest station or the complexity of the location that could affect the response time. Tags from these responses suggest varied expectations, with some community members understanding that factors such as geography and incident specifics may extend the response time beyond their ideal. This category includes suggestions like adjusting expectations based on urban versus rural settings, and desires for response times as soon as possible, highlighting the importance of agility in emergency responses.
10%
12%
13%
19%
21%
25%
Greater than 8 minutes
Other (please specify)
6–7 minutes
7–8 minutes
5–6 minutes
4–5 minutes
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 223
The survey results, revealing a strong community preference for a 4–5-minute response time to emergency calls, highlight a significant opportunity for the fire district to enhance its communication strategies regarding its operations and capabilities. This preference underscores a potential gap in the community's understanding of the numerous critical steps involved before first responders can arrive at a scene, including call processing, dispatch coordination, and travel, all of which can affect response times. Addressing this gap through targeted education and transparent communication can help set realistic expectations and foster greater appreciation of the complexities involved in emergency response. This not only aids in managing community expectations but also supports a more informed public that can better support and engage with the district's efforts to provide timely and effective services.

Does that expectation change depending on where you are located? The overwhelming majority of survey respondents, 91%, acknowledge that their expectations for emergency response times vary depending on their location. This recognition suggests a high level of community awareness regarding the geographical and logistical challenges that can influence the
speed at which emergency services are able to
respond. Such a perspective likely stems from an
understanding that factors like distance from the
nearest fire station, rural versus urban settings, and
road infrastructure can significantly affect response
times. This variation in expectations based on
location underscores the importance for the fire
district to continue educating the community about
the realities of emergency response and to adapt
their strategies to meet the diverse needs of different areas within their service region.

Why might expectations change based on location?
The comprehensive feedback on why emergency response times may vary based on location highlights several critical factors impacting service delivery. The responses underline a broad consensus that geographical distance from the nearest fire station plays a significant role in determining response times, particularly in rural versus urban settings.

Key points raised include the natural topographical challenges, such as narrow or poorly maintained roads, which can significantly delay response efforts, especially in more remote or rugged areas.

Yes
91%
No
9%

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 224
Accessibility issues, such as private roads or gated communities, and the impact of traffic conditions and road works are also noted as substantial barriers to quick response. Many respondents recognize that proximity to a fire station directly influences the speed of emergency services, with those living closer to stations expecting quicker aid.

Moreover, the community’s feedback reflects an understanding that the diversity of the fire district's coverage area—from densely populated urban centers to isolated rural locales—necessitates different expectations for response times.

In your opinion, are there areas within the community that need more attention or resources from the AFPD?
In response to the open-ended question about whether there are specific areas within the community that require more attention or resources from the AFPD, a variety of concerns were noted. The most frequently mentioned issues involve the challenges posed by geographical and architectural diversities within the district. Key points include:
• Geographical Disparities: Many respondents recognize that rural areas and those far from fire stations inherently face longer response times. The rugged terrain and poorly maintained roads in these areas can impede rapid emergency responses. • Architectural and Urban Planning Concerns: There is significant concern over new construction, particularly high-rise buildings and expanding educational campuses like Cal Poly Humboldt. Residents are worried that current fire services might not be equipped for emergencies in taller buildings which require specialized equipment and training.
• Community Outreach and Education: Several respondents suggested that increased community education about fire safety, particularly in mobile home parks and densely populated urban areas, is crucial. This includes promoting awareness of the flammability of materials and the importance of maintaining clear access routes.

Examples from responses include concerns about "the need for additional safety precautions in trailer parks," the challenges of "responding to high-rise buildings," and the difficulties in "areas with old wooden buildings close together." These responses highlight a community keenly aware of its diverse needs and the importance of tailored fire protection services to address them.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 225
What are your overall expectations of your fire district? Community expectations of the fire district are notably diverse, focusing on responsiveness, professionalism, and preparedness. The most frequently mentioned expectation is for the fire district to provide timely and effective emergency responses, with specific emphasis on their readiness to handle both fire and medical emergencies efficiently.

Key Expectations Include:
• Timely and Effective Response: Residents expect the fire district to arrive quickly and manage emergencies competently. This involves being well-prepared, having the necessary tools and knowledge, and using these resources effectively to mitigate situations without exacerbating them.
• Professionalism and Training: The community places a high value on the professional conduct of the fire district personnel. They expect firefighters to be not only welltrained but also to act courteously and with integrity during emergencies. • Comprehensive Coverage: There is a strong desire for the fire district to provide wide-ranging services that cover all aspects of safety, from fire suppression and medical emergencies to specialized rescue operations and public education on safety practices.
• Community Education and Preparedness: Respondents appreciate when the fire district engages in community education and proactive safety measures, suggesting that regular training and preparedness are as important as the emergency response itself.
• Adaptability to Evolving Landscapes: Some community members highlighted a need for the fire district to adapt to changing urban landscapes, such as increasing building heights and evolving residential patterns, which may require updated equipment and strategies.
• Fiscal Responsibility: Efficiency and fiscal responsibility also feature prominently in community expectations, with calls for prudent management of resources to ensure that the fire district remains capable of meeting its obligations without unnecessary financial burden on taxpayers.

These responses underscore a community that is deeply invested in the functionality and efficiency of its fire services, recognizing the critical role these services play in maintaining public safety and well-being.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 226
How well is your fire district meeting these expectations? The community's feedback on how well the fire district is meeting expectations shows a predominantly positive outlook. Many respondents feel that the fire district performs well, often describing their service as "good," "great," or "excellent." Several comments emphasize satisfaction with the emergency services provided, appreciating the district's responsiveness and professionalism.

However, there are also notes of concern, particularly regarding resources and funding.

Some community members mention that more staff, better equipment, and increased funding could enhance the fire district's ability to meet community needs, especially given the challenges posed by new construction and larger buildings within the district's service area. Concerns about the adequacy of resources to address high-rise emergencies and the need for more modern equipment were also noted.

Overall, while the majority express a high level of satisfaction with the fire district's performance, there is a clear call for improvements in funding and resources to ensure that the district can continue to meet and exceed community expectations effectively.

What specific aspects of the fire district's performance are you satisfied with, and what concerns do you have?
The community has expressed mixed feelings regarding the performance of their fire district, appreciating certain aspects while also highlighting concerns. Here is a summary of the community's satisfaction and concerns:

Satisfaction:
• Emergency Response: Many residents are satisfied with the fire district's prompt and professional response to emergencies. They appreciate the district's efficiency in handling fire suppression and medical emergencies.
• Professionalism and Training: There is a positive sentiment about the professionalism and training of the fire district's personnel. The community values the dedication and skill with which fire district staff engage in their duties. • Community Engagement: Some responses highlighted satisfaction with the fire district's efforts in community engagement and education, particularly in relation to fire prevention and safety.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 227
Concerns:
• Funding and Resources: A significant concern among the community is the fire district’s funding and resource allocation. Many feel that there is insufficient funding, which is affecting the district's ability to maintain equipment and adequately staff stations.
• High-Rise Building Response: With new tall buildings being constructed, particularly associated with local universities, there is concern about the fire district's capability to effectively respond to emergencies in such buildings. Specifically, there are worries about the lack of equipment like ladder trucks that can reach higher floors. • Staffing Levels: Concerns were raised about the fire district’s ability to keep all stations staffed and adequately respond to the growing needs of the community, especially considering the expansion and increased population density. • Coordination with Local Government: Some residents are worried about the fire district's interaction with local government, particularly regarding planning and development that may affect emergency services. There is a desire for better cooperation and communication to ensure safety regulations are met.

Overall, while there is a general satisfaction with the immediate response and professionalism of the fire district, there are pressing concerns about resource limitations, strategic planning for future developments, and the need for improved infrastructure to keep up with the district's service demands.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 228
Due to inflation the cost of providing existing services rises every year. District funding levels are essentially static, so while costs rise, income for the district does not. Do you believe the district’s funding should be adjusted annually based on inflation?
The survey results show strong community support
for adjusting the fire district's funding based on
inflation, with 83% of respondents agreeing that
annual adjustments are necessary to match rising
service costs due to inflation. Only 17% do not
believe an adjustment is needed. This sentiment
likely stems from concerns about maintaining
adequate fire and emergency services amidst
static funding levels that do not keep pace with
the increasing costs associated with inflation.

The majority of fire departments staff each engine with 3 or 4 firefighters, the Arcata Fire Protection District staffs each of its three engines (Arcata, Mad River, and McKinleyville) with two firefighters. Would you approve an assessment to staff your community with three firefighters on each engine?
The survey results indicate strong community
support for increasing staffing on fire engines within
the Arcata Fire Protection District. A significant
majority, 80% of respondents, approve of an
assessment to staff each of the district's engines
with three firefighters. This shows a clear
community preference for enhancing fire response
capabilities, aligning with the standard staffing
levels of 3 or 4 firefighters per engine seen in most
fire departments. Only 20% of respondents are
against this assessment, highlighting a smaller
group that may have concerns about costs or
other factors.

Yes
80%
No
20%
Yes
83%
No
17%

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 229
If you support an assessment, how much per household do you think per year is reasonable?
The survey results regarding the community's support for an annual household assessment to fund the fire district reveal varied opinions on the amount that should be charged:
• $50 per year was supported by 29% of the respondents. • $100 per year was close behind with 27% support.
• A smaller percentage, 13%, felt that $150 per year was reasonable. • Only 3% supported $125 per year.
• 28% selected 'Other', suggesting amounts ranging from very low (like $10) to higher suggestions like $200, or based on income levels and property values.

Additionally, responses categorized under "Other" highlight a broad spectrum of opinions, from those who are not in favor of any new assessments to those suggesting that assessments should be variable based on factors such as income, property value, or even the size of the household. Some comments also call for a review of how funds are managed and a strong desire for accountability and transparency in how fire district funds are utilized.

These responses indicate a community that is engaged and has strong opinions on fiscal responsibility, indicating a need for the fire district to carefully consider and communicate the necessity and justification for any proposed assessment increase, ensuring transparency in how the funds will be used to improve services. 29%
27%
3%
13%
28%
$50
$100
$125
$150
Other
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 230
Are you aware the Humboldt County Grand Jury found that, “Current staffing and equipment of the Arcata Fire District is not sufficient to respond to service calls.

Increased population and higher structures in the district, including those at California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt, will result in greater danger and risk to people and property."
The survey results indicate that a significant majority of the respondents, 82% (213 out of 261), are aware of the Humboldt County Grand Jury's finding that the current staffing and equipment of the Arcata Fire District are insufficient to handle service calls effectively. This awareness could imply a heightened community interest or concern regarding fire safety, particularly as the population grows and as higher structures become more prevalent in the district, including at California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt. The remaining 18% (48 respondents) were not aware of these findings, which suggests that there is still a portion of the community that might not be informed about the challenges facing their local fire services.

I’m aware of the
finding
82%
I wasn’t
aware of
the finding
18%

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 231
We appreciate the time and effort you have invested in completing this survey. If you have any additional comments or opinions, please note them below. Thank you again!
The responses to the survey's open comment section reveal a diverse range of opinions, concerns, and suggestions regarding the funding and operational challenges facing the Arcata Fire District. Key themes from the feedback include:
• Financial Responsibility and Management:
▪ Several respondents expressed skepticism about further assessments due to past increases not meeting their expectations or being perceived as not effectively improving services.
▪ Concerns were raised about the use of funds, especially regarding administrative costs and the prioritization of expenditures.
• Community Impact and Equity:
▪ Many comments highlighted the tension between needing to fund essential services and the financial strain additional taxes or fees would impose on the community, particularly on low-income residents and renters. ▪ There's a notable call for equitable funding mechanisms, including suggestions that non-property owners and institutions like Cal Poly Humboldt contribute more substantially to the fire services.
• Infrastructure and Growth:
▪ Contributors frequently pointed out the challenges posed by new high-rise buildings, particularly those associated with Cal Poly Humboldt, stressing the need for adequate fire safety infrastructure to keep pace with developmental growth.
▪ There's a strong sentiment that Cal Poly should fund equipment and training necessary for the fire district to adequately service these new structures. • Engagement and Transparency:
▪ Respondents want more engagement from the fire district regarding decisionmaking processes and clear communication about how funds are used. ▪ Suggestions for improving transparency include more robust public forums, detailed reporting on spending, and strategic planning visible to the public.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 232
• Support for Firefighters and Services:
▪ There's widespread appreciation for the services provided by the fire district, with many acknowledging the hard work and dedication of its staff. ▪ Comments reflected a desire to ensure firefighters are well-compensated and adequately equipped to safely and effectively do their jobs.

Overall, while there is strong support for the fire district and its personnel, there is also a clear call for careful fiscal management, equitable funding solutions, and strategic planning to ensure the district can meet future challenges without unduly burdening the community.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 233
APPENDIX C: RISK CLASSIFICATIONS
The following are the risk classifications determined by incident type.

Fire
Low Risk
These incidents are considered low in risk and are minor in scope and intensity. It requires a single fire apparatus and crew to manage fires involving passenger vehicles, fences, trash or dumpster, downed power lines, residential or commercial alarm investigations, or an odor investigation.

Moderate Risk
These incidents are the first alarm response needed to manage a moderate fire risk incident. These incidents include smoke in a building, small outside building fires, commercial vehicle fires, a single-family residence, a lightning strike to a building, an automatic fire alarm at a high-risk occupancy, or a hazardous materials pipeline fire.

High Risk
These incidents are a second alarm response needed to manage a high-fire risk incident.

These incidents include smoke in a high-life hazard property (school, skilled nursing, etc.), a single-family residence with injured or trapped victims, a multifamily residential building, or a moderate-sized commercial/industrial occupancy.

Maximum Risk
A third alarm response is needed to manage a maximum fire risk incident. These incidents include a hospital, assisted living facility, fire in an apartment building, high-rise building fire, a large commercial or industrial occupancy, hazardous materials railcar, or storage occupancy. Incident assignments will include additional command staff, recalling off-duty personnel, and mutual aid assistance for other critical tasking needs.

EMS Risks
Low Risk
A single EMS unit can manage a low-risk EMS incident involving an assessment of a single patient with a critical injury or illness, no-life threatening medical call, lift assist, or standby.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 234
Moderate Risk
A two-unit response is required to control or mitigate a moderate-risk EMS incident. It involves assessing and treating one or two patients with critical injuries or illnesses or a motor vehicle crash with 1–2 patients.

High Risk
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a high-risk EMS incident. It involves 3–8 patients with injuries ranging from minor to critical. Patient care will involve triage, BLS, ALS treatment, and a coordinated transport of patients.

Maximum Risk
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a maximum-risk EMS incident. It involves more than nine patients with injuries ranging from minor to critical. Patient care will involve triage, BLS, ALS treatment, and a coordinated transport of patients. If this is an active shooter incident, the response may require a casualty collection area unit to treat patients, not in the hot zone.

Technical Rescue
Low Risk
A single fire unit can manage a low-risk technical rescue incident involving minor rescues, such as a child locked in a vehicle, elevator entrapment, or minor mechanical entrapment.

Moderate Risk
A two-unit response is required to control or mitigate a moderate technical rescue risk incident. Support is not usually required from a technical rescue team. This type of incident involves a motor vehicle crash that requires patient extrication, removal of a patient entangled in machinery or other equipment, or a person trapped by downed power lines.

High Risk
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a high-risk technical rescue incident. This type of incident may involve full-scale technical rescue operations ranging from structural collapse to swift water rescues. It may involve multiple motor vehicles requiring extrication, commercial passenger carriers, or a building impacting a building.

Support is usually needed to be required from a technical rescue team. In addition, this incident may require multiple alarms.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 235
Maximum Risk
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a maximum-risk technical rescue incident. Support is required from a specialized technical rescue team and may have multiple operations locations. This type of incident will involve full-scale technical rescue operations such as victims endangered or trapped by structural collapse, swift water, or earth cave-ins. This incident will require multiple alarms and may expand beyond the identified critical tasking. Recall of off-duty personnel or assistance from auto or mutual aid may occur during a disaster or when additional alarms and command staff are needed.

Hazardous Materials
Low Risk
A single fire unit can manage a low-risk hazardous materials incident involving carbon monoxide alarms and other unknown hazmat investigations without symptomatic victims, less than 20 gallons of fuel, natural gas meter incident, downed power lines, equipment, or electrical problems, or attempted burning. Automatic alarms that may originate from a hazardous material.

Moderate Risk
A two-unit response is required to control or mitigate a moderate risk hazardous materials incident. Direct support is not usually required from a hazardous materials team. This type of incident involves a carbon monoxide alarm with symptomatic patients, a fuel spill of 20–55 gallons, or a gas or petroleum products pipeline break not threatening any exposures.

High Risk
A multiple-unit response with a hazmat team is required to control or mitigate a high-risk hazardous materials incident. For example, support is needed for a Level 2 hazmat incident that involves establishing operational zones (hot/warm/cold) and assigning multiple support divisions and groups. This response includes a release with 3-8 victims, gas leaks in a structure, hazmat alarm releases with victims, flammable gas or liquid pipeline breaks with exposures, fuel spills greater than 55 gallons, fuel spills in underground drainage or sewer systems, transportation or industrial chemical releases, or radiological incidents. Additional assistance may be required to expand operations past the identified critical tasks.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 236
Maximum Risk
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a maximum-risk hazardous materials incident. Support is required from an on-duty hazmat team and their specialized equipment. This type of incident involves establishing operational zones (hot/warm/cold) and assigning multiple support divisions and groups. Examples include nine or more contaminated or exposed victims, a large storage tank failure, a hazmat railcar failure, or a weapon of mass destruction incident. This incident will require multiple alarms and may expand beyond the identified critical tasking. Recall of off-duty personnel or assistance from auto or mutual aid may occur during a disaster or when additional alarms and command staff are needed.

Wildland Urban Interface
Low Risk
A single fire unit can manage a low-risk wildland firefighting incident involving a fire minor in scope, structures not threatened, and Red Flag conditions do not exist. These include lowrisk wildland or grass fires, an outside smoke investigation, illegal or controlled burns, or small vegetation fires.

Moderate Risk
Multiple units are needed to manage a moderate-risk wildland firefighting incident involving a significant fire in brush or brush pile at a chipping site, grass, or cultivated vegetation. Red Flag conditions do not exist, and structures may or may not be threatened.

High Risk
Multiple units or alarms are needed to manage a high-risk wildland firefighting incident. The level is associated with Red Flag warnings with structures that may or may not be threatened. This fire involves a significant wildfire in brush, grasses, and cultivated vegetation. And woodland areas. Additional alarm assignment, command staff, recall of off-duty personnel, and mutual aid assistance may require the operations to extend beyond the identified critical tasks.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 237
Aircraft Rescue & Firefighting
Low Risk
A single ARFF unit has the capability to manage a low-risk ARFF incident. These incidents, which require an Alert 1 response, involve standbys such as a medevac flight, refueling operations for aircraft with non-ambulatory passengers, or small aircraft on the ground with minor operational issues. The standby may be in the station or in the airport operational area.

Moderate Risk
A moderate ARFF risk is considered an enhanced Alert 1 that includes all the airport's frontline apparatus and staffing. These are staged standbys for in-flight with a mechanical or instrument deficiency but do not typically affect the aircraft landing safely. It may include a feathered propeller on a multi-engine aircraft, an overheated engine, low oil pressure, or minor ice buildup.

High Risk
This is an Alert 2 (less than nine people) on an Alert 2A (nine or more people) and is considered a full airport response. This type of emergency involves in-flight aircraft with an operational deflect affecting normal flight operations that an aircraft accident could occur. Examples include the loss of an engine, interior smoke or fire in the aircraft, malfunctioning landing gear, or low hydraulic pressure. Other support agencies will be assigned to the incident, including law enforcement, EMS, and airport operations staff.

Maximum Risk
This is an Alert 3 (less than nine people) on an Alert 3A (nine or more people) and is a full airport response supported by off-site fire suppression apparatus and staffing. This type of emergency involves in-flight aircraft that have been involved in an accident on or near the airport. Other support agencies will be assigned to the incident, including law enforcement, emergency management, EMS, and airport operations staff.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 238
APPENDIX D: CRITICAL TASKING ANALYSIS
Critical task analysis involves breaking down a complex job into its components and identifying the skills and competencies required for each. This analysis is performed for each risk classification and category level, enabling the department to determine the necessary capabilities for incident mitigation. Factors such as staffing levels, collaboration, organization, coordination, training, and equipment define capability. The effective response force is the minimum number of personnel required to perform all essential tasks for incident mitigation. Emergency incidents are dynamic and often unpredictable.

Various factors dictate the actions needed to protect lives, minimize property damage, and safeguard the environment.

The AFPD provides fire protection, first responder EMS, and other emergency services to the city. It also responds to surrounding areas through mutual and automatic aid agreements.

The AFPD operates with minimum staffing of six firefighters on three engines and chief officers “on call” from 3 stations. The critical task and deployment analysis is designed to align expected tasks with apparatus dispatch practices associated with each incident type and corresponding risk.

During a fire event, critical tasks can be divided 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. These tasks involve the search, rescue, and evacuation of victims. The fire-flow component entails delivering sufficient water to extinguish the fire and creating an environment within the building that allows firefighters to enter.

The number and types of tasks requiring simultaneous execution will dictate the minimum number of firefighters needed to combat various fires. Without adequate personnel, the commanding officer must prioritize tasks and complete them sequentially rather than concurrently. Typical fire responses include the following tasks:
• Command
• Safety
• Search & Rescue
• Fire Attack
• Backup
• Rapid Intervention
• Water Supply
• Pump Operations
• Standpipe/Sprinkler Control
• Ventilation/Utility
• Structure Protection
• Emergency Medical Services

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 239
Critical task analyses are also applicable to other categories. To effectively manage an emergency, numerous simultaneous tasks must be completed. The AFPD’s ability to quickly assemble the required numbers of trained personnel is crucial to successful incident outcomes.

Risk levels for each response type have been identified throughout this document and are generally classified as low, moderate, high, and maximum risks. These classifications apply across five department response types: fire, EMS, wildland urban interface, technical rescue, and hazardous materials. Risk levels and classifications are detailed in the community risk section of this report.

The AFPD conducted a critical task analysis during this study. Each hazard type was identified, and the expected number of personnel was determined based on critical tasking and operational procedures. The following summarizes the total personnel required by incident type and risk category.

Figure 133: Summary of Critical Tasking
Type
Low
+ / -
Moderate
+ / -
High
+ / -
Maximum
+ / -
Fire 3 0 15 -1 25 -11 38 -24
EMS 5 0 12 0 36 -18 46 -29
Wildland/WUI 3 0 12 0 40 -13
Tech Rescue 3 0 10 0 22 -8 32 -18
Haz Mat 3 0 14 0 36 -8 40 -12
-# indicates a deficiency between AFPD and automatic aid Establishing resource levels needed for various emergencies is a uniquely local decision.

Factors influencing incident staffing include the type of equipment operated, training levels of responders, operating procedures, geography, traffic, the nature of buildings, and other protected risks. Availability of resources can be impacted by concurrent incidents and the ability to obtain mutual or automatic aid. If available, aid generally has inherent delays related to gaining approvals and travel distances.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 240
The following section identifies the critical task required to mitigate an incident, the Effective Response Force (ERF), and the resources assigned for this incident type. In several scenarios, AFPD requires automatic aid to meet the ERF. In scenarios such a vehicle accident with emergency medical services, all AFPD resources can be tied up.

For technical rescue and hazardous materials, AFPD units provide an operational level of service relying on mutual aid for more qualified technicians and specialist so response times for fully equipped teams are extended.

Fire Incidents
Low-Risk Fire Incidents
These incidents are considered lower risk and minor in scope and intensity. It requires a single fire apparatus and crew to manage fires involving passenger vehicles, fences, trash or dumpsters, downed power lines, residential or commercial alarm investigations, or an odor investigation. The following figure identifies the critical task required to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the resources assigned for this type of incident.

Figure 134: Critical Task Analysis – Low Risk Fire
Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Command 1
Driver/Engine or Pump Operator 1
Fire Attack 1
Effective Response Force: 3
Figure 135: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk Fire
Unit Type AFPD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 1 2
Truck/Ladder
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief
Total 1 2 0 0 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 7 0 7
Staff Needed 3
Deficiency 0

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 241
Moderate-Risk Fire Incidents
These incidents are a first alarm-response needed to manage a moderate fire risk incident. These incidents include smoke in a building, small outside building fires, commercial vehicle fires, single-family residence, a lightning strike to a building, an automatic fire alarm at a high-risk occupancy, or a hazardous materials pipeline fire.

The following figure identifies the critical task required to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the resources assigned for this type of incident.

Figure 136: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk Fire Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Command 1
Driver/Engine or Pump Operator 1
Water Supply 1
Fire Attack 3
Ventilation/Utilities 3
Back-up Line 3
Rapid Intervention Team 3
Effective Response Force: 15
Figure 137: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk Fire
Unit Type AFPD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 3 6 2 6 1 3
Truck/Ladder
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief 1 1 1 1
Total 1 7 3 7 1 3 Totals
Staff Available 7 7 14
Staff Needed 15
Deficiency -1

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 242
High-Risk Fire Incidents
These incidents are a second alarm-response-needed to manage a high fire risk incident. These incidents include smoke in a high-life hazard property (school, skilled nursing, etc.), a single-family residence with injured or trapped victims, a multi-family residential building, or a moderate-sized commercial/industrial occupancy. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 138: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk Fire
Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Command 1
Safety 1
Driver/Engine or Pump Operator 2
Water Supply 2
Fire Attack 6
Search & Rescue 3
Ventilation/Utilities 4
Back-up Line 3
Rapid Intervention Team 3
Effective Response Force: 25
Figure 139: Alarm Assignment – High Risk Fire
Unit Type AFPD FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 3 6 2 6 3 9
Truck/Ladder 1 3
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief 1 1 1 1
Total 1 7 3 7 4 12 Totals
Staff Available 7 7 14
Staff Needed 25
Deficiency -11

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 243
Maximum-Risk Fire Incidents
A third-alarm response is needed to manage a maximum fire risk incident. These incidents include a hospital, assisted living facility, fire in an apartment building, high-rise building fire, a large commercial or industrial occupancy, hazardous materials railcar, or storage occupancy. Incident assignments will include additional command staff, recalling off-duty personnel, and automatic and mutual aid.

Figure 140: Critical Task Analysis – Maximum Risk Fire
Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Command 3
Safety 1
Driver/Engine or Pump Operator 2
Water Supply 2
Standpipe/Sprinkler Control 2
Fire Attack 9
Search & Rescue 3
Ventilation/Utilities 7
Back-up Line 3
Rapid Intervention Team 6
Effective Response Force: 38
Figure 141: Alarm Assignment – Maximum Risk Fire
Unit Type AFPD FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 3 6 2 6 7 21
Truck/Ladder 1 3
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total 1 7 3 7 9 25 Totals
Staff Available 7 7 27
Staff Needed 38
Deficiency -24

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 244
EMS Incidents
Low-Risk EMS Incident
A single EMS unit can manage a low-risk EMS incident involving an assessment of a single patient with a critical injury or illness, non-life-threatening medical call, lift assist, or standby.

Figure 142: Critical Task Analysis – Low-Risk EMS
Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Command 1
Basic Life Support Treatment 2
ALS Transport Ambulance (1) 2
Effective Response Force: 5
Figure 143: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk EMS
Unit Type AFPD FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 1 2
Truck/Ladder
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief
Ambulance 1 2
Total 1 2 1 2 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 7 4 8
Staff Needed 5
Deficiency 0

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 245
Moderate-Risk EMS Incident
A two-unit response is required to control or mitigate a moderate-risk EMS incident. It involves assessing and treating one or two patients with critical injuries or illnesses or a motor vehicle crash with 1–2 patients. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 144: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk EMS
Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Command 1
Basic Life Support Treatment 4
Extrication/Hazard Mitigation 3
ALS Transport Ambulance (2) 4
Effective Response Force: 12
Figure 145: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk EMS
Unit Type AFPD FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 3 6 1 3
Truck/Ladder
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief 1 1
Ambulance 2 4
Total 4 7 3 7 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 7 10 17
Staff Needed 12
Deficiency 0

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 246
High-Risk EMS Incident
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a high-risk EMS incident. It involves 3–8 patients with injuries ranging from minor to critical. Patient care will involve triage, BLS, ALS treatment, and coordinated transport of patients. The following figure identifies the critical task required to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the resources assigned for this incident type.

Figure 146: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk EMS
Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Command 1
Triage Group 2
Basic Life Support Treatment 8
Advanced Life Support Treatment 8
Transport Group 1
Transport Ambulance (8) 16
Effective Response Force: 36
Figure 147: Alarm Assignment – High Risk EMS
Unit Type AFPD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 3 6 2 6 1 3
Truck/Ladder 1 3
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief 1 1 1 1
Ambulance 2 4 6 12
Total 4 7 5 11 6 18 Totals
Staff Available 7 11 18
Staff Needed 36
Deficiency -18

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 247
Maximum-Risk EMS Incident
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a maximum-risk EMS incident. It involves more than nine patients with injuries ranging from minor to critical. Patient care will involve triage, BLS, ALS treatment, and coordinated transport of patients. If this is an active shooter incident, the response may require units for a casualty collection area to treat patients not in the hot zone. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 148: Critical Task Analysis – Maximum Risk EMS
Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Command 2
Safety 1
Triage Group 3
Basic Life Support Treatment 9
Advanced Life Support Treatment 9
Evacuation Group 3
Transport Group 2
Staging 1
Transport Ambulance (8) 16
Effective Response Force: 46
Figure 149: Alarm Assignment – Maximum Risk EMS
Unit Type AFPD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 3 6 2 6 5 15
Truck/Ladder 1 3
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ambulance 2 4 6 12
Total 4 7 5 11 31 Totals
Staff Available 7 11 17
Staff Needed 46
Deficiency -29

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 248
Wildland Incidents
Low-Risk Wildland Incident
A single fire unit can manage a low-risk wildland firefighting incident involving a fire minor in scope, structures not threatened, and when Red Flag conditions do not exist.

These include low-risk wildland or grass fires, an outside smoke investigation, illegal or controlled burns, or small vegetation fires. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 150: Critical Task Analysis – Low Risk Wildland/WUI Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Driver/Engine or Pump Operator 1
Fire Attack 2
Effective Response Force: 3
Figure 151: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk Wildland/WUI
Unit Type AFPD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 2 4
Truck/Ladder
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief
Total 2 4 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 4 0 4
Staff Needed 3
Deficiency 0

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 249
Moderate-Risk Wildland Incident
Multiple units are needed to manage a moderate-risk wildland firefighting incident involving a significant fire in brush, a brush pile at a chipping site, grass, or cultivated vegetation. Red Flag conditions do not exist, and structures may or may not be threatened. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 152: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk Wildland/WUI Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Command 1
Driver/Engine or Pump Operator 1
Fire Attack Divisions 6
Water Supply 1
Structure Protection 3
Effective Response Force: 12
Figure 153: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk Wildland/WUI Unit Type AFPD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 3 6 2 6
Truck/Ladder
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief 1 1 1 1
Total 1 7 3 7 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 7 7 14
Staff Needed 12
Deficiency 0

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 250
High-Risk Wildland Incident
Multiple units or alarms are needed to manage a high-risk wildland firefighting incident.

The level is associated with Red Flag warnings with structures that may or may not be threatened. This fire involves a significant wildfire in the brush, grasses, cultivated vegetation, or woodland areas. Additional alarm assignment, command staff, recall of off-duty personnel, and mutual aid assistance may require the operations to extend beyond the identified critical tasks. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 154: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk Wildland/WUI Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Command 2
Safety 1
Lookout 1
Driver/Engine or Pump Operator 6
Fire Attack Divisions 12
Water Supply 2
Structure Protection 12
Staging 1
Evacuation Group 3
Effective Response Force: 40
Figure 155: Alarm Assignment – High Risk Wildland/WUI
Unit Type AFPD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 3 6 2 6 4 12
Truck/Ladder
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total 4 7 3 7 5 13 Totals
Staff Available 7 7 27
Staff Needed 40
Deficiency -13

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 251
Technical Rescue Incidents
Low-Risk Technical Rescue Incident
A single fire unit can manage a low-risk technical rescue incident involving any minor rescues, such as a child locked in a vehicle, elevator entrapment, or minor mechanical entrapment. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 156: Critical Task Analysis – Low Risk Technical Rescue Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Extrication/Hazard Mitigation 3
Effective Response Force: 3
Figure 157: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk Technical Rescue Unit Type AFPD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 2 4
Truck/Ladder
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief
Total 2 4 0 0 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 7 0 7
Staff Needed 3
Deficiency 0

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 252
Moderate-Risk Technical Rescue Incident
A two-unit response is required to control or mitigate a moderate technical rescue risk incident. Support is not usually required from a technical rescue team. This type of incident involves a motor vehicle crash that requires patient extrication, removal of a patient entangled in machinery or other equipment, or a person trapped by downed power lines. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 158: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk Technical Rescue Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Command 1
Basic Life Support Treatment 3
Advanced Life Support Treatment 3
Extrication/Hazard Mitigation 3
Effective Response Force: 10
Figure 159: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk Technical Rescue Unit Type AFPD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 3 6 2 6
Truck/Ladder
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief 1 1 1 1
Total 4 7 3 7 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 7 7 14
Staff Needed 10
Deficiency 0

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 253
High-Risk Technical Rescue Incident
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a high-risk technical rescue incident. This type of incident may involve full-scale technical rescue operations ranging from structural collapse to swift water rescues. It may involve multiple motor vehicles that require extrication, commercial passenger carriers, or a vehicle impacting a building. Support is needed, usually required from a technical rescue team. This incident may require multiple alarms. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 160: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk Technical Rescue Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Command 2
Safety 1
Operations 1
Rescue Teams 6
Rescue Support Group 3
Basic Life Support Treatment 3
Advanced Life Support Treatment 3
Extrication/Hazard Mitigation 3
Effective Response Force: 22
Figure 161: Alarm Assignment – High Risk Technical Rescue Unit Type AFPD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 3 6 2 6 2 6
Truck/Ladder 1 3
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief 1 1 1 1
Total 4 7 3 7 3 9 Totals
Staff Available 7 7 14
Staff Needed 22
Deficiency -8

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 254
Maximum-Risk Technical Rescue Incident
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a maximum-risk technical rescue incident. Support is required from a specialized technical rescue team and may have multiple operations locations. This type of incident will involve full-scale technical rescue operations such as victims endangered or trapped by structural collapse, swift water, or earth cave-ins. This incident will require multiple alarms and may expand beyond the identified critical tasking. Recall of off-duty personnel or assistance from auto or mutual aid may occur during a disaster or when additional alarms and command staff are needed. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 162: Critical Task Analysis – Maximum Risk Technical Rescue Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Command 2
Safety 1
Operations 1
Rescue Teams 6
Rescue Support Group 9
Basic Life Support Treatment 3
Advanced Life Support Treatment 4
Extrication/Hazard Mitigation 6
Effective Response Force: 32
Figure 163: Alarm Assignment – Maximum Risk Technical Rescue Unit Type AFPD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 3 6 2 6 5 15
Truck/Ladder 1 3
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total 4 7 3 7 7 19 Totals
Staff Available 7 7 14
Staff Needed 32
Deficiency -18

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 255
HazMat Incidents
Low-Risk Hazardous Materials Incident
A single fire unit can manage a low-risk hazardous materials (HazMat) incident involving carbon monoxide alarms and other unknown HazMat investigations without symptomatic victims, less than 20 gallons of fuel, natural gas meter incidents, downed power lines, equipment/electrical problems, attempted burning, or automatic alarms that may originate from a hazardous material. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 164: Critical Task Analysis – Low Risk Hazardous Materials Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Hazard Mitigation 3
Effective Response Force: 3
Figure 165: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk Hazardous Materials Unit Type AFPD* Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 1 2
Truck/Ladder
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief
HM Specialist*
Total 1 2 0 0 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 7 0 7
Staff Needed 3
Deficiency 0
*-limited existing HM program/equipment

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 256
Moderate-Risk Hazardous Material Incident
A two-unit response is required to control or mitigate a moderate-risk hazardous materials incident. Direct support is not usually required from a hazardous materials team. This type of incident involves a carbon monoxide alarm with symptomatic patients, a fuel spill of 20–55 gallons, or a gas or petroleum products pipeline break not threatening any exposures. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 166: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk Hazardous Materials Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Command 1
Decontamination 3
Hazmat Group Supervisor 1
Hazard Mitigation 6
Effective Response Force: 11
Figure 167: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk Hazardous Materials Unit Type AFPD* Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 3 6 2 6
Truck/Ladder
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief 1 1 1 1
HM Specialist 1 3
Total 4 7 3 7 1 3 Totals
Staff Available 7 7 14
Staff Needed 11
Deficiency 0
*-limited existing HM program/equipment

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 257
High-Risk Hazardous Materials Incident
A multiple-unit response with a HazMat team is required to control or mitigate a high-risk hazardous materials incident. Support is needed for a Level 2 HazMat incident that involves establishing operational zones (hot/warm/cold) and assigning multiple support divisions and groups. This response includes a release with 3–8 victims, gas leaks in a structure, HazMat alarm releases with victims, flammable gas or liquid pipeline breaks with exposures, fuel spills greater than 55 gallons, fuel spills in underground drainage or sewer systems, transportation or industrial chemical releases, or radiological incidents.

Additional alarm assistance may be required to expand operations past the identified critical tasks. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 168: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk Hazardous Materials Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Command 2
Safety 1
Operations / HM Group Supervisor 1
Entry Team Officer and Team 3
Back-up Entry Team 3
Hazmat Support Group 9
Decontamination 3
Medical Group 6
Transport Ambulance (4) 8
Effective Response Force: 36
Figure 169: Alarm Assignment – High Risk Hazardous Materials Unit Type AFPD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 3 6 2 6 1 3
Truck/Ladder
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief 1 1 1 1
Ambulance 4 8
HM Specialist 2 6 3 9
Total 7 7 8 21 4 12 Totals
Staff Available 7 21 28
Staff Needed 36
Deficiency -8

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 258
Maximum-Risk Hazardous Material Rescue Incident
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a maximum-risk hazardous materials incident. Support is required from an on-duty HazMat team and their specialized equipment. This type of incident will involve establishing operational zones (hot/warm/cold) and assigning multiple support divisions and groups. Examples include nine or more contaminated or exposed victims, a large storage tank failure, HazMat railcar failure, or a weapon of mass destruction incident. This incident will require multiple alarms and may expand beyond the identified critical tasking. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 170: Critical Task Analysis – Maximum Risk Hazardous Materials Task Description
Personnel
Needed
Command 2
Safety 1
Operations / HM Group Supervisor 1
Entry Team Officer and Team 6
Back-up Entry Team 3
Hazmat Support Group 3
Decontamination 3
Medical Group 6
Staging 1
Hazard Mitigation 6
Transport Ambulance (4) 8
Effective Response Force: 40
Figure 171: Alarm Assignment – Maximum Risk Hazardous Materials Unit Type AFPD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 3 6 2 6
Truck/Ladder
Rescue/Squad
Battalion Chief 1 1 1 1
Ambulance 4 8
HM Specialist 2 6 3 9
Total 4 7 9 21 3 9 Totals
Staff Available 7 21 28
Staff Needed 40
Deficiency -12

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 259
APPENDIX E: INCREMENTAL DEVELOPMENT TAX REVENUE

PROJECTIONS
Section 1: Executive Summary & Overview
This financial analysis appendix supplements the Arcata Fire Protection District’s (AFPD) Standards of Cover and Community Risk Assessment by providing a long-term revenue forecast through FY 2055 under current and potential future funding conditions. The purpose of this report is to quantify AFPD’s ability to sustain essential fire and emergency services under various fiscal conditions, including the impact of new development, property tax growth, and key policy decisions affecting parcel-based revenue measures.

The analysis is structured to separately examine AFPD’s two primary revenue categories:

1. Ad valorem property tax revenue, which increases with the assessed value of taxable property, and

2. Parcel-based special tax revenue from the 2006 Benefit Assessment and 2020 Measure F apply fixed charges to properties based on land use or units of benefit.

Because these two funding streams are governed by different legal, economic, and policy frameworks, they are evaluated separately in this analysis.

1.1 Ad Valorem Revenue Modeling
The first section of this appendix examines ad valorem property tax revenue. AFPD receives a share of the 1% general property tax levied under California’s Proposition 13, distributed by the County based on its Tax Allocation Factor (TAF). For purposes of this analysis, two distinct TAF rates are applied to reflect the geographic and structural differences in AFPD’s revenue sources. Revenue generated from the existing base assessed valuation, estimated at approximately $4.7 billion, is taxed at AFPD’s historical average TAF of 5.95%. In contrast, revenue generated from the planned new development projects located in the City of Arcata is taxed at an estimated TAF of

7.5%, which reflects the approximate TAF for the Tax Rate Area (TRA) encompassing these City of Arcata developments. Applying these different TAF rates provides a more accurate forecast of AFPD’s future revenue capacity and recognizes the enhanced fiscal potential of growth within this portion of the District.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 260
The forecast presented here models new ad valorem revenue resulting from a defined list of residential and mixed-use development projects provided by the City of Arcata.

These projects are scheduled to enter the tax roll between FY 2026 and FY 2035, adding a combined $135.8 million in new taxable assessed valuation over that 10-year span.

The model assumes 3% annual appreciation following each project’s entry, reflecting Proposition 13’s 2% cap plus an estimated 1% due to reassessment at sale or improvement. When compounding is taken in consideration, these developments account for approximately $267.4 million in added valuation by 2055.

This analysis estimates that these projects will generate approximately $3.49 million in cumulative ad valorem revenue to AFPD over a 30-year horizon (2026–2055), exclusive of inflation. The forecast does not include speculative or unconfirmed development in the City of Arcata, McKinleyville, or other unincorporated areas of AFPD’s boundaries, providing an intentionally conservative outlook.

Using this list of development with defined timing and estimated valuation offers a clear demonstration of how confirmed growth affects AFPD’s long-term property tax revenue, and establishes a framework for evaluating additional development as it becomes more certain. The same modeling approach can be applied to future projects as they are identified.

1.2 Parcel-Based Revenue Modeling
The second section of this report examines AFPD’s parcel-based revenues, which include the 2006 Benefit Assessment and the 2020 Measure F Special Tax. Discussed in more detail in the original report, these revenues are not based on assessed valuation, but instead apply fixed per-parcel charges determined by land use classifications and voter-approved rates.
• The 2006 Benefit Assessment provides approximately $1.43 million annually, based on land use and assigned units of benefit, but lacks any inflationary provision meaning its real-dollar value declines over time. • Measure F, adopted in 2020, contributes approximately $2.29 million per year in flat parcel charges, but is scheduled to expire in 2030 unless renewed or replaced by voters.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 261
Because these funding streams are based on parcels rather than assessed valuation, development activity has limited direct impact on their totals. Therefore, parcel-based revenue is evaluated through policy-oriented scenarios, including continuation, expiration, or inflationary indexing of existing measures, rather than through a development-driven forecast.

Accordingly, this section presents four forecast scenarios:
• Scenario A – No changes/status quo. Measure F expires in 2030, and the Benefit Assessment remains fixed.
• Scenario B – Benefit Assessment is indexed to 3% annual growth, but Measure F is not renewed.
• Scenario C – Measure F is renewed at current rates, but the Benefit Assessment remains fixed.
• Scenario D – Full alignment. Measure F is renewed or replaced, and the Benefit Assessment is indexed.

1.3 Combined Revenue Scenarios
The final section of the report presents a combined fiscal outlook incorporating both revenue streams. It shows how cumulative revenues differ across scenarios and planning horizons, allowing AFPD leadership and stakeholders to visualize the long-term implications of development activity, tax structure, and voter policy decisions.

While confirmed development offers a consistent and predictable source of new revenue, it is not sufficient on its own to meet AFPD’s long-term operational needs.

Instead, the forecast illustrates how development-related growth must be paired with stable parcel-based revenues to ensure continued service delivery, capital investment, and fiscal resilience.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 262
Section 2: Ad Valorem Revenue Forecasting

2.1 Overview of Development Projections and Methodology To evaluate the fiscal impact of projected growth on AFPD, AP Triton developed a property tax revenue forecast model using development inputs supplied by the City of Arcata, These inputs included 14 individual development projects, each assigned an estimated net taxable assessed value and an anticipated year of entry onto the tax roll.

In addition, the City identified 135 accessory dwelling units (ADU) expected over the 10- year window.

The analysis assumes new developments begin entering the tax roll in 2026 and continue through 2035, with no additional construction thereafter. Collectively, the scheduled development is projected to add approximately $135.81 million in new net taxable assessed valuation at base year value. This includes 135 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) valued at $144,000 each, distributed evenly over a 10-year period ($1.944 million annually). Note, the $135.81 million value above reflects current (present-year) estimates at the time each project is assumed to enter the tax roll and does not include any compounded appreciation from property turnover or reassessment.

To ensure transparency and isolate the impact of new construction, this section does not include revenue from special assessments or voter-approved parcel taxes such as Measure F or the 2006 Benefit Assessment. These sources are addressed separately in the following section. The forecast that follows provides a foundation for broader policy evaluation and long-term financial planning.

This development data forms the foundation of AFPD’s ad valorem revenue forecast.

The model excludes speculative or potential future development that cannot be confidently timed or valued. By focusing on projects with both defined phasing and valuation, the analysis provides a clear and defensible baseline for estimating revenue from known growth. The same methodology can be applied in the future as additional projects are confirmed.

Each project is assumed to be fully assessed in the fiscal year it enters the tax roll and to appreciate at a compounded annual growth rate of 3%, consistent with the long-term trend in assessed valuation across the District. This 3% rate reflects the 2% maximum annual increase permitted under Proposition 13, plus an estimated 1% from reassessment due to turnover or significant property improvement.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 263
The following figure details planned development with a high degree of certainty in the City of Arcata over the 10-year period of 2026 through 2035.

Figure 172: Planned Developments – City of Arcata
Development Year # of
Buildings
Taxable
Value / Unit
Total Taxable
Value
Zanzi - Ministorage/Condo 2026 6 $500,000 $3,000,000
Britt Lumber 2026 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Greenview 2027 32 $280,000 $8,960,000
Aldergrove 2027 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Los Harbors 2028 10 $275,000 $2,750,000
Trillium 2028 8 $300,000 $2,400,000
6th Street 2029 7 $252,000 $1,764,000
Happy Valley 1 2029 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Happy Valley 2 2030 1 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
Valley West/East 2031 1 $3,500,000 $3,500,000
Happy Valley 3 2032 1 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
14th Street Mill 2033 2 $15,000,000 $30,000,000
Barrel District 2034 2 $19,000,000 $38,000,000
AmeriGas 2035 1 $20,000,000 $20,000,000
Accessory Dwelling Units 2026–2035 135 $144,000 $19,440,000 Total Additional Taxable Value: $135,814,000
While this analysis is grounded in specific developments identified by the City of Arcata and scheduled for addition to the tax roll between 2026 and 2035, these projects are part of a broader strategic growth framework outlined in documents such as the City’s General Plan, Gateway Area Plan, and Cal Poly Humboldt Development Plan. These land use plans identify infill opportunity zones and designated activity centers, including Downtown, Valley West, and the Gateway Area, that are expected to accommodate thousands of new housing units and significant population growth over the next two decades.

The following figure summarizes total development added by year from 2026 to 2035.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 264
Figure 173: Total Development by Year – City of Arcata
Development Total Taxable Value
2026 $5,944,000
2027 $11,904,000
2028 $7,094,000
2029 $4,708,000
2030 $3,444,000
2031 $5,444,000
2032 $3,444,000
2033 $31,944,000
2034 $39,944,000
2035 $21,944,000
The table presented above summarizes the estimated assessed valuation and timing of each development, it does not reflect any compounding growth. The 3% annual appreciation is applied later in the revenue projection model to reflect the long-term fiscal impact of each project after it enters the tax roll.

2.2 Ad Valorem Property Tax Calculation Methodology
To estimate property tax revenue from new development, this forecast applies California’s Proposition 13 ad valorem property tax structure and AFPD’s jurisdictionspecific approximate tax allocation factor (TAF).

Under Proposition 13, real property in California is taxed at a base rate of 1% of its net assessed value. This assessed value is typically set when a property is purchased or newly constructed and is then allowed to increase by no more than 2% per year, unless the property is sold or substantially improved, in which case it is reassessed at current market value.

AFPD does not impose its own tax rate. Instead, it receives a proportional share of the 1% general property tax levy collected by the County based on its TAF. The TAF is determined by the formula established under Assembly Bill 8 (AB 8), which allocates property tax revenues among local jurisdictions based on their historical share of countywide property tax receipts in FY 1977–78. These allocation percentages are largely fixed and can only be changed by state legislative action.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 265
In this forecast, AFPD’s revenue model applies two distinct TAF rates:
• 5.95% is used to estimate revenue from the existing $4.7 billion base assessed valuation.
• 7.5% is applied to revenue generated by new development projects occurring within the City of Arcata, consistent with the approximate TAF applicable in the relevant Tax Rate Area.

Although the TAF may fluctuate slightly from year to year due to property turnover, annexations, or jurisdictional boundary adjustments, the 7.5% factor is used consistently in this forecast for purposes of estimating new development revenue.

Therefore, the formula used throughout this model to calculate AFPD’s share of ad valorem revenue from new development is calculated as:

AFPD Ad Valorem Tax Revenue = Net Taxable Value × 1% × 7.5% Each project’s assessed value is assumed to enter the tax roll in full during the year identified by the City of Arcata. Once added, that value appreciates annually by 3%, which includes the 2% Proposition 13 cap plus an estimated 1% attributable to reassessment from property sales and improvements.

This formula is applied uniformly across all developments in the model, and the same methodology can be extended to evaluate future projects as additional development is confirmed.

2.3 Development Phasing and Valuation
The City of Arcata identified 14 distinct development projects and a consistent annual addition of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), all of which are expected to enter the tax roll between FY 2026 and FY 2035. In total, these projects are projected to add approximately $135.81 million in new net taxable assessed value over a 10-year period, expressed in present-year dollars. For modeling purposes, each project is assigned a specific year of tax roll entry and is assumed to be fully assessed in that year without pre-entry appreciation.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 266
To illustrate the scale and timing of development, the table below tracks how new valuation enters the tax base and how previously added developments continue to appreciate annually at a 3% growth rate, consistent with long-term averages under Proposition 13.

Figure 174: Development Assessed Valuation Phasing
Year New Assessed Value
(This Year)
Development Value
Prior Years
Total Development
Valuation
2025 — — —
2026 $5,944,000 — $5,944,000
2027 $11,904,000 $6,122,320 $18,026,320
2028 $7,094,000 $18,567,110 $25,661,110
2029 $4,708,000 $26,430,943 $31,138,943
2030 $3,444,000 $32,073,111 $35,517,111
2031 $5,444,000 $36,582,625 $42,026,625
2032 $3,444,000 $43,287,423 $46,731,423
2033 $31,944,000 $48,133,366 $80,077,366
2034 $39,944,000 $82,479,687 $122,423,687
2035 $21,944,000 $126,096,398 $148,040,398
2040 — $171,619,395 $171,619,395
2045 — $198,953,915 $198,953,915
2050 — $230,642,116 $230,642,116
2055 — $267,377,425 $267,377,425
Note: Each development is assumed to enter the tax roll in the fiscal year provided by the City of Arcata using its current estimated assessed value, stated in present-year dollars.

Although actual assessed valuations may increase before roll-on due to inflation, permitting changes, or market conditions, this model conservatively assumes no pre-entry appreciation.

All subsequent growth is applied only after the development becomes taxable.

Each year’s total valuation grows at an annual rate of 3%, consistent with California’s Proposition 13 (2% growth cap) plus an additional 1% reflecting typical reassessment due to property turnover and improvement.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 267

2.4 Revenue Forecast from New Development
Applying AFPD’s Tax Allocation Factors to the phasing model produces the following ad valorem revenue forecast. Revenue generated from the District’s existing base assessed valuation is taxed at AFPD’s historical average district-wide TAF of 5.95%, while revenue generated by new development within the City of Arcata is taxed at an estimated TAF of 7.5%. This section presents the forecasted revenue generated specifically by new development, both from the assessed value added in each year and from the ongoing appreciation of previously added development, separate from revenue associated with the District’s existing base valuation.

The forecast models both the initial revenue generated in the year each development is added to the tax roll and the compounding effect of annual 3% valuation growth thereafter. For each project, AFPD’s share of revenue is calculated using the effective formula discussed above.

Based on the schedule of valuation additions shown in the preceding figures, the model estimates the annual property tax revenue AFPD would receive from development, alongside revenue from its existing 2025 tax base. For each fiscal year, the forecast separately tracks:
• AFPD revenue generated from new development, including both current-year additions and the compounding growth of prior-year projects; • AFPD revenue generated from its 2025 base valuation, which also grows at 3% annually;
• Total ad valorem revenue, representing the sum of these two components; • The percentage of total revenue attributable to new development.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 268
The following table summarizes the forecast on a year-over-year basis.

Figure 175: AFPD Ad Valorem Revenue Forecast from Development Year Incremental
Tax Revenue
Base
Tax Revenue
Total AFPD
Tax Revenue
% From
Development
2025 — $2,796,500 $2,796,500 0.00%
2026 $4,458 $2,880,395 $2,884,853 0.15%
2027 $13,520 $2,966,807 $2,980,327 0.45%
2028 $19,246 $3,055,811 $3,075,057 0.63%
2029 $23,354 $3,147,485 $3,170,840 0.74%
2030 $26,638 $3,241,910 $3,268,548 0.81%
2031 $31,520 $3,339,167 $3,370,687 0.94%
2032 $35,049 $3,439,342 $3,474,391 1.01%
2033 $60,058 $3,542,523 $3,602,581 1.67%
2034 $91,818 $3,648,798 $3,740,616 2.45%
2035 $111,030 $3,758,262 $3,869,292 2.87%
2040 $128,715 $4,356,856 $4,485,570 2.87%
2045 $149,215 $5,050,790 $5,200,006 2.87%
2050 $172,982 $5,855,250 $6,028,232 2.87%
2055 $200,533 $6,787,840 $6,988,373 2.87%
Revenue generated by new development begins at $4,458 in 2026. As additional developments enter the tax roll and begin to appreciate, this amount increases gradually each year. By FY 2035, the District is projected to receive approximately $111,030 annually from the developments modeled in this forecast, representing 2.87% of total ad valorem revenue.

Although no new projects are added after 2035, the assessed value of the previously added developments continues to appreciate, resulting in $200,533 in projected revenue by 2055, maintaining a steady 2.87% share of total property tax revenue due to proportional base growth. Cumulatively over the 30-year period, this equates to an estimated $3.49 million in development-related ad valorem revenue, a recurring and stable funding source, though one that must be considered in the context of AFPD’s broader fiscal outlook.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 269
While the development’s relative contribution remains small, the revenue it produces is ongoing, predictable addition to the District’s property tax base. Over the full 30-year period, AFPD is expected to receive approximately $3.5 million in cumulative revenue from the developments modeled in this analysis. By comparison, cumulative revenue from the existing 2025 tax base is projected to exceed $139.8 million.

This analysis is intended to illustrate the magnitude and trajectory of known development-related revenue. Even under favorable growth and compounding assumptions, new development is expected to remain a supplemental contributor to AFPD’s total revenue. It will not, on its own, support the District’s long-term operational or capital needs. It should be considered a supplementary source that strengthens, but does not replace, the broader revenue framework required to sustain service delivery.

The following figure illustrates AFPD’s ad valorem tax revenue trajectory, inclusive of the planned development in the City of Arcata, from 2025 though 2055.

Figure 176: AFPD Ad Valorem Revenue Forecast Trajectory $0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 Base Value Revenue Development Revenue Total Ad Valorem Revenue

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 270
Section 3: Parcel-Based Revenue Forecasting
In addition to its share of ad valorem property tax revenue, the Arcata Fire Protection District relies on two voter-approved parcel-based revenue sources: the 2006 Special Benefit Assessment and the 2020 Measure F Special Tax.

In contrast to ad valorem property taxes, which grow with assessed valuation, parcelbased revenues are calculated based on fixed rates applied to parcels based on land use or designated units of benefit. While new development may result in additional parcels or building units over time, these changes typically do not yield proportionate increases in revenue unless the applicable parcel tax is designed to scale with new construction, which neither of AFPD’s current parcel-based measures does.

Each of these parcel-based revenue measures is governed by distinct legal and structural rules, summarized below.

3.1 2006 Benefit Assessment
The 2006 Benefit Assessment provides a dedicated revenue stream to AFPD based on the number of “units of benefit” assigned to each parcel, depending on its land use category. Units of benefit vary based on land use and intensity of service demand. The assessment rate was set at $22 per unit of benefit and has remained unchanged since adoption. For instance, an improved single-family residential parcel is charged four units of benefit ($88 per year), while a light industrial parcel is assessed ten units ($220 annually). Under California law, this rate cannot be increased without voter approval because the assessment did not include a built-in inflationary clause.

The assessment generates approximately $1.43 million annually, providing a critical, recurring source of unrestricted revenue. However, the lack of indexing means its real purchasing power erodes over time, particularly in an environment of rising personnel and operational costs.

The current 2006 Benefit Assessment rate structure is presented in the following table.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 271
Figure 177: 2006 Benefit Assessment Rate Structure ($22 per Unit of Benefit) Units of
Benefit Total Assessment Designated Land Use
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
While new development can theoretically add new parcels to the assessment roll, its direct impact on revenue is marginal due to the fixed nature of the benefit rate and the requirement for formal annexation or administrative action to include new parcels. As such, this report does not project new revenue from development under the current assessment structure.

3.2 2020 Measure F Special Tax
Measure F is a flat-rate special tax adopted by AFPD voters in 2020 to provide emergency operating funding. Unlike the benefit assessment, which is based on benefit units, Measure F applies a fixed annual charge to each parcel based on land use classification.

Measure F generates approximately $2.29 million annually, providing the District with a stable, voter-approved revenue stream. However, Measure F includes a sunset clause and is scheduled to expire at the end of FY 2030 unless renewed or replaced by a new tax measure.

The following figure lists Measure F’s rates by land use.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 272
Figure 178: Measure F Special Tax Rates by Land Use
Land 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
If Measure F is allowed to lapse with no replacement in 2030, AFPD would lose more than $2.29 million annually in recurring revenue, significantly impacting its operating budget.

3.3 Forecasting Framework for Parcel-Based Revenues
Because neither Measure F nor the 2006 Benefit Assessment is directly tied to assessed valuation, traditional development-based forecasting is not appropriate for projecting these revenues. Instead, this report models parcel-based revenue through a scenariobased framework, each representing a different set of policy and voter actions:
• Scenario A: Status Quo
▪ The 2006 Benefit Assessment remains fixed at $22 per unit of benefit, with no adjustment for inflation.
▪ Measure F sunsets in 2030 and is not renewed or replaced. • Scenario B: Inflation-Indexed Benefit Assessment
▪ A 3% annual inflationary provision is applied to the $22 per unit rate beginning in 2026.
▪ Measure F still sunsets in 2030.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 273
• Scenario C: Measure F Renewed or Replaced
▪ Measure F is renewed or replaced in 2030 with no change in rates. ▪ The 2006 Benefit Assessment remains fixed at $22 per unit. • Scenario D: Full Policy Alignment
▪ A 3% annual inflator is applied to the Benefit Assessment starting in 2026. ▪ Measure F is renewed or replaced in 2030.

This structure enables AFPD to compare how different policy choices affect long-term revenue sustainability, particularly in light of the limited fiscal impact of confirmed development.

The next table summarizes the four scenarios.

Figure 179: Parcel-Based Policy Scenarios
Scenario Benefit Assessment Measure F
A: Status Quo Fixed at $22/unit Expires after 2030
B: Indexed Benefit Assessment Indexed at 3% Expires after 2030 C: Measure F Replaced Fixed at $22/unit Replaced at current rate D: Full Policy Alignment Indexed at 3% Replaced at current rate Each scenario is modeled in the next section using current revenue baselines and alternative indexing or continuation assumptions to project annual and cumulative parcel-based revenue through 2055. All scenarios are modeled in present-year (PY) dollars to allow direct comparison over time.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 274
Section 3.4 Parcel-Based Revenue Scenario Comparison
The following figure presents the annual revenue for each of these four scenarios, comparing their projected fiscal performance through 2055. The figure distinguishes between Benefit Assessment and Measure F revenue for each scenario.

Figure 180: Annual Parcel-Based Revenue – Four Scenarios (2025–2055) Scenario 2025 2030 2035 2045 2055
Benefit Assessment $1.43M $1.43M $1.43M $1.43M $1.43M
Measure F (or Replacement) $2.29M $2.29M — — —
A: Status Quo $3.72M $3.72M $1.43M $1.43M $1.43M
Benefit Assessment $1.43M $1.66M $1.92M $2.58M $3.47M
Measure F (or Replacement) $2.29M $2.29M — — —
B: Indexed Benefit Assessment $3.72M $3.95M $1.92M $2.58M $3.47M Benefit Assessment $1.43M $1.43M $1.43M $1.43M $1.43M
Measure F (or Replacement) $2.29M $2.29M $2.29M $2.29M $2.29M C: Renewed Measure F $3.72M $3.72M $3.72M $3.72M $3.72M Benefit Assessment $1.43M $1.66M $1.92M $2.58M $3.47M
Measure F (or Replacement) $2.29M $2.29M $2.29M $2.29M $2.29M D: Full Policy Alignment $3.72M $3.95M $4.21M $4.87M $5.76M Scenario A – Fixed Benefit Assessment & Measure F Expires:
• With a fixed $22 per unit Benefit Assessment and no Measure F renewal, parcelbased revenue drops from $3.72M in 2030 to $1.43M in 2031 and remains flat through 2055.
• Without indexing, the Benefit Assessment remains static and continues to lose purchasing power.
• Cumulative revenue totals just $58.1M by 2055.

Scenario B – Indexed Benefit Assessment & Measure F Expires:
• Introduces a 3% annual escalator on the Benefit Assessment starting in 2026. • Measure F still expires in 2030, but the indexed Benefit Assessment growth results in a slow revenue recovery, reaching $3.47M annually by 2055. • $85.2 cumulative revenue by 2055.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 275
Scenario C – Fixed Benefit Assessment & Measure F Replaced:
• Measure F is replaced at current rate and the Benefit Assessment remains unindexed.
• Revenue remains stable around $3.72M annually.
• $115.3M cumulative revenue by 2055.

Scenario D – Indexed Benefit Assessment & Measure F Replaced:
• Combines Measure F renewal with Benefit Assessment inflation indexing. • Parcel-based revenue grows from $3.72M to $5.76M annually. • $142.5M cumulative revenue over 30 years.

The following figure illustrates the resulting revenue trajectories from 2025 through 2055.

Figure 181: Annual Parcel-Based Revenue Trajectory – Four Scenarios (2025–2055) $0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055
Scenario A: Status Quo Scenario B: Indexed Benefit Assessment Scenario C: Renewd Measure F Scenario D: Full Policy Alignment

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 276
To assess the total fiscal impact of each scenario, the table below presents cumulative parcel-based revenue from FY 2025 through FY 2055.

Figure 182: 30-Year Cumulative Parcel Revenue (2025–2055) For Each Scenario Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
Benefit Assessment $58,100,000 $85,243,830 $42,020,000 $69,193,830 Measure F or Replacement — — $73,300,000 $73,300,000
Total Cumulative Revenue $58,100,000 $85,243,830 $115,320,000 $142,493,830 The fiscal modeling demonstrates that AFPD's long-term sustainability depends on revisiting the structure of both the 2006 Benefit Assessment and Measure F. The Benefit Assessment has not changed in nominal value since its adoption in 2006. Introducing an inflationary adjustment, either through a fixed annual inflator or a CPI-based index, would help restore and preserve the real value of this revenue source.

Similarly, the planned expiration of Measure F in 2030 presents a major revenue risk.

Replacing or renewing the measure prior to its sunset is necessary to avoid a structural shortfall. Scenario D, which assumes both inflationary indexing and Measure F renewal, yields the most stable and sustainable long-term funding trajectory.

The difference between the lowest- and highest-performing scenarios is more than $84 million over 30 years, illustrating the long-term consequences of allowing Measure F to go unrenewed or leaving the Benefit Assessment unindexed.

Section 4: Combined Revenue Outlook
The long-term financial sustainability of the Arcata Fire Protection District (AFPD) depends on the combined performance of its two primary revenue streams: ad valorem property tax revenue and parcel-based special tax revenue. This section integrates those forecasts to present a unified picture of AFPD’s fiscal trajectory through 2055 under the four distinct policy scenarios presented in the preceding section.

The purpose of this section is to demonstrate how development-driven growth interacts with key voter and policy decisions to shape AFPD’s overall revenue capacity over time.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 277

4.1 Combined Revenue Forecast
The following scenarios were modeled to evaluate the combined fiscal impact of new development, ongoing valuation growth, and parcel-based policy decisions. • Scenario A: Measure F expires in FY 2030 and the Benefit Assessment remains nonindexed. • Scenario B: 3% annual inflation adjustment to the Benefit Assessment beginning in 2026; Measure F expires in 2030.
• Scenario C: Measure F renewed and continued at current rates beyond 2030; Benefit Assessment remains fixed.
• Scenario D: Full renewal of Measure F and indexing of the Benefit Assessment beginning in 2026.

Figure 183 presents the combined total of AFPD’s ad valorem property tax revenue (base growth + development) and parcel-based revenue (Benefit Assessment and Measure F) under each scenario. For consistency with previous sections, totals are shown for milestone years corresponding to the forecast horizon: FY 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045, 2050, and 2055.

Figure 183: Combined Total Annual Revenues by Scenario – Selected Years Scenario 2025 2030 2035 2045 2055
Scenario A $6,516,500 $6,988,548 $5,299,292 $6,630,006 $8,418,373 Scenario B $6,516,500 $7,216,310 $5,791,092 $7,782,745 $10,459,358 Scenario C $6,516,500 $6,988,548 $7,589,292 $8,920,006 $10,708,373 Scenario D $6,516,500 $7,216,310 $8,081,092 $10,072,745 $12,749,358 The next figure illustrates the trajectory of combined revenues by scenario.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 278
Figure 184: Combined Total Annual Revenues Trajectory
The trajectories begin nearly identical in 2025 but diverge sharply after 2030 as parcelbased revenue policies take effect. By FY 2055, the difference between Scenario A (no changes) and Scenario D (full policy alignment) exceeds $4.33 million annually—with Scenario A projecting total annual revenue of approximately $8.42 million and Scenario D projecting approximately $12.75 million. This divergence underscores the critical role of parcel-based revenue policies in sustaining AFPD’s long-term financial capacity.

4.2 Cumulative Combined Revenue Comparison (2025–2055)
Figure 185 summarizes cumulative combined revenues over the full 2025–2055 period for each scenario, incorporating both property tax growth and the sustained or declining effects of parcel-based policy decisions. These totals highlight the long-term fiscal consequences of policy choices that affect AFPD’s revenue trajectory.

The following table shows total cumulative revenue over the full 30-year forecast horizon for each scenario. These figures include:
• Ad valorem revenue from the base tax roll and all modeled development. $4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
$11,000,000
$12,000,000
$13,000,000
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055
Scenario A: Status Quo Scenario B: Indexed Benefit Assessment Scenario C: Renewd Measure F Scenario D: Full Policy Alignment

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 279
• Parcel-based revenue for the 2006 Benefit Assessment and Measure F for each of the four modeled scenarios in the preceding section.

Figure 185: Cumulative Revenue Comparison (2025–2055) – All Sources by Scenario Scenario Ad Valorem
Revenue
Parcel
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Scenario A $143,322,108 $58,070,000 $201,392,108
Scenario B $143,322,108 $85,243,830 $228,565,938
Scenario C $143,322,108 $115,320,000 $258,642,108
Scenario D $143,322,108 $142,493,830 $285,815,938
Over the full 30-year period, AFPD is expected to receive approximately $201.39 million under Scenario A and $285.82 million under Scenario D. This cumulative difference of more than $84 million reflects the combined effects of sustained parcel-based revenue and compounding ad valorem growth. While new development modestly enhances AFPD’s ad valorem base, the analysis highlights that long-term revenue sustainability will depend primarily on parcel-based policy choices.

4.3 Interpretation and Planning Implications
The combined forecast reinforces several key conclusions:
• Development helps, but is not sufficient alone.

Even with full buildout of confirmed projects, development-related ad valorem revenue remains a modest share of AFPD’s long-term revenue picture. It strengthens financial sustainability but cannot replace parcel-based measures. • Measure F expiration is structurally unsustainable.

Letting Measure F sunset without replacement would reduce annual revenue by $2.3 million, effectively eliminating all new revenue generated by development and reversing the District’s revenue trajectory.
• Indexing the 2006 Benefit Assessment materially improves revenue stability.

Applying a 3% annual inflator to the Benefit Assessment would raise an additional $27.2 million over 30 years. This supports rising service costs without needing to modify assessment methodology or land use classifications.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 280
• Full policy alignment is optimal.

Scenario D yields the strongest long-term outlook by combining growth-based and policy-based strategies. Under this scenario, AFPD’s annual unrestricted revenue would grow from $6.52 million in FY 2025 to over $12.7 million by FY 2055.

4.4 Overall Recommendations
Based on the analysis presented in this report, AP Triton recommends that AFPD leadership and stakeholders consider the following actions:
• Prioritize Renewal or Replacement of Measure F
▪ A renewed special tax, either identical or adjusted, should be placed before voters prior to its scheduled expiration in FY 2030. A failure to renew would result in an immediate 40% drop in parcel-based revenue.
• Initiate a Process to Index the 2006 Benefit Assessment ▪ Explore adding an annual inflationary adjustment (or CPI-based index) through a new voter-approved measure or Proposition 218 process. Even a modest inflator substantially improves long-term revenue performance and preserves purchasing power.
• Use the Development Forecast Model to Support Future Growth Planning ▪ The ad valorem revenue modeling structure developed in this report can be expanded as more development becomes confirmed. Future project additions can be modeled using the same methodology to support budgeting, staffing, and capital planning decisions.
• Adopt a Diversified Revenue Strategy
▪ Development revenue, while helpful, should be viewed as a supplemental source. Long-term fiscal sustainability will depend on securing a balanced mix of recurring parcel-based and ad valorem revenue sources.

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 281
APPENDIX F: TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Arcata Hook & Ladder Co. (1887) ..................................................................................2 Figure 2: Arcata Fire District Organization Chart (2024) ...............................................................3 Figure 3: AFPD Apparatus & Staffing by Fire Station .....................................................................5 Figure 4: AFPD Study Area Map......................................................................................................6 Figure 5: Mutual & Automatic Aid Resources Available to AFPD................................................8 Figure 6: AFPD Fire Mutual Aid.........................................................................................................9 Figure 7: AFPD EMS Mutual Aid .....................................................................................................10 Figure 8: AFPD Historical Budget Summary (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year)......................14 Figure 9: AFPD Historical Revenue Summary (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year)...................16 Figure 10: Recurring vs. Non-Recurring Revenue (FY 2020–FY 2024).........................................17 Figure 11: Tax Revenue (FY 2020–FY 2024)...................................................................................18 Figure 12: Ad Valorem Property Tax Revenue (FY 2020–FY 2024)..............................................19 Figure 13: 2006 Benefit Assessment Rates ....................................................................................21 Figure 14: 2006 Special Benefit Assessment (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year).....................21 Figure 15: Benefit Assessment Revenue vs. Other Recurring Revenue (FY 2020–FY 2024)......22 Figure 16: Measure F Special Tax Rates by Parcel Use ...............................................................23 Figure 17: 2020 Measure F Special Tax (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year).............................23 Figure 18: Special Tax Revenue vs. Other Recurring Revenue (FY 2020–FY 2024)...................24 Figure 19: AFPD Historical Expense Summary (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year)..................27 Figure 20: Recurring vs. Non-Recurring Expenses (FY 2020–FY 2024).........................................28 Figure 21: AFPD Recurring Expenses by Category ......................................................................29 Figure 22: AFPD Salaries & Benefits Summary (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year)..................30 Figure 23: AFPD Salaries & Benefits Expense................................................................................30 Figure 24: AFPD Service & Supplies Expense (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year) ...................32 Figure 25: AFPD Service & Supplies Expense................................................................................33 Figure 26: AFPD Debt Service (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year)............................................34 Figure 27: AFPD Recurring Revenue vs. Recurring Expense (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 MidYear) .........................................................................................................................................36 Figure 28: Recurring Revenue vs. Recurring Expense Without Measure F ................................37 Figure 29: Ending Fund Balance (FY 2020 Actual–FY 2024 Mid-Year).......................................38 Figure 30: Health Safety & Counseling Services ..........................................................................40

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 282
Figure 31: AFPD Administrative & Support Staffing .....................................................................41 Figure 32: AFPD Operational Staffing ...........................................................................................42 Figure 33: AFPD Current Staffing Model .......................................................................................42 Figure 34: AFPD Theoretical Relief Factor Calculations..............................................................43 Figure 35: Planning for the Future .................................................................................................45 Figure 36: Criteria Utilized to Determine Fire Station Condition .................................................49 Figure 37: McKinleyville Station (Headquarters)..........................................................................50 Figure 38: Arcata Station ...............................................................................................................51 Figure 39: Mad River Station ..........................................................................................................52 Figure 40: Summary of the AFPD Fire Station Features ...............................................................53 Figure 41: Criteria Used to Determine Apparatus & Vehicle Condition ...................................54 Figure 42: AFPD Fleet Inventory (2024) .........................................................................................55 Figure 43: Economic Theory of Vehicle Replacement...............................................................57 Figure 44: Leading Causes of Death in California (2019)...........................................................61 Figure 45: NFPA Recommended Programs .................................................................................67 Figure 46: The Community Risk Assessment Process ...................................................................70 Figure 47: General Training Competencies.................................................................................81 Figure 48: Drill-type & Frequency ..................................................................................................82 Figure 49: AFPD Population (2011–2021) ......................................................................................88 Figure 50: AFPD Population Distribution........................................................................................89 Figure 51: AFPD Vulnerable Population by Age..........................................................................91 Figure 52: AFPD Residents with Disabilities ...................................................................................91 Figure 53: AFPD Percentage of Population Without Health Insurance.....................................92 Figure 54: AFPD Percent of Population Below the Poverty Level ..............................................93 Figure 55: AFPD Race and Ethnicity..............................................................................................94 Figure 56: AFPD Educational Levels..............................................................................................95 Figure 57: Educational Levels, 25 years and Older .....................................................................95 Figure 58: Owner & Renter-Occupied Housing...........................................................................96 Figure 59: AFPD Percentage of Homes Built by Year..................................................................97 Figure 60: Housing Units per Building.............................................................................................98 Figure 61: Average Daily High Temperatures (˚F)......................................................................100 Figure 62: Average Daily Low Temperatures (˚F) ......................................................................101 Figure 63: Average Monthly Precipitation (inches)...................................................................101

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 283
Figure 64: Drought Conditions (June 2024)................................................................................102 Figure 65: AFPD Average Wind Speeds (MPH)..........................................................................103 Figure 66: Wind Rose—Arcata Eureka Airport ...........................................................................103 Figure 67: Earthquake Probability in AFPD .................................................................................104 Figure 68: Liquefaction Map........................................................................................................105 Figure 69: AFPD Wildfire Risk Map ...............................................................................................107 Figure 70: AFPD Flood Zones........................................................................................................109 Figure 71: Electrical High Tension Power Lines...........................................................................112 Figure 72: Major Gas Pipeline......................................................................................................113 Figure 73: Hydrant Map................................................................................................................115 Figure 74: Growth Areas...............................................................................................................119 Figure 75: Arcata Regional Housing Needs Allocation (2019–2027).......................................119 Figure 76: District Zoning...............................................................................................................121 Figure 77: School Locations.........................................................................................................123 Figure 78: Clinical Facilities and Hospitals..................................................................................125 Figure 79: Multi-Family Housing Units...........................................................................................126 Figure 80: Buildings Three Stories or More...................................................................................127 Figure 81: Buildings 50,000 Square Feet and Greater ...............................................................128 Figure 82: Buildings with Large Fire Flows (> 2,000 gallons per minute)...................................129 Figure 83: Three-Axis Risk Classification Process.........................................................................130 Figure 84: Risk Score......................................................................................................................131 Figure 85: Three-Axis Scoring Ranges .........................................................................................131 Figure 86: Probability or Likelihood of Occurrence...................................................................132 Figure 87: Consequence to the Community.............................................................................132 Figure 88: Impact on Operational Forces..................................................................................133 Figure 89: Fire Response Risk Assessment ...................................................................................134 Figure 90: Fire Risk Classifications ................................................................................................134 Figure 91: EMS Response Risk Assessment ..................................................................................135 Figure 92: EMS Risk Classifications ...............................................................................................135 Figure 93: Technical Rescue Response Risk Assessment...........................................................136 Figure 94: Technical Rescue Risk Classification .........................................................................136 Figure 95: Hazardous Materials Response Risk Assessment ......................................................137 Figure 96: Hazardous Materials Risk Classifications ...................................................................137

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 284
Figure 97: Wildland Fire Response Risk Assessment...................................................................138 Figure 98: Wildland Response Risk Classification.......................................................................138 Figure 99: Aircraft Rescue & Firefighting Response Risk Assessment .......................................139 Figure 100: Data Skew..................................................................................................................142 Figure 101: AFPD Data Skew........................................................................................................143 Figure 102: Total Incident Count (2020–2023)............................................................................145 Figure 103: Incident Density (2020–2023) ...................................................................................146 Figure 104: EMS Incident Density (2020–2023) ...........................................................................147 Figure 105: Fire Incident Density (2020–2023).............................................................................148 Figure 106: Annual Incident Volume (2020–2023).....................................................................149 Figure 107: Incident Volume Percentage by Month (2020–2023)...........................................150 Figure 108: Incident Volume Percentage by Weekday (2020–2023) .....................................150 Figure 109: Month and Weekday Volume (2020–2023)............................................................151 Figure 110: Percentage of Incidents by Hour (2020–2023).......................................................152 Figure 111: Weekday and Hour Volume (2020–2023)...............................................................153 Figure 112: ISO 5 Mile Distance ...................................................................................................155 Figure 113: ISO 1.5 Mile Engine Company Distance.................................................................156 Figure 114: Workload by Apparatus Type (2020–2023) ............................................................157 Figure 115: Annual Incident Volume by Unit and Year (2020–2023).......................................158 Figure 116: Unit Type Average Commit Time by Incident Category (2020–2023).................159 Figure 117: Unit Type Average Incident Commit Times (2020–2023).......................................160 Figure 118: UHU By Unit Groupings (2020–2023).........................................................................161 Figure 119: Concurrent in the Jurisdiction..................................................................................162 Figure 120: Apparatus per Incident............................................................................................162 Figure 121: Incident Segment KPIs..............................................................................................164 Figure 122: Call Processing by NFIRS Category (2020–2023)....................................................166 Figure 123: Turnout Time by Hour (2020–2023)...........................................................................167 Figure 124: First Due Travel Time by Incident Type (2020–2023)...............................................168 Figure 125: Travel Time by Hour (2020–2023)..............................................................................169 Figure 126: Historical Travel, First Three Units (2020–2023).........................................................169 Figure 127: Annual Fire Department Response Times by Group (2020–2023)........................170 Figure 128: Annual Total Response Time by Group (2020–2023) .............................................171 Figure 129: Future Service Demand Projection .........................................................................172

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 285
Figure 130: Fire Mutual Aid Partners............................................................................................173 Figure 131: Traditional Performance Metrics .............................................................................179 Figure 132: 2006 Benefit Assessment with 3% Inflationary Adjustment....................................198 Figure 133: Summary of Critical Tasking .....................................................................................239 Figure 134: Critical Task Analysis – Low Risk Fire.........................................................................240 Figure 135: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk Fire.............................................................................240 Figure 136: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk Fire ..............................................................241 Figure 137: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk Fire..................................................................241 Figure 138: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk Fire ........................................................................242 Figure 139: Alarm Assignment – High Risk Fire............................................................................242 Figure 140: Critical Task Analysis – Maximum Risk Fire...............................................................243 Figure 141: Alarm Assignment – Maximum Risk Fire ..................................................................243 Figure 142: Critical Task Analysis – Low-Risk EMS........................................................................244 Figure 143: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk EMS ...........................................................................244 Figure 144: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk EMS .............................................................245 Figure 145: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk EMS.................................................................245 Figure 146: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk EMS .......................................................................246 Figure 147: Alarm Assignment – High Risk EMS...........................................................................246 Figure 148: Critical Task Analysis – Maximum Risk EMS..............................................................247 Figure 149: Alarm Assignment – Maximum Risk EMS .................................................................247 Figure 150: Critical Task Analysis – Low Risk Wildland/WUI .......................................................248 Figure 151: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk Wildland/WUI ...........................................................248 Figure 152: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk Wildland/WUI.............................................249 Figure 153: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk Wildland/WUI.................................................249 Figure 154: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk Wildland/WUI.......................................................250 Figure 155: Alarm Assignment – High Risk Wildland/WUI ..........................................................250 Figure 156: Critical Task Analysis – Low Risk Technical Rescue ................................................251 Figure 157: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk Technical Rescue....................................................251 Figure 158: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk Technical Rescue......................................252 Figure 159: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk Technical Rescue .........................................252 Figure 160: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk Technical Rescue................................................253 Figure 161: Alarm Assignment – High Risk Technical Rescue ...................................................253 Figure 162: Critical Task Analysis – Maximum Risk Technical Rescue ......................................254

Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Arcata Fire Protection District 286
Figure 163: Alarm Assignment – Maximum Risk Technical Rescue..........................................254 Figure 164: Critical Task Analysis – Low Risk Hazardous Materials............................................255 Figure 165: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk Hazardous Materials ...............................................255 Figure 166: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk Hazardous Materials .................................256 Figure 167: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk Hazardous Materials.....................................256 Figure 168: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk Hazardous Materials...........................................257 Figure 169: Alarm Assignment – High Risk Hazardous Materials...............................................257 Figure 170: Critical Task Analysis – Maximum Risk Hazardous Materials..................................258 Figure 171: Alarm Assignment – Maximum Risk Hazardous Materials .....................................258 Figure 172: Planned Developments – City of Arcata ...............................................................263 Figure 173: Total Development by Year – City of Arcata.........................................................264 Figure 174: Development Assessed Valuation Phasing............................................................266 Figure 175: AFPD Ad Valorem Revenue Forecast from Development...................................268 Figure 176: AFPD Ad Valorem Revenue Forecast Trajectory...................................................269 Figure 177: 2006 Benefit Assessment Rate Structure ($22 per Unit of Benefit)........................271 Figure 178: Measure F Special Tax Rates by Land Use .............................................................272 Figure 179: Parcel-Based Policy Scenarios.................................................................................273 Figure 180: Annual Parcel-Based Revenue – Four Scenarios (2025–2055) .............................274 Figure 181: Annual Parcel-Based Revenue Trajectory – Four Scenarios (2025–2055) ...........275 Figure 182: 30-Year Cumulative Parcel Revenue (2025–2055) For Each Scenario................276 Figure 183: Combined Total Annual Revenues by Scenario – Selected Years......................277 Figure 184: Combined Total Annual Revenues Trajectory .......................................................278 Figure 185: Cumulative Revenue Comparison (2025–2055) – All Sources by Scenario ........279