St. Helena City Council
October 8, 2024

5 SECTION 2. SCOPE OF PROJECT
The scope of this project was to provide an
independent review of the services provided by the
St. Helena Fire Department (SHFD), so that the Mayor,
City Council and city officials, including officials of SHFD, could obtain an external perspective regarding
the city’s Fire and EMS delivery system. This study
provides a comprehensive analysis of the SHFD,
including its organizational structure, workload, staffing, work schedule, overtime, deployment, use of part-time
personnel, training, fire prevention, emergency
communications (911), planning, and public education
efforts.

In addition, CPSM will provide its insights to help the department determine the appropriateness of the level
of response and alternative delivery systems that could be utilized in meeting current service demands or to optimize service efficiencies. Local government officials often commission these types of studies to measure their department against industry best practices. In this analysis, CPSM provides recommendations where appropriate, and offers input on a strategic direction for the future.

Key areas evaluated during this study include:
■ Fire department response times (using data from the city’s computer-aided dispatch system and the SHFD records management system).
■ Deployment, work schedule, staffing, and overtime.
■ Part-time firefighters and their utilization.
■ Agency interaction with AMR, Calistoga/St. Helena Emergency Communications, CAL FIRE, and other mutual aid partners.
■ Organizational structure and managerial oversight.
■ Fire and EMS workloads, including unit response activities. ■ SHFD support functions (Training, Fire Prevention/Code Enforcement, Emergency Management, Fleet Services, IT, Human Resources, etc.). ■ Essential facilities, equipment, and resources.
■ An evaluation of alternative service delivery options. § § §
Agenda Item #13.1.

6 SECTION 3. ORGANIZATION AND

MANAGEMENT

GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
St. Helena is a quaint and idyllic community located in the North Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area. The city is located in Napa County, approximately 65 miles north of San Francisco and 77 miles west of Sacramento. It is a popular tourist destination because of its charm and central location in the northern California wine country.

St. Helena is a relatively small community that has not experienced significant growth in recent years. In 2020, the U.S. Census estimated the population of St. Helena to be 5,438. In 2000, the city’s population had been measured as 5,950. The projected growth of the city during the current planning horizon (through 2040) is expected to see a population increase of approximately 1,000 people.1
The St. Helena area and the surrounding Napa Valley region were designated in 1995 as an American Viticultural Area (AVA). This appellation designation emphasizes the geographic pedigree of the grapes and wines of the area and their distinctive characteristics. An appellation is a legally defined and protected geographical identification primarily used to identify where the grapes for a wine were grown. The city is generally rural in nature with much of the economy associated with the area vineyards, retail establishments, and the many fine dining venues of the area. The city maintains a vibrant commercial hub that attracts year-round tourism from throughout the nation and internationally.

St. Helena is general law municipal government within the State of California, operating under a council-manager form of government. The five council members are elected at-large to 4-year terms, and the Mayor is elected to a two-year term. The Vice-Mayor is selected by a council vote. The mayor presides at Council meetings and votes on issues as a member of the City Council to effectuate decisions. The City Council appoints the City Manager, who is the administrative officer for the city with the authority to hire, appoint, and remove all employees of the local government. The City Council serves as the legislative body for the city. The City Council is responsible for enacting laws that govern the city, adopting the annual budget, and appropriating funds to provide city services. Most transactions require only a quorum or simple majority be present.

St. Helena is typical of many cities and towns across the United States in that it operates its own public works department, community development, parks and recreation, library, and internal functions including finance and human resources. St. Helena operates its own police and fire departments. The initial call-screening for Emergency 911/dispatch services are provided through a cooperative arrangement between the City of St. Helena and Calistoga. Emergency dispatching along with Fire and EMS call screening is done by CAL-FIRE. The St. Helena Fire Department responds jointly with American Medical Response. Inc. (AMR), a private ambulance transport company that operates throughout Napa County.

1. California Department of Finance (DOF) and the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) estimates.

Agenda Item #13.1.

7 FIGURE 3-1: City of St. Helena Table of Organization
Agenda Item #13.1.

8 ST. HELENA FIRE DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The St. Helena Fire Department (SHFD) is a combination fire department comprised of 8 career personnel and 17 part-time employees. The Fire Chief has overall responsibility for managing the department’s day-to-day operations and providing both administrative oversight and field command supervision. The Fire Chief is assisted by a Fire Inspector who has primary responsibilities for fire prevention activities; including fire inspections and permitting. Fire Plans Review is done by an outside vendor, Interwest Consulting Group. The Fire Chief will conduct fire investigations to determine cause and origin of fires in the city. In those more complex investigations or in incidents involving suspected arson, injuries, or deaths, the Fire Chief may obtain assistance from the State Fire Marshal’s office or from area mutual aid partners. The 17-part-time employees include one Assistant Chief who provides both administrative and emergency field assistance. There are two part-time captains and four part-time Driver Engineers.

Field operations involving Fire and EMS response is provided by a combination of career personnel and part-time employees. Typically, SHFD operates a single engine that is staffed with three personnel. These personnel include a Captain, Engineer, and Firefighter. Generally, the Captain and Engineer positions are staffed by career personnel and the Firefighter slot is filled by a part-time employee. However, this arrangement is often altered with both acting assignments and the assignment of part-time employees into either the Captain or Engineer assignments.

Rarely is the on-duty staffing composed solely of part-time employees; however, on rare occasions the on-duty crew will be staffed with only one career position.

The St. Helena station serves the city along with designated areas of unincorporated Napa County. The city has an agreement with CAL-FIRE, which is responsible for providing services in Napa County, in which CAL-FIRE provides automatic response into St. Helena to assist the city during larger incidents in return for the city providing initial response into those designated areas of the county adjacent or in proximity with St. Helena municipal boundaries.

The department’s support activities—including; training, logistical support, administrative services, recordkeeping, purchasing, and vehicle and station maintenance—are provided through a combination of assigned responsibilities held by both career and part-time personnel, with the overall coordination of these activities provided by the Fire Chief. § § §
Agenda Item #13.1.

9 FIGURE 3-2: St. Helena Fire Department Table of Organization Field operations are delivered by three shifts, with a (24-hour) field supervisor (Fire Captain), assigned to each shift and who has the responsibility for supervising field operations, scheduling, and personnel matters on their respective shifts. The department responds to a wide array of fire, rescue, and emergency medical services calls. SHFD has a minimum staffing policy that maintains three people on-duty at all times. For larger events, additional personnel are provided by the re-call of off-duty personnel and through automatic and mutual aid response from neighboring jurisdictions.

During the one-year period of this study from November 1, 2022, through October 31, 2023, the SHFD responded to 844 incidents, of which 676 were within St. Helena and 168 were outside city limits, either in incorporated Napa County or in neighboring municipalities. CPSM estimates that EMS calls accounted for more than 60 percent of the response activities of the St. Helena fire department. All personnel are cross-trained and are able to provide emergency medical care as well as structural and wildland fire fighting.

All line personnel must hold a Basic-EMT certification (EMT-B). SHFD operates in what is often termed a two-tiered EMS delivery system. In this arrangement the fire department provides EMS first response and the county ambulance provider (AMR) provides advanced life support services and ambulance transport.

Agenda Item #13.1.

10 In addition to their emergency response duties, emergency services personnel also provide a wide range of customer service and community outreach efforts including; weed abatement inspections, blood pressure screenings, tours of the fire station and apparatus, smoke detector installations, and fire and life safety presentations.

Workweek and Definition of Time Worked
The work schedule in St. Helena is similar to the work schedule that is currently being used for many agencies throughout California and the western United States. SHFD works a 48/96 schedule. Under this schedule, line personnel work on a three-platoon system in which personnel are on duty for 48 consecutive hours followed by 96 hours off. This rotation is replicated by each of the three shifts.

This schedule equates to a 56-hour workweek for all employees if averaged throughout the year (or 2,912 hours annually). Overtime guidelines relating to municipal fire personnel are specified in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the “7(k) exemption,” which allows municipal fire personnel to work up to 53 hours each week before an overtime premium is required.2 St. Helena has established through its MOU with the Firefighter’s Union, a 14-day, 106-hour FLSA pay cycle.

FLSA specifies that overtime be paid for all hours worked in excess of 106 hours (53 hours per week times 2). On the basis of this schedule and the 14-day pay cycle, SHFD full-time employees receive on average, 156 hours of FLSA overtime each year. At the current pay scale, this equates to approximately $8,000 annually in FLSA overtime per employee.

In calculating overtime eligibility, FLSA further specifies that overtime pay is required only when the actual hours worked are in excess of the designated pay cycle. FLSA does not require that this calculation include time not worked, such as vacation time, sick leave, or holidays (federal or otherwise).3
≈ ≈ ≈
These exclusions when considering overtime eligibility are consistent with FLSA guidelines and fully compliant with the legal requirements imposed by this legislation. In addition, by excluding sick leave and FMLA when considering overtime eligibility, there is a secondary effect of reducing absenteeism, as employees often choose not to call in sick if it results in a loss of overtime premium pay.

Two-In/Two-Out Provision
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued a standard that has been termed the “Two-In/Two-Out” provision. This standard affects most public fire departments across the U.S., including the SHFD. Under this standard, firefighters are required to operate in teams (of no fewer than two personnel) when engaged in interior structural firefighting. The environment in which interior structural firefighting occurs is further described as areas that are immediately dangerous to life or health (an IDLH atmosphere) and subsequently require the use of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). When operating in these conditions, firefighters are required to operate in pairs and they must remain in visual or voice contact with each other and must have at least two other employees located outside the IDLH atmosphere. This assures that the “two-in” can monitor each other and assist with equipment failure or entrapment or

2. See 29 USC §207(k).

3. U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, Overtime Pay: General Guidance.

Agenda Item #13.1.

11 other hazards, and the “two-out” can monitor those in the building, initiate a rescue, or call for back-up if a problem arises.4
This standard does not specify staffing on individual apparatus, but rather specifies a required number of personnel be assembled on-scene when individuals are in a hazardous environment.

There is, however, a provision within the OSHA standard that allows two personnel to make entry into an IDLH atmosphere without the required two back-up personnel outside. This is allowed when they are attempting to rescue a person or persons in the structure before the entire team is assembled.5
The typical St. Helena staffing pattern places three personnel on Engine #17 and this is the only unit operating within the city. As a result of the automatic response agreement with CAL-FIRE, additional fire units will respond from Napa County stations for all structure fires and other emergency incidents in which additional staffing is needed. St. Helena Standard Operating Guidelines provide specific reference to the application of the Two-in/Two-Out OSHA guidelines and these guidelines are strictly adhered to during situations in which fire personnel are operating in a hazardous environment. CPSM recognizes the SHFD automatic response agreement with CAL-FIRE and its adherence to OSHA guidelines regarding the two-in/two-out provision as a Best Practice.

Alternative Response Vehicles
EMS calls are the predominant workload for the St. Helena Fire Department, accounting for more than 60 percent of its call activity. With an estimated 932-unit responses annually. CPSM estimates that SHFD units are responding an estimated 900 times annually to calls that do not involve actual fires.

SHFD handles all of its emergency and non-emergency responses primarily with its fire apparatus.

This workload puts considerable wear and tear on these heavy vehicles. CPSM estimates the combined service miles traveled annually by SHFD fire apparatus (excluding utility vehicles and command units) is in the range of 9,000 to 10,000 miles, with its busiest unit (Engine 17) amassing as much as 6,000 miles annually.

Fire apparatus are extremely expensive vehicles to purchase and maintain. Engines have a replacement cost of more than $850,000 and ladders are more than $1.8 million. In addition, each engine and ladder must be outfitted with various tools, equipment, EMS supplies, radios, computers, and other equipment that collectively add upwards of $200,000 to the cost of any replacement. Due to the high replacement cost for these vehicles and ongoing operating and maintenance costs, many agencies have gone to the use of alternative response vehicles for EMS and non-fire related incidents. Incorporating smaller vehicles into the response fleet helps to reduce the wear and tear on larger vehicles and prolong their useful time in service.

Alternative response vehicles vary in their design and chassis types but generally are commercially available light trucks in a one-ton chassis configuration with either a pick-up or SUV body design. These vehicles are often equipped with after-market outside compartmentation and interior storage areas. Vehicles with these chassis’ designs are readily available through state bid procurement programs. When equipped with the added compartmentation, 4-wheel drive, lighting, radio systems, and painting, such a vehicle may be acquired for a cost that ranges from $85,000 to $100,000.

4. OSHA-Respiratory Protection Standard, 29CFR-1910.134(g)(4).

5. Ibid, Note 2 to paragraph (g).

Agenda Item #13.1.

12 FIGURE 3-3: Alternative Response Vehicle
There is a significant cost benefit in utilizing smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles for the more frequent EMS and public service call activity. CPSM estimates that the St. Helena Fire Department is spending approximately $75,000 annually for fuel, maintenance, and repairs of its fire apparatus. The typical operating and maintenance costs for engines and ladders cost five times higher than for smaller EMS squad vehicles. In addition, the smaller units are more maneuverable, provide off-road access, and can achieve faster response times than the larger fire apparatus, especially ladder trucks. There is also the benefit of perception in the community when the department responds with an alternative response vehicle to non-emergency or EMS calls rather than larger fire apparatus. When a squad unit is operational, the engine is still able to respond with the remaining personnel if a simultaneous incident were to occur. Two notable agencies that have taken this approach are Tualatin Valley Fire Rescue, Oregon (CARS Program) and the Shreveport Fire Department, Louisiana (SPRINT Program).

Squad and SUV-type response vehicles can be expected to be operational for seven to eight years or approximately 100,000 to 120,000 miles in a first-line status. Fire engines and ladder trucks have a longer life expectancy but typically are in need of replacements when odometer readings approach 120,000 to 150,000 miles. Given the economic comparison between engines and alternative response vehicles and the added fact that EMS squads typically are staffed with fewer personnel, it is apparent that from both an economic and operational perspective, the use of EMS squads can provide a cost-effective response option in the St. Helena system.

Recommendation: The St. Helena Fire Department should consider the use of EMS squad units to handle EMS and non-fire related service calls in the city’s service area. (Recommendation No. 2.)
Agenda Item #13.1.

13 STAFFING AND WORK SCHEDULE
Staffing of individual apparatus and minimum daily staffing levels are perhaps the most contentious aspects of managing fire operations in the U.S. There are a number of factors that have fueled the staffing debate. Aside from FAA requirements for minimum staffing levels at commercial airports, there are no state or federal requirements for the staffing of structural fire apparatus.

As discussed above, the Two-in/Two-out provision in OSHA guidelines requires that fire departments assemble a minimum of four personnel when conducting firefighting operations in a hazardous environment where SCBA units are utilized. Fire unions often attempt to utilize this OSHA requirement as a further justification for staffing fire apparatus with four personnel.

However, the OSHA guideline does not speak to individual unit staffing, but rather its focus is on the assembling of a minimum of four personnel at the scene before interior firefighting is initiated.

A second factor that contributes to the staffing debate is the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 publication, Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments (2020 Edition, Sec. 5.2.2.). This standard specifies that the staffing level on responding engine and ladder companies be established at a minimum of four on-duty personnel. Unlike the OSHA guideline, which is a mandatory provision, the NFPA 1710 guideline is advisory, meaning that communities (including St. Helena) are not required to adhere to this NFPA guideline. NFPA 1710 also provides guidance regarding staffing levels for units responding to EMS incidents; however, the provision is less specific and does not specify a minimum staffing level for EMS response units. Instead, the standard states; “EMS staffing requirements shall be based on the minimum levels needed to provide patient care and member safety.”6 As stated previously, St. Helena staffs a single fire unit with three personnel on a daily basis. This on-duty crew is comprised of both career fire personnel and part-time employees. All employees, whether career or part-time (excluding those in training), have the recommended training specified by the California Office of the State Fire Marshal. CPSM believes that the current staffing and deployment practices combined with the joint-response arrangements with neighboring agencies, is very sufficient in handling the existing workload.

In 2016, the SHFD began its transition from a volunteer fire department. In October 2018, two-fulltime firefighters were first hired. In July 2022, the city entered into an MOU with the St. Helena Professional Firefighters Association. In 2022, the number of full-time firefighters was increased to six, and the Fire Chief was moved to a full-time position. This type of transition is significant and often changes the dynamic of an organization. However, our observations indicate that this transition is progressing very well and the services being provided today are much improved over that provided previously. Notwithstanding this improvement, the current level of staffing in St. Helena is a basic minimum and must be supplemented on a regular basis from neighboring agencies through its mutual aid and automatic service response agreements. In addition, St.

Helena draws from its off-duty personnel when more significant incents occur. The following table identifies the number of units and their station assignment for the SHFD.

6. (NFPA) 1710, Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments (2020 Edition Sec., 5.3.3.2.2.).

Agenda Item #13.1.

14 TABLE 3-1: SHFD Fire Station, Response Units, and Assigned Personnel Station # Response Units Minimum Assignment
17 1 Engine
Chief 170
3 1*
1 Station 2 Response Units 4 on-duty personnel
*Note: The Fire Chief works a 40-hour schedule but maintains an on-call status, responding to any significant event.

Work Schedule
Fire departments must be able to respond rapidly to emergencies at any time throughout the day or night. For this reason, agencies throughout the U.S. typically assign personnel to a 24-hour shift to ensure this level of readiness. In addition, as mentioned above, the Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA), creates an exception for the payment of overtime for firefighters, in part because of the typical 24-hour work schedule. The “7-K Exemption” allows firefighters to work upwards of 53 hours each week before overtime premium pay (usually time and one-half) is required. For most municipal employees, overtime premium pay is required after 40 hours of work during a 7-day workweek. In addition, the hourly overtime rate for firefighters working 2,912 hours annually is nearly 50 percent less (49.7 percent) than the overtime rate for a 40-hour employee (2,080 hours annually) with the same annual salary.

Generally, fire departments operate with the same number of people on duty throughout the entire 24-hour cycle. However, emergency response activities are significantly higher during the daytime hours than they are during the nighttime and early morning hours. This type of schedule in which the number of people on duty remains the same throughout the entire 24-hour tour is often described as a “static-staffing” model. When staffing levels are adjusted throughout the day to reflect fluctuations in workload, the staffing model is referred to as a “dynamic staffing” model.

Fire department work schedules will vary from agency to agency. Most fire departments today utilize a 24/48 schedule, However, the 48/96 schedule is the predominate work schedule throughout California and many cities in the western United States. In the 24/48 rotation, a given shift or workgroup will work 24 consecutive hours, followed by 48 hours off. This type of scheduling requires three platoons or shifts to fill out the rotation. Typically, the individual shifts are referenced by an alphabetical notation. One shift will be designated as the “A” shift, the second as the “B” shift, and the third as the “C” shift. Typically, each shift is assigned duty days in sequence, meaning that the “A” shift is followed by the “B” shift and the “B” shift is followed by the “C” shift and then the cycle is repeated. This three-tour rotation repeats itself throughout the year and generally two of the shifts work 122 days each year while the third shift will work 121 days. This cycle over time averages out to 56-hour work week or a total 2,912 hours worked annually.
§ § §
Agenda Item #13.1.

15 FIGURE 3-4: 24/48 Work Schedule (56-Hour Workweek)
Another iteration of the 24/48-hour schedule is the 48/96-hour schedule. This is the schedule currently being utilized in St. Helena. This schedule is becoming very popular in many communities because it reduces by half the number of days that the individual worker is required to commute to their place of employment. This schedule merely doubles the number of consecutive on-duty hours (to 48 hours) and similarly doubles the number off-duty hours (to 96 consecutive hours). This schedule is often criticized because of the potential for excessive fatigue if the employee is responding to multiple alarms during the 48-hour tour, especially through the nighttime hours. This cycle over time averages out to 56-hour work week or a total 2,912 hours worked annually. Employees on this schedule, as with the 24/48-hour schedule, will receive approximately 156 hours of FLSA overtime throughout the year.

FIGURE 3-5: 48/96 Work Schedule (56-Hour Workweek)
In some communities, fire departments operate on a four-platoon system. In this arrangement, there are four different work groups and again they follow a four-day rotation throughout the Agenda Item #13.1.

16 year. One iteration of the four-platoon system is the 24/72-hour schedule. In this rotation, there are four shifts (A, B, C, D), each working a 24-hour tour followed by 72 hours off. In this arrangement, there is a need for an additional shift, meaning that a department would need additional positions for each station or unit assignment (Captain, Driver, Firefighter, etc.). This schedule is based on a total of 2,184 hours of work annually, so employees would not be eligible for FLSA overtime as their workweek does not exceed the 53-hour weekly threshold. However, the hourly rate and thus overtime rates are likely to increase. Employees on this schedule work 728 hours less than those employees working the 24/48 or 48/96 schedules (2,912 hours). For example, on a 42-hour work week, the hourly salary for an individual making $90,000 is $41.21 and their overtime rate is $61.81. If compared to a 56-hour employee (2,912 annual hours), the hourly rate is $30.91 and the overtime rate would be $46.36 (for the same $90,000 annual salary).

FIGURE 3-6: 24/72 Work Schedule (42-Hour Workweek)
Another iteration of the four-platoon system is one in which the 24-hour duty day is split. These schedules utilize either two 12-hour tours, two 9-15 tours, or two 10-14 tours. Typically, employees will work two consecutive daytime tours, followed by 24 hours off, and then they work two consecutive nighttime tours. At the completion of their on-duty cycle, employees are off for 72 hours. Again, this workweek averages out to 42 hours or 2,184 hours annually. This schedule is often utilized in many of the large urban cities in the northeast where call activities, especially fire calls, are very prevalent and the physical work requirements are considerable. § § §
Agenda Item #13.1.

17 FIGURE 3-7: 12/12, 10/14, or 9/14 Work Schedule (42-Hour Workweek) It is hard to state definitively whether one of the work schedules is better than all the others.

Clearly the four-platoon system reduces the annual hours worked by individual employees but will require more personnel. The 56-hour schedule (either 24/48 or 48/96) requires fewer employees and results in employees working more hours over the course of the year. Either the 24/48 schedule or the 48/96 schedule can be criticized for working employees for extended periods of time and could result in employee fatigue. None of the schedules presented have been documented to result in higher amounts of employee lost time, increased absenteeism, or higher frequencies of worker’s compensation resulting from job-related injuries. Regardless of the work schedule utilized, CPSM recommends that agencies take definitive steps to monitor the amount of lost time being utilized both individually and across the department in order to identify any excess usage or trends that can be identified over time or by work group.

It is important to note that the 24-hour schedule is perhaps the most coveted aspect of pursuing employment as a firefighter. The schedule allows the individual more time off to either carry out childcare responsibilities or to pursue supplemental employment options. However, the 24-hour schedule in which a static staffing model is utilized, is justifiably criticized for its inefficiencies, as the size of the workforce is not adjusted to reflect varying service demands.

It is our belief that the 48/96-hour schedule currently being worked by many of the part-time employees utilized by SHFD is the primary reason these employees are available and want to work in St. Helena. The 48/96 schedule, as stated previously, reduces the number of commutes that are required throughout the year. This is extremely important in communities such as St. Helena, where housing prices are high and are difficult to navigate for entry level buyers.

Subsequently, CPSM does not believe that a move to an alternative work schedule will result in improved productivity or enhanced service efficiency. Because the SHFD is currently operating with a single engine and only three on-duty personnel, we believe that this is the minimum level of protection needed and any reduction in this staffing level would not be recommended.

Program Management Responsibilities
In most agencies the oversight of program management duties is often the responsibility of staff officers and chief officers who are assigned to 40-hour assignments. CPSM believes it is critical, however, that many of these types of logistical and support duties should be assigned to line Agenda Item #13.1.

18 personnel. We often make this recommendation in our studies because the distribution of these responsibilities is a more productive way to manage departmental functions while at the same time providing a training opportunity in the development of line personnel. SHFD has done a good job in distributing these assignments to both career and part-time personnel. Given the limited number of career and staff employees, it is critical that SHFD expand the role of line personnel (both career and part-time) in managing these duties. The following table lists a variety of program management duties that can be considered for assignment to field personnel.

TABLE 3-2: Program Assignment Duties
Program Description
Promotional Testing
Performance Appraisals
Haz Mat/Technical Rescue
Employee Recognition/Awards

CISM/EAP
Sick Leave/Absenteeism Review
Budget Committee
Payroll / Executive Time Auditing
Police Department Liaison
EMS Protocols
Station Maintenance/Upkeep and Supplies
Fire Reporting QA
Hose Testing
Hydrant Testing
Radio Programming
Mapping
Fire Pre-incident Planning
Infectious Disease Control
EMS Supplies/Decon/Bio Disposal
911 Liaison
Station Response Area Designation
Response Protocols
Fire Investigations
Safety/Rehab/Risk Management
SOP/Ops Committee
Fitness Committee
Shift Training Coordinator
Recruit Training/Proctoring
Public Information Officer
Driver Training/EVOC
Fleet Maintenance/Repair Recordkeeping
Internal Communications/Newsletter
Social media/FD Web Page
FF/EMS Recruitment Committee
Agenda Item #13.1.

19 Program Description
Car Seat Installation
Smoke Detector Replacement
Volunteer FF Liaison
Volunteer FF Training Officer
The level of participation and the degree to which line personnel are managing specific program responsibilities in St. Helena is truly commendable and a tribute to the leadership of the organization. CPSM considers the delegation of these duties as a Best Practice. The SHFD has been able to create and foster a sense of ownership and stewardship among its employees. We believe this is a remnant of the volunteer-association philosophy which is not usually present in career organizations.

Internal Communication St. Helena Volunteer Fire Dept. Association The ability to communicate work assignments, conduct training sessions, discuss new program initiatives, or merely to update employees on departmental programs or the strategic direction of the organization, requires ongoing outreach, specifically from the Fire Chief, officers, and training instructors in the organization. There are a number of communication tools currently available that can be used to conduct video conference calls, training sessions, and information exchanges among multiple work settings from remote settings (for example, see Zoom™, Microsoft TEAMS™, Skype for Business™, and Lifesize™, etc.). These tools are inexpensive and, in some cases, the software is free and there are minimal recurring charges. The realities of the COVID-19 pandemic have increased the use of these types of remote meetings and virtual training activities. In addition, the single station operation in St. Helena fosters opportunities for direct communications with off-duty personnel and mutual aid partners. SHFD has become proficient in these applications and should continue and expand their use into the future.

Promotional Testing Processes
The promotional processes for Fire Engineer, Fire Captain, and Battalion Chief are the most competitive and coveted career advancement processes in the fire service. Even more importantly, these promotional processes provide an exceptional learning environment in which candidates prepare themselves and spend countless hours studying and learning the source materials. From an organizational perspective, there is no better training instrument than the fire service promotional process. This point is even more critical in an organization such as SHFD, which is transitioning from a volunteer system to a full-time career department. It is essential that an effective promotional process be built around individual performance, personal achievement, and the ability to measure the required skills in an objective and competitive forum.

The fire service promotional process should be very structured and directed by written policy.

The process must be relevant to the position and the test materials should be updated at frequent intervals in order to properly reflect the latest technology and management systems germane to the position. Most fire departments conduct promotional testing processes at defined intervals. Typically, a test is given and an eligibility list is created so that as vacancies occur, personnel are selected from the established lists. In addition, these testing processes should be utilized in determining eligibility as to who can assume acting or interim roles for these positions during absences or short-term vacancies. The SHFD should develop a departmental policy that specifies the scheduling, test components, their weighting, and the eligibility criteria Agenda Item #13.1.

20 for the Driver and Fire Captain positions. CPSM further recommends that promotional tests for each position be held every two years.

The Driver testing process is much more technical and should be weighted on the basis of practical skills relating to vehicle operations, including driving, vehicle maneuvering, pump practices, and hydraulic calculations in producing various types of fire streams and hose lays. In addition, there should be a test component that allows the candidate to demonstrate their operating skills on the various fire apparatus and associated equipment (portable pumps, fans, generators, etc.).

The Engineer testing process should include a written examination, practical testing, and an oral interview; however, the more significant weighting should be in the areas of vehicle operation and pump practices. St. Helena currently uses a “Task Book” component as the interim steps for eligibility to compete in the promotional testing process.

The Fire Captain testing process should focus on tactical skills, leadership, emergency field supervision, administration, computer/technology utilization, and problem solving. Additional focus should be given to a broad-based understanding of fire department policy and procedures, work place decorum, fire prevention, and training. The testing process for Fire Captain should again be in three parts, that is, written, practical, and oral interviews. However, the practical and oral interviews should follow an assessment center format, utilizing role plays, simulations, and presentation skills, all in an effort to home in on the candidate’s understanding of the position’s critical knowledge, skills, and abilities.

The most critical aspects of all testing and assessment processes is the relevance of the materials utilized in the testing process. The process must be unbiased and fair to all participants. The use of subject matter experts (SMEs) in the development and administration of these examinations is highly recommended. There is always an uncertainty with regard to the use of SMEs and maintaining the confidentiality of the materials utilized in the testing process. This issue is compounded when those SMEs are also from within the organization. Given the importance of the promotional testing process and the evolving nature of these positions, we recommend that the city utilize a combination of both internal and external SMEs in developing and administering all promotional processes.

The SHFD has had limited experience in the utilization of a formal promotional process for its promotable positions. Over time we expect that St. Helena will perfect its promotional processes and create valid selection tools that result in a positive learning experience for participating candidates. These processes, if done properly, generate credibility and objectivity and are designed specifically for the positions being tested for.

The current job requirements and prerequisites for the various promotable positions (Engineer, and Captain), are very limited in both the formal training and certification requirements along with college coursework. The attainment of these qualifications as prerequisites are not clearly stated and appear subjective. The current job description utilizes language that is not definitive.

For example, with regard to Fire Officer I Certification, a key requirement for Fire Captain, the language states that an individual must be in; “Possession of, or the ability to obtain.” There are no timelines specified nor is there a clear disqualification if the certification is not obtained. Even the time-in-grade requirements, which typically are a key criterion for eligibility, has language that is subject to interpretation. For example, the Fire Captain job description states; “A typical way of obtaining the required qualification is to possess the equivalent of four years of increasingly responsible fire suppression, emergency medical response, and fire prevention experience comparable to that of a Firefighter/Engineer with the Agenda Item #13.1.

21 City of St. Helena, and equivalent to the completion of the twelfth grade supplemented by college level course work in fire science, business administration, or related courses and successful completion of state-certified fire academy and other required certification courses.”
CPSM believes that promotional requirements should be clearly stated. If a four-year time-ingrade requirement as a Driver is a pre-requisite for the captain promotion, state it as such.

Similarly, state the requirement of a High School Diploma, or an Associate’s Degree and clearly specify the successful completion of the Fire Officer I Certification, either at the time of application or at the time of promotion.

All criteria should be implemented with sufficient advance notice to employees and should have a scheduled effective date that provides ample time for existing employees to obtain any new criteria. In addition, the city may consider a “grandfathering provision” that will allow a promotion to take place without meeting the new criteria, but stipulations be established that requires that the criteria must be met within a designated timeframe after the promotions are made.

Recommendation: SHFD should revise its promotional requirements for Engineer and Captain and include specific prerequisites regarding time-ingrade, certifications, and college coursework. (Recommendation No. 3.) ≈ ≈ ≈
Career development in the fire service should match the level of formal education that is required in other public sector supervisory and managerial positions. This coursework provides timely information and the demonstration of skill sets that are needed in fulfilling these supervisory and management roles in the fire department. It is also important that all college credits or degree requirements specify that coursework be obtained from institutions that have been accredited by a regional or nationally recognized accrediting agency. § § §
Agenda Item #13.1.

22 TABLE 3-3: Recommended Educational Prerequisites for Promotions Position Coursework Credit Hours Degree
Requirement
Engineer Pumping Apparatus/Driver Operator
Fire Service Hydraulics
Building Construction
EVOC
EMT
FF-2
3 3
3 Certification
Certification
Certification
Fire Captain Driver’s Requirements
Strategies and Tactics
Industrial Fire Fighting
Wildland Fire Fighting
Fire Officer 1
Fire Inspector I
ICS-300 & 400
Associates Degree Fire Science or Related
9 3
3 3
Certification
Certification
Certification
Yes
Battalion Chief Captain’s Requirements
Bachelor’s Degree
ICS-600 & 700
IS 100 & 200
Certification
Certification
Yes
Recommendation: SHFD should move to a regular testing process for all promoted positions (Engineer and Fire Captain). These testing processes should be specified in written policy, clearly identifying the components and weighting of the elements involved in the testing processes. (Recommendation No. 4.)
≈ ≈ ≈
Currently, SHFD will only conduct a promotional exam when there is an actual vacancy. CPSM believes that promotional exams for the positions of Engineer, Captain, and Battalion Chief should by conducted every two-years and an eligibility list be maintained for all positions and utilized when openings occur and for eligibility for step-up assignments.

Recommendation: SHFD should formalize the step-up process for all promoted positions and use the existing promotional eligibility lists to determine who is qualified for step-up assignments. (Recommendation No. 5.) ≈ ≈ ≈
The step-up process provides real-time, on the job training and a valid assessment tool to evaluate candidates in the promotional process. CPSM believes that when employees assume step-up assignments, they should receive a supplemental pay increase for that assumption of additional duties. In addition, we recommend that assessments be done regarding performance of employees in these step-up roles, which ultimately are considered when promotions are made.

Agenda Item #13.1.

23 The use of part-time personnel injects additional complexity into the management and administration of the promotional testing processes. These complexities involve both the lateral transfer of personnel into either of the promotable positions or the ability of a part-time employee to qualify and compete for advancement in the various promotional processes.

CPSM believes that part-time employees should meet the same promotional criteria for each position and should be allowed to compete against full-time personnel for advancement. Clear and transparent assessments of a candidate’s work experience, training, and educational achievements must be evaluated in an open and objective fashion. It is of critical importance that if full-time and part-time employees are to work effectively as a team, there must be an open and fair process that ensures that the same criteria for promotion are being used for both groups of employees.

Sound leadership and effective supervision are the cornerstones for success in the public safety arena. A fire department and its leaders are tested regularly and often under impactful circumstances. Future leadership must have expanded competencies in the use of technology, honed interpersonal skills, sound judgement, and a broad range of tactical expertise. These skills must be learned and it is essential that the system rewards performance and demonstrated achievement.

Performance Reviews
Closely aligned with the promotional process and equally effective in career development, professional growth, and remediation, is the annual employee performance review. The City of St. Helena and the fire department conducts an annual performance review process for all employees, both full-time and part-time. A satisfactory or above satisfactory review is required when considering the employee for promotion, position upgrade, or annual step increases.

CPSM believes that the utilization of the performance review process in considering an employee’s personal advancement is a Best Practice.

Fire Incident Reporting Review
Every response that is carried out by the St. Helena Fire Department is documented by a written incident report. EMS calls utilize a patient care report that documents the date, time, personnel involved, and actions taken in treating the patient along with any related patient information (blood pressure, respirations, level of consciousness, signs and symptoms, injuries etc.). Fire reports identify the date and time of the incident, the occupancy type or location of the incident, the situation found, personnel involved, and the actions taken. These incident reports serve as the official public record and also provide statistical information that can be used to evaluate department activities including workload, response times, fire loss estimates, patient transports, etc.

All EMS reports undergo a comprehensive review for Quality Assurance (Q/A) and Quality Improvements (Q/I). These reviews are done both internally and through the county’s Medical Director’s office. Fire reports are typically done by the on-duty Captain, with little or no follow-up or formal QA/QI process.

Recommendation: The St. Helena Fire Department should institute a Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement (QA/QI) review process for its fire incident reporting. (Recommendation No. 6.)
≈ ≈ ≈
Agenda Item #13.1.

24 The QA/QI review process is a critical part of the incident reporting process. It is imperative that this work be given a high level of importance organizationally. The QA/QI process should be consistent, follow specific guidelines, be confidential, and provide remediation when necessary.

CPSM recommends that a select individual be given the responsibility to review fire reports, document findings, and provide follow-up when needed. Generalized regular reporting of these findings (without referencing individuals) should be provided to members of the organization and used as a training tool in improving overall outcomes.

FIRE STATION FACILITIES
Fire department capital facilities are exposed to some of the most intense and demanding uses of any public local government facility, as they are occupied and in use 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.7 The St. Helena Fire Department operates out of a single station with one 24-hour staffed emergency response unit. Department administrative and fire prevention offices are also located at Station #1. The Fire Chief is assigned a command vehicle and will respond to larger incidents when needed. The following table shows the location, year built, and size of the department’s station.

TABLE 3-4: Station Location, Year Built, and Size
Building Address Year Built Size/Sq. Ft.

Fire Station #1 1500 Main Street 1998 15,303
The following figure shows the location of the city’s fire station and the municipal boundaries of St. Helena.
§ § §

7. Compton and Granito, eds., Managing Fire and Rescue Services, 219.

Agenda Item #13.1.

25 FIGURE 3-8: City of St. Helena Fire Station Location Fire Station Location and Service Area
SHFD currently serves a population of approximately 5,438 people with a very robust year-round tourist influx. The city has a total service area of 5.08 square miles. In addition, SHFD has entered into a service agreement with Napa County, and provides first response Fire and EMS services to Rutherford and Deer Park communities, along with several other areas of unincorporated Napa County that are adjacent to city limits.

In a FY 2011 ICMA Data Report, ICMA tabulated survey information from 56 municipalities with populations under 25,000. In this grouping the average fire station service area was 10.05 square miles.8 The median service area for this grouping was 6.32 square miles per fire station.9 In addition, the NFPA and ISO have established different indices in determining recommended fire station distribution. The ISO Fire Suppression Rating Schedule, Section 560, indicates that first8. Comparative Performance Measurement, FY 2011 Data Report - Fire and EMS, ICMA Center for Performance Measurement, August 2012.

9. Ibid.

Agenda Item #13.1.

26 due engine companies should serve areas that are within a 1.5-mile travel distance.10 The placement of fire stations that achieves this type of separation creates service areas that are approximately 4.5 square miles in size, depending on the road network and other geographical barriers (rivers, lakes, railroads, limited access highways, etc.). The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) references the placement of fire stations in an indirect way. It recommends that fire stations be placed in a distribution that achieves the desired minimum response times.

NFPA Standard 1710, Section 5.2.4.1.1, suggests an engine placement that achieves a 240-seconds (four-minute) travel time.11 Using an empirical model called the “piece-wise linear travel time function” the Rand Institute has estimated that the average emergency response speed for fire apparatus is 35 mph. At this speed the distance a fire engine can travel in four minutes is approximately 1.97 miles.12 A polygon based on a 1.97-mile travel distance results in a service area that on average is 7.3 square miles.13 From these comparisons, it can be seen that the estimated 5.08. square-mile service area of the station in St. Helena is very consistent with the noted references.

Stations are designed to adequately meet the needs of housing apparatus and necessary equipment. Typically, new fire stations have an anticipated service life of 50 years. However, we have noted that in many jurisdictions fire stations are being replaced in a 30 to 35-year time frame. In most cases facilities require replacement because of their size constraints, a need to relocate the facility to better serve shifting population centers, the absence of needed safety features, or a decision to provide better personnel accommodations.

SHFD owns Station-1, which is a large 25-year-old structure (approximately 15,300 square feet), located at 1500 Main St. The building is in very good condition and provides very suitable accommodations for the assigned personnel and equipment. The station has four pass-through bays and accommodates upwards of nine personnel along with the administrative offices for the Fire Chief and Fire Inspector. It also has very spacious and well-equipped training and meeting rooms. The station also houses the city’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) along with a number of mechanical and storage areas.

The current one-station configuration with its central location in St. Helena provides excellent response coverage for the existing call activities. The projected response activities within the city are not expected to change significantly with the anticipated future growth. CPSM believes that the current facility is very suitable for the current personnel and resources being stored and operated from this facility and has the potential to accommodate additional personnel and administrative activities if needed.

APPARATUS AND FLEET MANAGEMENT
Fire departments utilize a wide range of fire apparatus, along with tools and equipment, in carrying out their core mission. Apparatus generally includes emergency response vehicles such as engines, tenders/tankers (water supply vehicles), aerial apparatus (ladders & quints), rescue vehicles/squads, and ambulances. There are also specialized apparatus including wildland

10. Insurance Services Office. (2003) Fire Protection Rating Schedule (edition 02-02). Jersey City, NJ:

Insurance Services Office (ISO).

11. National Fire Protection Association. (2010). NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. Boston, MA: National Fire Protection Association.

12. University of Tennessee Municipal Technical Advisory Service, Clinton Fire Location Station Study, Knoxville, TN, November 2012. p. 8.

13. Ibid, p. 9.

Agenda Item #13.1.

27 engines, off-road vehicles, and watercraft that are typically part of the emergency fleet. Trailers are utilized to carry specialized equipment when needed. Other vehicles include; hazardous materials response/equipment, decontamination devices and diking materials, structural collapse equipment, portable air filling stations, scene lighting, foam units, and mass casualty incident supplies. In addition, a wide range of utility vehicles including command vehicles and emergency communications units, staff vehicles, and maintenance trucks can be part of the fleet.

The mission, duties, demographics, geography, and construction features within the community all play a major role in the makeup of the apparatus and equipment inventory utilized. These factors, as well as the funding available, must be taken into consideration when specifying and purchasing apparatus and equipment. Every effort should be made to make new apparatus as versatile, safe, and multifunctional as is possible as well as practical.

Apparatus maintenance is also an integral part of any fire department, and budget-wise it is invariably a key component in keeping such large ticket items as apparatus running and extending their usefulness. It takes a big chunk of a city’s budget to purchase and subsequently maintain a fire department fleet. As fleets age, it is logical and sound planning to conclude that repairs and costs will increase exponentially.

There are two proven ways to mitigate the long-term and short-term costs associated with repairs and replacements. The primary way is to have a sound, dedicated preventive maintenance (PM) program that is on a regular cycle for each and every vehicle in a department’s fleet. PM should be a sacrosanct practice that is unwavering. This strategy not only saves money, but can very well saves lives. The other method is to have a realistic capital improvement plan (CIP) to acquire new apparatus when an existing vehicle has outlived its usefulness. NFPA 1911, Guidelines for First-Line and Reserve Fire Apparatus, has changed and adapted over the years to reflect the changes in industry standards, but on one thing it has been wholly consistent:
“…it is imperative that all fire apparatus be checked and maintained regularly to ensure that they are reliable and safe to use. The manufacturer’s instructions should always be followed when maintaining the fire apparatus.” The standard further states:
“In the fire service there are fire apparatus with 8 to 10 years of service that are simply worn out. There is also fire apparatus that were manufactured with quality components, that have had excellent maintenance, and that have responded to a minimum number of incidents that are still in serviceable condition after 20 years. …the quality and timelessness of maintenance are perhaps the most significant factors in determining how well a fire apparatus ages.” NFPA Standard 1915 addresses the minimum expectations for a comprehensive PM program.

The benefits of implementing a PM program in compliance with NFPA 1915 are many. First, maintaining a vehicle is less expensive than repairing it. Second, vehicles that undergo PM on a dedicated schedule are more likely to have a longer lifespan. Third, PM reduces the time that a vehicle is unavailable for use in the community by reducing the chances that it will need repairs that take it out of service for a lengthy period of time. Finally, demonstrating adherence to an NFPA 1915-compliant PM program reduces the chance of a maintenance-related untoward event and possible resulting lawsuits.

The SHFD staffs one primary first response unit to accomplish its mission (Engine 17). In addition, a second Type-1 engine (Engine 317) is utilized extensively in providing service response and nonAgenda Item #13.1.

28 emergency work activities (inspections, weed abatement, demonstrations, etc.). SHFD also maintains two wildland engines (Engine 417 and Brush 217) for all off-road wildland responses. At the time of our site visit, a new Type-1 fire engine was delivered and being readied for service. All of the fire apparatus, support vehicles, and specialty trailers are housed at Station-1.

Finally, the department maintains several reserve apparatus (engines, ladders, and utility units) for use when maintenance or repair is needed for its frontline apparatus. Altogether, the department’s entire fleet is comprised of 10 units (increasing to 11 units), including apparatus reserve units, trailers, staff vehicles, etc. The following table shows the basic frontline inventory.

TABLE 3-5: SHFD Inventory of Frontline Apparatus
Unit Type Make Year Age Mileage*
Engine-17 Type 1/Engine Spartan 2013 11 years 38,595
Engine-317 Type 1/Engine Pierce 1995 29 years 41,138
Truck-17 Ladder Truck Pierce 2002 22 years 20,194
Engine-417 Type 3/Wildland Pierce 2019 5 years 20,868
Brush-17 Wildland Ford/F-550 2018 6 years 4,856
Brush-217 Type-6/Wildland Chevy-3500 2006 18 years 47,560 Water Tender-17 Type-1/Tender Peterbilt/Westates 1998 26 years 31,676 Command-170 Command Ford/F-250 2018 6 years 33,442
Utility-17 Utility Ford/F-250 2015 9 years 30,611
Utility-217 Utility Ford/F-350 2009 15 years 84,233
*Note: Mileage as of September 2023.

The department’s frontline pumper is 11 years old and had an odometer reading in September 2023 of 38,595. The department’s ladder truck, which is used primarily as a reserve unit or to expand the fire suppression capabilities for larger events, is 22 years old but has an odometer reading of fewer than 21,000 miles. The department maintains two wildland engines and a water tender. Overall, the fleet is modern and well-maintained and the department has been very proficient in its replacement schedule.

SHFD has assigned one of its Fire Captains to oversee the repairs and preventive maintenance of its fleet. Most repairs and maintenance are provided by out-sourced private providers. The department utilizes an on-call mechanic who provides repair and maintenance services. Annual ladder testing, aerial ladder maintenance, and pump-testing is done by another out-sourced private entity. Minor repairs and light maintenance are done internally by on-duty crews and the St. Helena Volunteer Fire Dept. Association under the supervision of the Fleet Maintenance Fire Captain. The St. Helena Volunteer Fire Dept. Association contributes assistance, both financial and via staff hours, to help maintain the fleet. The city budgets approximately $50,000 annually for vehicle repairs and parts. The St. Helena Volunteer Fire Dept. Association also contributes varying amounts of funding for these services. CPSM highly commends the commitment and efficiency of the fleet management efforts currently being utilized in St. Helena.

The Fleet Maintenance Captain does not fully utilize an automated work-order tracking system, nor does the department maintain a detailed recordkeeping log that tracks each of its vehicle’s maintenance and repair history. CPSM believes that the city should institute a comprehensive work-order tracking system and vehicle repair log for its fire department fleet.

Agenda Item #13.1.

29 Recommendation: The city should institute a work-order tracking system and vehicle repair log for the fire department fleet and which provides a comprehensive chronology and the cost accounting associated with the SHFD fleet repairs and maintenance. (Recommendation No. 7.) ≈ ≈ ≈
NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, 2016 edition, serves as a guide to the manufacturers that build fire apparatus and the fire departments that purchase them. The document is updated every five years, using input from the public/stakeholders through a formal review process. The committee membership is made up of representatives from the fire service, manufacturers, consultants, and special interest groups. The committee monitors various issues and problems that occur with fire apparatus and attempts to develop standards that address those issues. Of primary interest to the committee over the past years has been improving firefighter safety and reducing fire apparatus accidents.

The Annex Material in NFPA 1901 contains recommendations and work sheets to assist in decision-making in vehicle purchasing. With respect to recommended vehicle service life, the following excerpt is noteworthy:
"It is recommended that apparatus greater than 15 years old that have been properly maintained and that are still in serviceable condition be placed in reserve status and upgraded in accordance with NFPA 1912, Standard for Fire Apparatus Refurbishing, to incorporate as many features as possible of the current fire apparatus standard. This will ensure that, while the apparatus might not totally comply with the current edition of the automotive fire apparatus standards, many improvements and upgrades required by the recent versions of the standards are available to the firefighters who use the apparatus.”14
"Apparatus that were not manufactured to the applicable apparatus standards or that are over 25 years old should be replaced."15
In a 2004 survey of 360 fire departments in urban, suburban, and rural settings across the nation, Pierce Manufacturing reported on the average life expectancy for fire pumpers.16 The results are shown in the following table.

TABLE 3-6: Fire Pumper Life Expectancy by Type of Jurisdiction Demographic Frontline Service
Annual Miles
Driven Reserve Status
Total Years of
Service
Urban 15 Years 7,629 10 Years 25
Suburban 16 Years 4,992 11 Years 27
Rural 18 years 3,034 14 Years 32
Note: Survey information was developed by Added Value Inc. for Pierce Manufacturing in, “Fire Apparatus Duty Cycle White Paper,” Fire Apparatus Manufacturer’s Association (FAMA), August 2004.

Most agencies utilize a combination of funding methods for apparatus replacements. These include capital replacement funds, bond initiatives, or simply through annual budget

14. NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, 2016 Edition. Quincy, MA.

15. NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, 2016 Edition. Quincy, MA.

16. “Fire Apparatus Duty Cycle White Paper,” Fire Apparatus Manufacturer’s Association. August 2004.

Agenda Item #13.1.

30 allocations. The key, however, is to develop an ongoing funding mechanism to fund the replacement of apparatus when their useful lifespan has been met.

St. Helena has a unique and effective vehicle replacement strategy. The fire department has established a replacement schedule for its fleet which is based primarily on an estimated service life of the vehicle type. Engines, wildland vehicles, and the ladder are on a 15-year replacement schedule. Utility vehicles, command units, and pick-up trucks are on a 10-year replacement cycle. The city uses a combination of funding to pay for vehicle replacements. Revenue from all out-of-area assignments is put into the replacement fund. The St. Helena Volunteer Fire Dept.

Association also contributes annual funding for vehicle replacements. This combined funding, which typically generates from $200,000 to $300,000 annually, has been sufficient to maintain fleet replacements. While there is no guarantee that out-of-area assignments will generate consistent funding from year to year and there is no formal agreement that requires a contribution by the St. Helena Volunteer Fire Dept. Association. This combination of funding has proven to be very effective as a funding strategy for this key capital expenditure. CPSM recognizes the city and the St. Helena Volunteer Fire Dept. Association’s contributions to the apparatus replacement program as a Best Practice.

Capital Equipment
Fire apparatus are equipped with various types of tools and equipment that are utilized in providing Fire and EMS services. Many of the tools and much of the equipment carried on fire apparatus are specified in NFPA and ISO guidelines. Fire and EMS equipment includes such items as hose, couplings, nozzles, various types of ladders, foam, scene lighting, oxygen tanks, AEDs, defibrillators, small hand tools, fire extinguishers, mobile and portable radios, salvage covers, and medical equipment and supplies. Many of the small tools and equipment are considered disposable items and are replaced with ongoing operating funds. However, some pieces of equipment are very expensive, and thus their replacement must be planned. The more expensive capital items include:
■ Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and fill stations. ■ Firefighting PPE (personal protective equipment).
■ Hydraulic/pneumatic extrication equipment.
■ Portable generators
■ ECG Monitors/Defibrillators/AEDs.
■ Thermal imaging cameras.
■ Mobile/portable and base radios.
■ Aerial drones
■ Mobile data computers.
■ Gas monitoring and detection devices.

Much of the more expensive capital equipment is generally on a ten-year replacement cycle.

Each new apparatus must be outfitted with a complement of capital equipment; a full complement has an estimated cost of nearly $300,000. The total cost of outfitting a department the size of the SHFD with the capital items described is estimated to be approximately $750,000.

Thus, CPSM estimates that the annual replacement needs for these types of capital items in the SHFD is approximately $50,000 to $75,000.

Agenda Item #13.1.

31 RADIO INTEROPERABILITY AND COVERAGE
In general, interoperability refers to seamless radio communications between emergency responders using different communication systems or products. Wireless communication interoperability is the specific ability of emergency responders to use voice and data communication in real time, without delay. For example, police, fire, and EMS responding to an incident are interoperable when all can communicate with one another over individual and perhaps shared communication channels. Interoperability enables first responders from any jurisdiction to communicate with one another at larger incidents and also enables emergency planners and personnel to coordinate their radio operations in advance of major events.17 The SHFD has not transitioned its radio system to a P-25, trunked system. SHFD is currently using a repeated VHF radio frequency for its Fire and EMS operations. The current system has interoperability with mutual aid partners and AMR and the coverage areas in St. Helena are very good. These systems are very functional in the more rural settings, particularly in mountainous terrain. However, the CAL-FIRE Dispatch Center and the Calistoga/St. Helena Dispatch Center do not have direct radio communications with each other. Whenever the two centers need to have voice communications, it must be done via an independent telephone conversation.

Recommendation: St. Helena should take immediate steps to institute a common radio link that will enable direct radio communications between the Calistoga/St. Helena Dispatch Center and the CAL-FIRE Center. (Recommendation No. 8.)
≈ ≈ ≈
911 CALLS / DISPATCH
The current arrangement for 911 dispatch answering points, dispatch centers, and call-screening processes being utilized in St. Helena appears redundant and likely prone to delays or even dropped calls. Currently there are three separate agencies that are involved in processing 911 calls that originate in St. Helena. These include the following:
■ Calistoga / St. Helena consolidated public safety answering point (PSAP). ■ CAL-FIRE ECC.
■ Napa City Central Dispatch.

Each of these entities operates from a separate facility, utilizing different personnel, and operating under differing levels of supervision and oversight in managing their individual operations.

The Calistoga/St. Helena PSAP is the public safety answering point for both the city of St. Helena and Calistoga. This is a Police dispatching center that has been recently consolidated for providing services for both cities. 911 calls originating in either city, are routed into this center and depending on the nature of the call are transferred to the appropriate dispatch center.

The CAL-FIRE ECC (Emergency Command Center) is primarily a fire dispatch and operations center operated by CAL-FIRE and provides Fire and EMS dispatching throughout Napa, Lake, Solano, Yolo, Colusa and Sonoma Counties. Because of its service contract with Napa County

17. SAFECOM, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Interoperability,” http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/interoperability/default.htm.

Agenda Item #13.1.

32 for Fire and EMS protection, this center is providing 911 dispatching services for its resources along with municipal resources operating in Napa County. This center receives calls from the Calistoga/St. Helena PSAP and pages out the St. Helena units for Fire, EMS, or other service calls, both emergency and non-emergency.

The Napa City Central Dispatch operates as the EMS call screening center for all EMS calls originating in Napa County. This center is charged with speaking to the 911 caller making a request for EMS services and screens calls for their acuity and then dispatches ambulance (AMR) resources. The Napa Central has a direct CAD link with the CAL-FIRE ECC, so that when a call requires a St. Helena response this electronic message is sent to CAL-FIRE, which then dispatches St. Helena resources.

The current arrangement is very complex and requires a very sophisticated level of support both technologically and in the day-to-day management of operations. The current arrangement requires the operations of three separate facilities. There are a large number of personnel and supervisory staff that are maintained. Training and the monitoring of activities along with incident reporting, recordkeeping, and 24-hour staffing requirements place significant strain and responsibility in multiple work environments.

Though the current arrangement is working, there are a number of inherent problems associated with this composite of resources. Personnel recruitment and retention is an issue. Quality control and reporting regarding the time it is taking to process calls and identifying delays in the transfer of callers and information between the various centers is not being done. There is not a singular managerial oversight among the three centers. Each center operates independently and each has a separate governmental structure under which it is funded and function. Performance measures, training standards, quality control, and system reporting are not being done for the entire call-taking and dispatching process. CPSM believes that a thorough review of the current arrangement is warranted. This review should evaluate the overall cost of these services, the effectiveness of these services, training, supervision, redundancy, and a host of other factors critical in operating an effective public safety 911 dispatching system.

Recommendation: St. Helena should initiate an effort to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the 911 dispatching services currently being utilized for law enforcement, fire, and EMS. (Recommendation No. 9.) § § §
Agenda Item #13.1.

33 SECTION 4. ANALYSIS OF PLANNING

APPROACHES

FIRE RISK ANALYSIS
The cost of providing Fire and EMS protection in many communities has increased steadily in recent years. This has been fueled in part by rising wages, additional special pay, and escalating overtime costs. In addition, funding requirements have been compounded by increasing health insurance premiums and spiraling pension contributions. In St. Helena as in many communities across the nation, the combined costs for employee benefits are exceeding 75 to 80 percent of the actual salary costs. At the same time, the workforce has become less productive, largely because of the increases in lost time, specifically vacation leave, greater usage of sick leave, holiday leave, compensatory time, and increases in other miscellaneous lost-time categories (Kelly Days, worker’s compensation, light duty, FMLA, training leave, etc.). As a result, many jurisdictions are asking the fundamental question of whether the level of risk in their jurisdiction is commensurate with the type of protective force that is being deployed. To this end, a fire risk and hazard analysis can be helpful in providing a more objective assessment of a community’s level of risk.

A fire risk analysis utilizes a fire risk score, often referred to as an “OVAP Score” (Occupancy Vulnerability Assessment Profile), which is a rating of an individual property on the basis of several factors, including:
■ Needed fire flow if a fire were to occur.
■ Probability of an occurrence based on historical events. ■ The consequence of an incident in that occupancy (to both occupants and responders). ■ The cumulative effect of these occupancies and their concentration in the community.

A community risk and vulnerability assessment is used to evaluate community properties and assign an associated risk as either a high, medium, or low hazard. The NFPA Fire Protection Handbook defines these hazards as:

High-hazard occupancies: Schools, hospitals, nursing homes, explosive plants, refineries, high-rise buildings, and other high life-hazard or large fire-potential occupancies.

Medium-hazard occupancies: Apartments, offices, and mercantile and industrial occupancies not normally requiring extensive rescue by firefighting forces.

Low-hazard occupancies: One-, two-, or three-family dwellings and scattered small business and industrial occupancies. 18
Plotting the rated properties on a map provides a better understanding of how the response matrix and staffing patterns can be used to ensure a higher concentration of resources for worstcase scenarios or, conversely, fewer resources for lower levels of risk.19

18. Cote, Grant, Hall & Solomon, eds., Fire Protection Handbook (Quincy, MA: NFPA 2008), 12.

19. Fire and Emergency Service Self-Assessment Manual, Eighth Edition (Center for Public Safety Excellence, 2009), 49.

Agenda Item #13.1.

34 Hazard Analysis and Community Risk Assessment
Hazard analysis and community risk assessment are essential elements in a fire department’s planning process. The City of St. Helena and the SHFD, though they have recognized the need for a comprehensive community risk and vulnerability, have not completed this process. Each jurisdiction has to decide what degree of risk is acceptable to the citizens it serves. This determination is based on criteria that have been developed to define the levels of risk (e.g., of fire) within all sections of the community.20 To this end, a comprehensive planning approach that includes a fire risk assessment and hazard analysis is essential in determining local needs.

The term integrated risk management refers to a planning methodology that recognizes that citizen safety, the protection of property, and the protection of the environment from fire and related causes must include provisions for the reasonable safety of emergency responders. This means assessing the risk faced, taking preventive action, and deploying the proper resources in the right place at the right time.21 There are two main considerations of a risk assessment: the probability of an event occurring and the consequence of that event occurring. The matrix in the following figure divides the risk assessment into four quadrants. Each quadrant of the chart creates different requirements in the community for commitment of resources.

FIGURE 4-1: Community Risk Matrix
Plotting the rated properties on a map will provide a better understanding of how the response matrix and staffing patterns can be used to ensure a higher concentration of resources for worstcase scenarios or, conversely, fewer resources for lower levels of risk.22 Community risk and vulnerability assessments are essential elements in a fire department’s planning process. Although the City of St. Helena and the SHFD has an effective and ongoing program to identify the risks and hazards associated with wildfires in the community, a

20. Compton and Granito, Managing Fire and Rescue Services, 39.

21. Cote, Grant, Hall & Solomon, eds., Fire Protection Handbook (Quincy, MA: NFPA 2008), 12-3.

22. Fire and Emergency Service Self-Assessment Manual, Eighth Edition, (Center for Public Safety Excellence, 2009), 49.

Agenda Item #13.1.

35 comprehensive community risk and vulnerability assessment for structure fires has not been done.

Recommendation: The St. Helena Fire Department should conduct a formal structure fire risk assessment that concentrates on the city’s downtown, commercial establishments, wineries, and institutional properties. (Recommendation No. 10.)
≈ ≈ ≈
As a guide in conducting a vulnerability assessment, CPSM has developed the following template that may be utilized in completing this process.

Community Risk Assessment Template
TASK 1: Establish a Risk Assessment Team
■ Five to six members with assorted skills.
■ Team leader.
■ Data analyst.
■ Tactical/command expertise.
■ City planning/growth management.
■ Financial/economic.
■ GIS/mapping.

TASK 2: Review and Plot Historical Workload (5 years)
■ Breakout daily call distribution by type.
□ Location/occupancy type.
□ High-volume/frequent use.
○ Hospital.
○ Learning Institutes.
○ Wineries and tasting centers.
○ Adult living center.
■ Identify high-dollar loss fire events (>$25K).
□ Location/occupancy type.
□ Cause & origin/demographic.
■ Identify high-manpower events (>20 people).
■ Identify high-time duration events (>2 hours).
■ Identify events with significant economic impact (>$1 million). ■ Identify events with multiple injuries or fatalities. ■ Identify events with significant environmental impacts (which require remediation).

Agenda Item #13.1.

36 TASK 3: Identify the Community Risks for High-profile Events ■ Transportation accidents (rail, air, roadway, port).
■ Occupancies with high OVAP scores.23
■ Wildfire events.
■ Large, complex fire (dormitory, assisted living, jail, hospital, etc.). ■ Processing or manufacturing accident (chemical, radiologic, petroleum, electrical, etc.). ■ Mass casualty incident.
■ Weather, flooding, or seismic event.
■ Terrorist event.
■ Driven by a community profile or demographic.

TASK 4: Identify Capacity Issues or Incidents in which Insufficient Resources Resulted in a Negative Outcome
■ Related to daily activities.
■ Related to larger/significant events.
■ Related to incidents requiring the utilization of mutual aid or external resources. ■ Other incident types.

TASK 5: Identify Additional Service Demands Related to Anticipated Growth of the Service Area ■ Affecting daily activities.
■ Related to larger/significant events.
■ Incidents that required specialized services or a currently unavailable expertise.

TASK 6: Identify Risk Reduction or Prevention Efforts that can Reduce or Eliminate Future Workload
■ Related to daily activities.
■ Related to larger/significant events.
■ Related to new demand resulting from growth.
■ Develop cost/outcome analysis.

TASK 7: Identify Additional Training Needs to Better Manage Current or Anticipated Service Demand
■ Develop cost/outcome analysis.

TASK 8: Identify Organizational or Tactical Capabilities Needed to Meet Current Shortfalls ■ Develop cost/outcome analysis.

In addition to examining risks faced by the community at large, the department needs to examine internal risks. The National Fire Protection Association’s Standard for a Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program (NFPA 1500) requires a risk management plan for fire departments to be developed separately from those that are incorporated in the local

23. http://riskassessment.strategicfire.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Community-Risk-Assessment-Guidev1.5.pdf Agenda Item #13.1.

37 government plan.24 The St. Helena Fire Department does not have a written internal risk management program in place.

A fire department risk management plan is developed and implemented to comply with the requirements of NFPA 1500. The following components must be included in the risk management plan:

Risk Identification: Actual or potential hazards.

Risk Evaluation: The potential of occurrence of a given hazard and the severity of its consequences.

Prioritizing Risk: The degree of a hazard based upon the frequency and severity of occurrence.

Risk Control: Solutions for elimination or reduction of real or potential hazards by implementing an effective control measure.

Risk Monitoring: Evaluation of effectiveness of risk control measures. 25

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESPONSE
Hazardous materials (Hazmat) incidents occur with limited frequency in St. Helena. In 2023, according to data provided by the SHFD, there was only one hazmat-related call. In most communities, hazardous materials incidents typically involve natural gas and propane leaks, carbon monoxide incidents, biologic hazards, combustible and flammable gas spills, chemical hazards, and transport vehicle accidents with associated spills and leaks. California Highway 29 is a major thoroughfare that runs through St. Helena and is prone to vehicle accidents that result in gasoline and diesel spills. In addition, the numerous wineries with their bottling and storage processes present the added potential for heavy machinery incidents and spills along with exposure issues involving hazardous chemicals utilized in these processing activities.

SHFD personnel are trained and equipped at the First Responder Operations Level. This is the required level of training for all California fire personnel. This level of response is designed to recognize that a hazardous materials release has occurred and their primary function is to take actions that protect people and the environment for from this exposure.

Clearly the primary risks from hazardous material spills are those generated by transportation accidents and fixed facilities that experience spills involving chemicals utilized in their processing activities. However, over the years, the type and nature of incidents to which regional hazmat teams may respond has significantly changed and have become more technically challenging.

Examples include the following:
■ Clandestine labs, criminal and terrorist use of hazmat as weapons, chemical suicides, etc. ■ Interdisciplinary response scenarios in which the regional hazmat teams’ interface with their response partners in the law enforcement, emergency medical, and fire communities.

Scenarios include special events and the use of Joint Hazard Assessment Teams (JHAT),

24. Robert C. Barr and John M. Eversole, eds., The Fire Chief’s Handbook, 6th edition (PennWell Books, 2003), 270.

25. NFPA 1500, Standard for a Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program (2007 ed.), Annex D.

Agenda Item #13.1.

38 improvised explosive devices, coordinated/complex attack scenarios, active shooter/assailant scenarios, and the emergence of virus threats such as Ebola and Zika. ■ Tourism and economic development initiatives have drawn large gathering to festivals throughout the area. While this is a positive economic development, high-profile and highdensity crowd events raise the threat level that requires a more sophisticated hazmat preparedness and response package.
■ Changes in the U.S. domestic energy infrastructure have impacted the response community, such as for incidents involving high-hazard, flammable trains with crude oil and ethanol, increased use of liquefied natural gas (LNG), and related facilities, etc. ■ The increasing use of social media is viewed as both a situational awareness asset and a potential operations security (OPSEC) vulnerability. The regional hazmat teams can assume a leadership role in determining future pathways and options on how social media can be safely and effectively integrated into response operations.26 Level I hazardous materials incidents are typically managed and mitigated by the first response personnel without a hazardous materials response team or other special unit. These incidents include:
■ Spills that can be properly and effectively contained/or abated by equipment and supplies immediately accessible to SHFD.
■ Leaks and ruptures that can be controlled using equipment and supplies accessible to SHFD. ■ Fires involving toxic materials and which can be extinguished and cleaned up with resources immediately available to SHFD.
■ Hazardous materials incidents not requiring civilian evacuation. (Example: A small pool supply spill that can be diluted with water for clean-up.)
In the event of a larger incident (Level II and III), in which a regional hazardous material team is required, St. Helena will request assistance from either CAL-FIRE or Napa City. Each SHFD and Napa County Fire responders maintain hazardous materials operations-level certification, which enables them to identify hazards and conduct defensive operations for those situations requiring Level II and III capability.
§ § §

26. Flippin, P., et al; Virginia Department of Emergency Management Hazmat Program Strategic Review (VDEM, Richmond, VA, 2016)
Agenda Item #13.1.

39 TARGET HAZARDS AND FIRE PREPLANNING
The process of identifying target hazards and conducting pre-incident planning are basic preparedness efforts that have been key functions in the fire service for many years. In this process, critical structures are identified based on the risk they pose. Then, tactical considerations are established for fires or other emergencies in these structures. Consideration is given to the activities that take place (manufacturing, processing, etc.), the number and types of occupants (elderly, youth, handicapped, imprisoned, etc.), and other specific aspects relating to the construction of the facility or any hazardous or flammable materials that are regularly found in the building. Target hazards are those occupancies or structures that are unusually dangerous when considering the potential for loss of life or the potential for property damage. Typically, these occupancies include hospitals, nursing homes, and high-rise and other large structures. Also included are arenas and stadiums, industrial and manufacturing plants, and other buildings or large complexes.

NFPA’s 1620, Standard for Pre-Incident Planning, through its Sample Pre-Incident Plan Field Collection Card and Facility Data Record in Annex A, is quite specific in identifying the need to utilize a written narrative, diagrams, and predesignated, detailed forms to depict the physical features of a building, its contents, and any built-in fire protection systems. Information collected for pre-fire/incident plans includes, but is certainly not limited to, data such as:
■ The occupancy types.
■ Floor plans/layouts.
■ Building construction type and features.
■ Building fire protection systems.
■ Utility locations.
■ Hydrant locations.
■ Hazards to firefighters and/or firefighting operations. ■ Hazmat considerations and locations.
■ Special conditions in the building.
■ Apparatus placement plan.
■ Fire flow requirements and/or water supply plan.
■ Forcible entry and ventilation plan.
■ Emergency contact information.

NFPA 1620 goes on to state that “A pre-incident plan is one of the most valuable tools available for aiding responding personnel in effectively controlling an emergency.”27 The information contained in pre-incident fire plans enables firefighters and officers to have a familiarity with the building/facility, its features, characteristics, operations, and hazards. Thus, they can more effectively, efficiently, and safely conduct firefighting and other emergency operations.

Pre-incident fire plans should be reviewed regularly and tested by periodic table-top exercises and on-site drills, especially in the most critical and frequented occupancies.

27. http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/codes-andstandards/detail?code=1620 Agenda Item #13.1.

40 Strategically and from an operational standpoint, according to NFPA 1620, pre-incident planning is a total concept based upon the following:
■ Situation awareness.
■ Management commitment.
■ Education.
■ Protection.
■ Prevention.
■ Emergency organization.28
St. Helena is home to Adventist Health-St. Helena, a 151-bed acute-care hospital providing a range of services including a 24-hour emergency room. There are a number of assisted living facilities in the St. Helena service area, including Silverado Orchards Retirement Community, Solstice Senior Living, St. Helena Home Care, Rianda House, Vintage Chalet, and Rose Haven.

There are a number of manufacturing and processing establishments in St. Helena, including HELIMEC, Loomis Industries, Ogletree’s Metal and Equipment Fabricators, Must Machining and Fabrication, Chase Alstott Design, Crown Hill Stone Supply, and a number of wineries, vineyards, and tasting centers. The downtown area also has a number of businesses and restaurants with suppression systems for which familiarization and preplanning walk-throughs could be accomplished during the company inspection program.

SHFD has a very robust inspection and weed abatement program that provides periodic inspection to more than 2,300 properties within the SHFD service area. Line personnel are actively involved in many in-service company inspections. More than 400 properties are inspected on a regular basis by engine companies. CPSM believes that these efforts are critical in developing tactical expertise and preplanning reconnaissance. At the same time they offer an opportunity to inspect and correct code violations and life-safety concerns.

However, the SHFD does not conduct pre-fire incident planning. When queried regarding this omission, CPSM was told that the department’s new Image Trend software package will provide a platform to complete and store pre-incident plans and the transition to this platform was being developed.

Recommendation: The St. Helena Fire Department should continue in its efforts to develop a comprehensive Pre-Incident Planning program for its target hazards and high-risk occupancies. (Recommendation No. 11.) ≈ ≈ ≈
It is critical that this program follow the guidelines specified in NFPA’s 1620, Standard for PreIncident Planning, be fully retrievable on the apparatus mobile data terminals, and be updated on a regular basis.

ACCREDITATION
Accreditation is a comprehensive self-assessment and evaluation model that enables organizations to examine past, current, and future service levels. It is used to evaluate internal

28. Ibid.

Agenda Item #13.1.

41 performance and compares this performance to industry best practices. The intent of the process is to improve service delivery.

The Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) provides an extensive evaluation process, on a fee basis, to member agencies and which ultimately leads to accreditation. CPSE is governed by the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI), an 11-member commission representing a cross-section of the fire service, including fire departments, city and county management, code councils, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the International Association of Firefighters.

The CPSE Accreditation Program is built around the following key measurements:
■ Determine community risk and safety needs.
■ Evaluate the performance of the department.
■ Establish a method for achieving continuous organizational improvement.

Local government executives face increasing pressure to “do more with less” and justify expenditures by demonstrating a direct link to improved or measured service outcomes.

Particularly for emergency services, local officials need criteria to assess professional performance and efficiency.

CPSE accreditation has national recognition and is widely used throughout the fire service. The key to its success is that it enables communities to set their own standards that are reflective of their needs and a service delivery model that is specific to these needs. In addition, it is a program that is based on ongoing improvement and continuous monitoring. The CPSE accreditation model may be well-suited for St. Helena.

Recommendation: St. Helena should consider working toward CPSE Fire Accreditation in the future. (Recommendation No. 12.)
§ § §
Agenda Item #13.1.

42 SECTION 5. OPERATIONAL RESPONSE

APPROACHES
As mentioned previously, many agencies incorporate the use of prefire plans to provide a response and tactical strategy for those more critical or complex occupancies in the community. Figures 5-1 to 5-3 illustrate the critical tasks and resources required on low- and moderate-risk structure incidents along with when an aerial device is utilized. Understanding the community’s risk greatly assists fire department planning, and with ongoing training, these activities improve overall effectiveness and responder safety.

FIGURE 5-1: Low-Risk Response, Exterior Fire Attack
The following figure is a representation of the critical task elements for a moderate-risk structure fire. Some jurisdictions add additional response resources to meet and, in some cases, exceed the national benchmarking provided by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Departments, 2020 Edition.

NFPA 1710 calls for the initial assignment of 16 personnel on a single-family residential structure fire when an aerial ladder is not utilized. St. Helena is unable to assemble this full complement of resources (16 to 17 personnel) for a single-family residential structure fire from its on-duty resources. Additional resources are typically obtained through the re-call of off-duty personnel and through mutual aid requests and automatic response agreements with neighboring agencies.
§ § §
Agenda Item #13.1.

43 FIGURE 5-2: Moderate-Risk Response, Interior Fire Attack FIGURE 5-3: Full-Force Response, Utilizing an Aerial Device Agenda Item #13.1.

44 FIRE RESPONSE PROTOCOLS
The ability to assemble the necessary resources to effectively manage even a smaller residential or commercial structure fire is significant. As mentioned above, the NFPA standard (NFPA 1710) recommends a minimum of 16 personnel as the initial response to a fire at a single-family residential structure. An actual fire of any significance will require 16 to 20 personnel or more for extended periods of time. As the incident grows in size and complexity, it is not unusual to see staffing needs that can exceed 30 to 40 personnel. This would be the case in a fire at a large commercial occupancy, a winery, a wildfire, a train derailment, or a fire at an apartment complex. Though these larger incidents do not occur frequently, when they do occur, the ability to assemble sufficient resources rapidly can significantly impact the outcome.

The decision as to what is the proper staffing level for a specific community’s protection is perhaps the most difficult assessment faced by policy makers and fire department leadership.

As communities increase their level of response, the costs associated with maintaining this level of readiness can have significant financial implications. CPSM believes that the current deployment practices being utilized in St. Helena are providing sufficient structural, wildfire, and EMS protection to the community. This level of protection is only available because of the various mutual aid and automatic response arrangements the city maintains with CAL-FIRE, Napa County, and Calistoga. In addition, St. Helena operates in a two-tiered EMS delivery system in which AMR (a private ambulance provider) provides advanced life support (ALS) throughout the city, while the fire department provides basic life support (BLS) first response services. These combinations of resources are providing a highly trained and rapid response to each service request and which offer added resources when larger events occur. As an added cost-saving measure, the city of St. Helena uses part-time firefighters to maintain its on-duty staffing levels.

CPSM estimates that part-time personnel are filling more than 40 percent of the daily staffing assignments, resulting in considerable savings. CPSM recognizes the current staffing and deployment practices being utilized in St. Helena as a Best Practice.

Call Activities
In addition to having sufficient resources available to respond to daily events, it is equally important that on-duty resources are utilized safely and efficiently in responding to EMS and Fire service-related calls for assistance. The key to organizational efficiency and the safety of responding personnel is directly related to response activities and departmental deployment practices.
§ § §
Agenda Item #13.1.

45 FIGURE 5-4: Number of Arriving SHFD Units for EMS Calls FIGURE 5-5: Number of Arriving SHFD Units for Fire Calls § § §
Agenda Item #13.1.

46 TABLE 5-1: Calls by Call Type and Number of Arriving SHFD Units Call Type Number of Units Total
Calls
Percent
%
Medical and other 344 8 1 353 42.3
MVA 12 6 0 18 2.4
EMS subtotal 356 14 1 371 44.7
False alarm 58 0 0 58 7.9
Good intent 6 1 0 7 1.2
Hazard 37 6 2 45 6.0
Public service 135 2 1 138 16.7
Actual Fires 1.1
Outside fire 2 1 0 3 0.4
Structure fire 1 2 3 6 0.7
Fire subtotal 239 12 6 257 32.9
Canceled 12 0 0 12 2.5
Aid given 112 14 3 129 19.9
Total 719 40 10 769
Total Percentage 93.5 5.2 1.3 100.0 100.0
Note: Out of 75 calls that did not have an arriving unit, nine were canceled calls, six were EMS calls, 21 were fire calls, and 39 were aid-given calls.

The following table shows the aggregate call totals for the 12-month period evaluated. EMS calls represent the largest percentage of calls for service at more than 60 percent, when canceled calls are excluded and mutual aid responses are categorized by their call type. This predominance of EMS call activity is not unusual when compared to what we usually observe in many communities. Our experience is that EMS-related calls typically account for more than 75 percent of call activity; in some communities with a larger senior demographic, this number can go as high as 80 to 85 percent. While fire calls in St. Helena represent approximately 33 percent of all calls for service, actual fires (structural and outside) represent only 1.1 percent of the overall call activity. Hazard, false alarms, good intent, and public service calls represent the largest percentage of the fire calls (98 percent). This is also very typical in CPSM data and workload analyses of other fire departments.
§ § §
Agenda Item #13.1.

47 TABLE 5-2: Calls by Type
Call Type Total Calls Calls per Day Call
Percentage
Medical and other 357 1.0 42.3
MVA 20 0.1 2.4
EMS subtotal 377 1.0 44.7
False alarm 67 0.2 7.9
Good intent 10 0.0 1.2
Hazard 51 0.1 6.0
Public service 141 0.4 16.7
Actual Fires 1.1
Outside fire 3 0.0 0.4
Structure fire 6 0.0 0.7
Fire subtotal 278 0.8 32.9
Canceled 21 0.1 2.5
Aid given* 168 0.5 19.9
Total 844 2.3 100.0
Note: *Calls outside St Helena were labeled as aid given.

In looking in more detail at the 6 structure fires, it was determined that for 3 of these events, there was no reported fire damage. This indicates that many structure fires are minor and in some instances the fire is out upon arrival of the SHFD or the fire was contained to a cooking appliance, the kitchen sink, or a trash receptacle. When we looked at the time spent on structure fire incidents, we found that on 4 of the 6 structure fires and all 3 of the outside fires, the call duration for these incidents was 60 minutes or less. This is indicative of a relatively minor occurrence. However, 2 structure fire calls saw a duration of greater than one hour and 1 lasted for more than two hours. This would indicate a more significant event. The following figure shows the locations of structure fires in St. Helena during our study period. § § §
Agenda Item #13.1.

48 FIGURE 5-6: Location of Structure Fires
There were three structure fires in which some degree of fire damage was noted in the incident report. The total fire loss (structure and contents) for all structural fires in the 12-month evaluation period was estimated to be $55,500. Fire damage estimates are made by SHFD Fire Chief and company officers.

For the calls in which damage was reported (structure and contents), we estimate that the average damage for each fire was approximately $9,733. We can compare this experience to average fire loss nationwide for structure fires. NFPA estimates that in 2022 the average fire loss for a structure fire in the U.S. was $28,200.29 From this perspective the average fire loss in St.

Helena is significantly lower than the amount of loss found in many communities across the nation.

Another indication that we use in our analysis of structure fire occurrences is the frequency with which an individual event results in a combined loss that exceeds $25,000. The $25,000 demarcation is relevant from two perspectives. First, this is a dollar amount that is comparable to the national average for fire loss in a structure fire, and second, it indicates a fire loss that from CPSM’s perspective is representative of a more significant fire event that requires fire department extinguishment. In the period evaluated, there was only one structure fire in which the combined fire loss was $25,000 or greater.

29. Shelby Hall, “Fire Loss in the United States during 2022,” NFPA October 2023.

Agenda Item #13.1.

49 FIGURE 5-7: Location of Structure Fire with Fire Loss Greater Than $25,000 The largest combined fire loss (structure and contents) for a single event was $50,000. The average fire loss and the frequency of higher loss fires appears much lower in St. Helena than what would be expected, considering the price of housing in the area. It is hard to fully determine the reason(s) for the low number of fires that resulted in the lower relative loss in St. Helena. CPSM believes that this level of loss is a product of the effectiveness of the firefighting efforts in St. Helena and the infrequency of actual fire events. It is important to note that there was no fire loss from outside fires in this same period in St. Helena. Outside fires typically include fires in various vehicles (passenger, RVs, heavy equipment, and trucks). The data show three outside fires and no associated fire loss.

The following two tables provide an analysis of fire loss in St. Helena during the year-long evaluation period.

TABLE 5-3: Content and Property Loss, Structure and Outside Fires Call Type Property Loss Content Loss
Loss Value Number of Calls Loss Value Number of Calls
Outside fire $0 3 $0 3
Structure fire $55,500 3 $2,900 3
Total $55,500 6 $2,900 6
Note: The table includes only fire calls with a recorded loss greater than 0.

Agenda Item #13.1.

50 TABLE 5-4: Total Fire Loss Above and Below $25,000
Call Type No Loss Under $25,000 $25,000 plus Total
Outside fire 3 0 0 3
Structure fire 3 2 1 6
Total 6 2 1 9
Observations:
■ All outside fires and three structure fires had no recorded loss. ■ For structure fires:
□ The highest total loss for a structure fire was $50,000. □ The average recorded total loss for all structure fires was $9,733. □ Three structure fires had content losses with a combined $2,900 in losses. □ Out of six structure fires, three recorded property losses, with a combined $55,500 in losses.

EMS RESPONSE AND TRANSPORT
EMS calls make up the predominant workload within the SHFD system. As already mentioned, more than 60 percent of the call activities reviewed in the SHFD response area involve EMSrelated responses (including MVAs).

SHFD operates in a two-tiered EMS delivery system in cooperation with the Napa County Emergency Medical Services Agency (EMSA) and AMR. AMR is a private ambulance provider that is contracted by Napa County to provide 911 emergency response services along with ambulance transports throughout the county. AMR staffs its ambulances with paramedics who provide advanced life support (ALS) services. SHFD is a licensed basic life support (BLS) first response agency; together, AMR and the SHFD respond to all EMS incidents within the City of St. Helena and neighboring areas of Napa County. CPSM believes that the current working relationship with AMR and the EMSA is excellent and creates a very cooperative and effective system in delivering pre-hospital emergency care. CPSM recognizes this cooperative arrangement as a Best Practice.

Evaluating BLS First Response Capabilities
Many Fire and EMS agencies often struggle with the question of whether they should maintain EMS first response at the BLS level or if their system would be improved if upgraded to an AEMT (Advanced EMT) or paramedic, ALS-level first response.

Currently most SHFD employees are trained and capable of providing “Basic” EMT services. In this capacity personnel have been trained to recognize and handle a range of medical situations—from minor to life-threatening situations, including falls, cuts, broken bones, respiratory distress, strokes and heart attacks. They provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and can administer cardiac defibrillation utilizing automatic external defibrillators (AEDs). SHFD personnel can also administer oxygen and limited types of medications. They also provided services to stabilize and prepare patients for ambulance transports. All Emergency Medical Technicians are trained in accordance with the National Standard Curriculum, a 110-hour training program and Agenda Item #13.1.

51 clinical ride-time that typically is a one-semester course, regularly taught at most community colleges or technical centers.

The “Advanced” EMT (AEMT), requires an estimated 350 hours of additional classroom and clinical training beyond Basic EMT training. In this capacity individuals are able to start IVs and administer a limited number of cardiac-related drugs along with medications utilized in the treatment of drug overdose, diabetes, stroke, and other critical illnesses. EMT-Advanced first response is a high level of EMS care and in most instances is sufficient to provide the treatment that is needed for optimum patient care. Advanced Emergency Medical Technicians function as part of a comprehensive EMS response, under medical oversight and are given, through the oversight of a physician, an expanded scope of care, allowing treatments to be provided in the pre-hospital setting.

The” Paramedic “is an allied health professional, working under the specific direction of a physician, in providing advanced life support services (ALS) for critical and emergency patients in pre-hospital settings. Paramedics perform interventions with the basic and advanced equipment typically found on an ambulance. They are trained to administer an assortment of medications through various administration methods. Paramedics are trained to interpret fundamental electrocardiograms (EKGs) and provide interventions to address diagnosed arrythmias. The paramedic training is usually part of an associate’s degree program at the community college level and typically will take two years to complete the required coursework and clinicals.

In addition to the original training for each of these certifications, there is a corresponding amount of continuing education (CE) credits required to maintain this licensure. Generally, paramedics require more CEs than AEMTs and AEMTs require more CEs that EMT-Bs.

Most agencies throughout Napa County provide EMS first response services at the BLS level. Only Napa City and American Canyon are providing ALS first response. CPSM has observed a number of ALS first response systems that are beginning to question the effectiveness of ALS first response over BLS first response. In fact, a number of recent clinical studies have found that there are limited impacts on patient outcomes when EMS first response services are at the BLS level vs ALS.30 The ability to provide ALS first response care is significantly more expensive than BLS first response or A-EMT first response. These costs are a result of the additional equipment that is required in the delivery of ALS care and the level of training required for paramedics versus EMTs.

In addition, most systems pay paramedics higher wages for maintaining this higher level of certification. The issue of ALS first response is further compounded in a community such as St Helena that relies heavily on volunteer and part-time employees. The added training associated with ALS care and maintaining these certifications will further add to the complexity of staffing and deploying resources. CAL-FIRE and Calistoga also operate at the BLS first response level.

CPSM believes that the current deployment of BLS first response is very effective in St. Helena and should not be changed.

EMS Response Mode
Another key concept in prehospital emergency medical care that has evolved as more evidence-based research has become available is that faster response times improve patient outcomes.

30. https://www.amr.net/about/medicine/articles/outcomes-of-als-vs-bls.pdf, https://sjtrem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1757-7241-18-62 Agenda Item #13.1.

52 Four recent studies evaluated the impact of response times on patient outcomes; findings consistently point to the fact that there is very little, if any association, between the speed of the EMS response and patient outcomes.31 Further, a 2008 statement developed by the Consortium of U.S. Metropolitan Municipalities EMS Medical Directors published in Pre-hospital Emergency Care Journal contains the following:
“Over-emphasis upon response-time interval metrics may lead to unintended, but harmful, consequences (e.g., emergency vehicle crashes).”32 Many EMS systems have revised their response time criteria and have moved to a quality-based evaluation of EMS care while deemphasizing the speed of response as a proxy for quality service. These systems liberally use non-lights and siren responses and reserve precious ALS first response resources for the few calls in which the rapid arrival of an EMS unit may make a life-ordeath difference. The key component in making this distinction is the utilization of an effective and coordinated call screening and emergency medical dispatching process.

A recent report compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), “Lights and Sirens Use by Emergency Medical Services (EMS): Above All Do No Harm,”33 revealed that HOT responses are inherently dangerous, do not result in changes of patient outcomes, and should be limited to only time-life critical events. The study goes on to recommend that HOT responses should be less than 50 percent of all EMS responses.

Our observations and national statistics indicate that when medical priority dispatching systems are fully functional, the number of Priority 1 calls that necessitate a “HOT” response are dramatically reduced. We have also observed in a number of EMS delivery systems that responding fire officers and paramedics are given the latitude to alter their mode of response on the basis of the dispatch call-screening process and dispatcher notes and their familiarity with the caller.34 As a result of this discretion, the ensuing response patterns have been altered so that “HOT” responses are being reduced significantly to about 20 percent of the total EMS call activity.35
In addition to modifying the response mode, there is also the option to actually eliminate the fire department’s response completely for those very minor EMS call types or public assist calls in which a single ambulance response is sufficient. This point is critical, as government entities are frequently faced with requests for additional EMS response capabilities because of the volume of EMS call activity. The following figure is a graphic developed by the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch that provides guidance regarding the mode of response and resources deployed on the basis of the call-screening and call-prioritization process.

31. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15995089
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19731155
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12217471
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11927452

32. Prehospital Emergency Care 2008;12:141–151

33. https://www.ems.gov/pdf/Lights_and_Sirens_Use_by_EMS_May_2017.pdf

34. See Sugar Land Fire-Rescue, a suburb of Houston TX.

35. Ibid.

Agenda Item #13.1.

53 FIGURE 5-8: MDPS Response Matrix
Both Napa City and CAL-FIRE ECC are determining if EMS calls are emergency or nonemergency. However, the corresponding response mode is rarely altered and SHFD units are responding hot (with lights and sirens) to most Fire and EMS calls. CPSM believes that there are as many as 500 calls annually that can be altered to a COLD response in the St. Helena service area.

Recommendation: SHFD should work with the Emergency Communications Center to implement response protocols that alter the SHFD response mode when calls are determined to be minor or non-emergency. (Recommendation No. 13.)
The ability to modify the emergency unit response or even eliminate some responses is important from a safety perspective as well as a means to improve efficiency. The capacity currently exists to make this determination regarding call severity at the dispatch level; it would merely take a policy directive on the part of the St. Helena Fire Department to implement this important policy change.

MUTUAL AID/AUTOMATIC RESPONSE
Local governments use many types of intergovernmental agreements to enhance fire protection and EMS. These arrangements take various shapes and forms and range from a simple automatic response agreement that will respond a single unit to a minor vehicle accident or EMS call, to a more complex regional hazardous materials team or a helicopter trauma service that involves multiple agencies and requires a high level of coordination.

Agenda Item #13.1.

54 It is important that fire departments are able to quickly access extra and/or specialized resources to manage significant events. In addition, because these types of incidents do not respect jurisdictional boundaries, they often require a coordinated response. Sharing resources also helps departments reduce costs without impacting service delivery. All of these situations point to the need for good working relationships with other Fire and EMS organizations.

The St. Helena Fire Department relies heavily on its joint and automatic response agreements with neighboring agencies. With a single station, operating with one on-duty engine with staffing of three personnel, St. Helena could not manage its daily workload without the assistance of neighboring agencies. St. Helena has a joint response agreement with both Napa County and CAL-FIRE in which the St. Helena unit has primary response duties in neighboring areas of Napa County adjacent to city limits. The areas in the general vicinity of Spring Mountain and Deer Park, along with other areas of Napa County that are outside St. Helena city limits, are primary response areas for SHFD. This responsibility is part of a Professional Services Agreement between St. Helena, Napa County, and CAL-FIRE in which St. Helena will have initial response responsibilities in these county areas and in return, CAL-FIRE and Napa County will respond into St. Helena to supplement St. Helena resources for all fire calls or incidents in which multiple units are required. In addition, St. Helena receives a nominal payment from CAL-FIRE for its response activities into the county.

Due to this agreement and St. Helena’s participation in the Napa County mutual aid agreements, SHFD is frequently called upon to provide its resources throughout the county as well as the region (approximately 168 times, or nearly 20 percent of the SHFD call activities).

SHFD works closely with neighboring municipalities and volunteer companies in providing services. The system is very effective and provides a ready source of resources; the system is highly beneficial to both the City of St. Helena, Napa County, and neighboring communities. The following table shows SHFD’s annual workload by the location in which services were provided.

TABLE 5-5: Annual Workload by Location
Location Calls Percent
Calls Runs Runs Per
Day
Minutes
Per Run
Work
Hours
Percent
Work
Minutes
Per Day
St. Helena 676 80.1 731 2.0 22.1 269.2 69.2 44.3
Napa* 120 14.2 141 0.4 29.0 68.1 17.5 11.2
Deer Park 18 2.1 25 0.1 51.1 21.3 5.5 3.5
Calistoga 14 1.7 17 0.0 32.5 9.2 2.4 1.5
Rutherford 5 0.6 5 0.0 22.5 1.9 0.5 0.3
Yountville 3 0.4 4 0.0 16.7 1.1 0.3 0.2
Dry Creek 2 0.2 2 0.0 182.8 6.1 1.6 1.0
Santa Rosa 2 0.2 3 0.0 32.9 1.6 0.4 0.3
Capell Valley 1 0.1 1 0.0 31.4 0.5 0.1 0.1
Del Norte County 1 0.1 1 0.0 450.4 7.5 1.9 1.2
Pope Valley 1 0.1 1 0.0 22.3 0.4 0.1 0.1
Spanish Flat 1 0.1 1 0.0 114.0 1.9 0.5 0.3
Total 844 100.0 932 2.6 25.0 388.8 100.0 63.9
Note: *Unincorporated Napa County.

Agenda Item #13.1.

55 FIGURE 5-9: Annual Workload Outside City Limits

WORKLOAD ANALYSIS
The current workload being handled by the St. Helena Fire Department is relatively light, with the department’s primary response unit experiencing very limited call activities. CPSM considers units responding to fewer than 1,000 calls annually as having a low workload. Overall, SHFD units are responding to approximately 2.3 calls each day.

The SHFD operates from a single fire station, utilizing a single fire unit. In most instances, the staffing level is only three personnel on Engine-17. The Fire Chief, operating from a command vehicle (CH-170), responds to most incidents in the service area, although the Chief is on a 40-hour work-schedule and is typically not on duty during nighttime hours, weekends, and holidays. Combined, SHFD resources handled nearly 844 calls for service in the one-year period covered by this report. These 844 calls generated 932 runs or unit responses. In many of these incidents additional units were staffed by the re-call of off-duty personnel or from mutual aid resources. On any given call there can be multiple unit responses or “runs.” For example, a single structure fire call will typically generate responses of three to four-units. It must be pointed out that of the 932-unit responses, Engine-17 responded 798 times in the 12-month evaluation period.

CH-170 responded 45 times in that same timeframe. AMR units were not tabulated in these response totals.

Given the relatively short call durations for both fire and EMS calls (average of 25 minutes), the cumulative in-service time associated with this call activity was not very high. The following two Agenda Item #13.1.

56 tables show the annual runs, call types, and deployed time for the primary SHFD response units.

Of note is the column labeled “Minutes per Day,” in Table 5-6, which shows that Engine-17, for example, was only involved in emergency response activities a total of 48.7 minutes (less than one hour) each 24-hour duty day. It is also important to point out that on all EMS calls, AMR will co-respond with SHFD and provide its two EMS personnel.

TABLE 5-6: Annual Workload by Unit
Unit Type Minutes
per Run Hours Percent Minutes
per Day Runs Runs
per Day
B17 Utility 14.0 1.2 0.3 0.2 5 0.0
BR17 Brush 26.3 3.1 0.8 0.5 7 0.0
BR217 Brush 76.8 1.3 0.3 0.2 1 0.0
CH170 Command 35.0 26.2 6.7 4.3 45 0.1
E17 Engine 22.3 296.1 76.2 48.7 798 2.2
E317 Engine 24.1 10.9 2.8 1.8 27 0.1
E417 Engine 60.2 21.1 5.4 3.5 21 0.1
TRK17 Truck 40.9 6.1 1.6 1.0 9 0.0
U17 Utility 47.3 2.4 0.6 0.4 3 0.0
WT17 Water tender 76.9 20.5 5.3 3.4 16 0.0
Total 25.0 388.8 100.0 63.9 932 2.6
TABLE 5-7: Annual Runs by Unit and Type
Unit Unit
Type EMS False
Alarm
Good
Intent Hazard Out
Fire
Public
Service
Struct
Fire Cancel Aid
Given Total
B17 Utility 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 5
BR17 Brush 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 7
BR217 Brush 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
CH170 Admin 12 1 0 7 1 2 4 1 17 45
E17 Engine 370 67 10 46 3 131 7 21 143 798
E317 Engine 8 0 1 2 0 9 1 1 5 27
E417 Engine 2 1 0 3 0 3 0 1 11 21
TRK17 Truck 1 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 2 9
U17 Utility 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3
WT17 Water
tender 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16
Total 397 69 11 63 4 147 16 24 201 932
Frequency of Overlapping Calls
When we look at the frequency of call activity in St. Helena the pattern observed is again indicative of a system that is not experiencing frequent overlapping calls. Most systems attempt to achieve an availability rate of between 85 and 90 percent. This means that on 85 to 90 percent of the calls, a unit is available to respond to an incident originating in its first due area.

The data in St. Helena indicates that 3 percent of the time (about 25 calls annually) two calls overlapped. However, given the relatively short call duration in St. Helena (25 minutes), it is likely Agenda Item #13.1.

57 that two calls can occur in an hour in the same service area and the period of unavailability is a short duration, usually 10 minutes or less.

The following table shows the frequency of overlapping calls handled by SHFD units.

TABLE 5-8: Frequency of Overlapping Calls
Scenario Number of
Calls
Percent of All
Calls Total Hours
No overlapped call 819 97.0 345.5
Overlapped with one call 25 3.0 5.2
Another indicator of workload is the frequency with which peak service demand is occurring.

Peak demand can occur when there are multiple calls occurring simultaneously or when there are larger events that draw on the system’s resources and additional calls continue to occur while resources are assigned to the larger incident. All systems experience peak service demands that strain the available resources in the system. This is why it is necessary for mutual aid and joint response agreements, which help mitigate these occurrences.

The key to any deployment strategy is to have sufficient resources to handle the day-to-day call activities and have the system designed to adjust and respond effectively during those highdemand periods. In the St. Helena system, given the limited resources available and the overall call volume, we would anticipate that throughout the year there were only three times that three calls occurred in the same hour. In addition, there is also high likelihood that during periods of high demand, there is insufficient staffing available to properly manage these incidents.

The following lists the ten busiest hours in the 12-month evaluation period and the number of calls occurring during each of those hours. It must be pointed out that, given the relatively short call duration in St. Helena (25 minutes), it is probable that two calls can occur in an hour in the same service area and which do not overlap with one another or which overlap only briefly.

TABLE 5-9: Top 10 Hours with the Most Calls Received
Hour Number
of Calls
Number
of Runs
Total
Deployed Hours
7/27/2023, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. 3 4 1.8
3/14/2023, noon to 1:00 p.m. 3 4 1.1
11/25/2022, 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. 3 3 0.5
3/28/2023, noon to 1:00 p.m. 2 4 2.9
1/16/2023, 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 2 4 2.6
8/1/2023, 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. 2 4 2.4
10/10/2023, 11:00 a.m. to noon 2 4 2.0
1/19/2023, 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 2 3 1.7
10/8/2023, 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. 2 3 1.6
4/26/2023, 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 2 3 1.3
Note: Total deployed hours is a measure of the total time spent responding to calls received in the hour. The deployed time from these calls may extend into the next hour or hours.

Agenda Item #13.1.

58 ALTERNATIVE SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS
As part of this study and evaluation, the city and SHFD expressed interest in evaluating the various service delivery options that could be utilized to provide Fire and EMS services in the community. It is common for CPSM to have these discussions with communities and quite often we have provided an analysis that has led to changes. Typically, there are a number of options that can be considered in changing service delivery. These options include:
■ Moving from a volunteer organization to a career or combination department. ■ Contracting for services with an outside service provider (either a county or neighboring municipal agency).
■ Terminating an existing service agreement and starting an independent department. ■ Contracting with a private company to provide services. ■ Moving to a public safety model (consolidated police and fire services). ■ Joining with neighboring agencies in providing regional protection.

The St. Helena Fire Department has transitioned from a fully volunteer organization to a combination system in 2021. St. Helena depends heavily on part-time employees to maintain its daily on-duty staffing and surge staffing during larger events. In addition, St. Helena has a very effective automatic response agreements with Napa County and mutual aid agreements, which provide additional resources, on demand, to handle both the daily workload and spikes in demand during larger events. Fortunately, because of this combined support from the extensive use of part-time employees and neighboring agencies, St. Helena has been very successful in its transition and the department is able to effectively fulfil both its fire protection and EMS service demands in a very cost-effective manner.

Entering into a Cooperative Services Agreement with CAL FIRE In looking at the alternative service delivery models available to St. Helena, CPSM had multiple discussions with CAL-FIRE officials in order to understand the type of arrangement that would be available to the city if it chose to obtain services from CAL-FIRE. CAL-FIRE currently has a Cooperative Fire Service Agreement with NAPA County. This is a long-term arrangement that has been in effect for multiple years. The current agreement is scheduled to expire in June 2025.

Napa County recently engaged an outside consultant to evaluate its arrangement with CAL-FIRE in preparation for contract renewal. Under the terms of this agreement, CAL-FIRE provides structural fire protection, wildfire protection, EMS first response, fire prevention and code enforcement services, along with 911 dispatching. CAL-FIRE is very adept in providing Fire and EMS arrangements to local communities and has established many similar agreements with both cities and counties throughout California. CAL-FIRE provides a high quality of service, has significant resources, has well trained personnel, and is very proficient in managing the broad array of service demands in urban, suburban and rural settings.

CAL-FIRE has indicated that it utilizes a “menu-driven” approach when providing service to cities or counties. In this format, a community considering a contractual arrangement with CAL-FIRE is required to make a formal request for proposal (RFP) to CAL-FIRE, specifying the types of services to be provided. This RFP typically specifies the levels of staffing on each unit, the numbers of units assigned to the community, a determination as to the number of fire apparatus needed (engines, ladders, rescue vehicles and support vehicles), and if these units will be provided by CAL-FIRE or if the local agency will be providing all or some of these resources. In addition, Agenda Item #13.1.

59 CAL-FIRE will evaluate if the fire stations are to be provided or if CAL-FIRE is to provide this resource. In addition, other services are similarly considered in the pricing of a request. These additional services include 911 dispatching, fire prevention, plans review, code enforcement, vehicle and station maintenance, the level of reporting, performance standards required, along with other associated services.

CAL-FIRE will also do its own risk assessment of the community in determining the level of protection that it feels is warranted based on the identified risks and its standards of service. It is also important to note that when CAL-FIRE enters into such an agreement, the pricing is not fixed. CAL-FIRE provides quarterly invoices based on its actual costs for its services. Of course, there is ongoing dialog between the receiving agency and CAL-FIRE regarding its costs, and if the actual pricing is exceeding the projected costs, CAL-FIRE and the agency receiving service can agree to make adjustments to the service levels to bring the actual pricing more in line with what the receiving agency has budgeted. CAL-FIRE also works closely with its labor union and it will not enter into a contract with a city or county if the labor union in the prospective community is opposed to being absorbed by CAL-FIRE.

CAL-FIRE officials indicated that they are currently pricing their service contracts based on an estimated cost of $2.4 million annually for a single engine staffed with three personnel daily.

Again, there will be a number of other factors that will impact actual costing, and this would be fully vetted during the RFP process. CPSM developed cost projections for a contracted service agreement with CAL FIRE; these projections are shown in the following table. These estimates are based on a number of assumptions which are generally conservative and the actual pricing would likely change depending on the final service package that would be agreed upon between the agencies.

TABLE 5-10: Projected Costs: CAL-FIRE Cooperative Fire Service Agreement Projected Cost
Personnel Costs (1 Engine/3 Personnel) $2,400,000
Dispatching Services 80,000
TOTAL $2,480,000
Not Included:

Overtime & Supervision
Fire Prevention Services
Payment for Part-time personnel
Capital Replacement
Insurance & Maintenance (Vehicles & Building)
Utilities
Agenda Item #13.1.

60 Entering into a Services Agreement with Napa County
St. Helena has the option to obtain services through the Napa County agreement and become a part of the county’s existing contract with CAL-FIRE. This approach would similarly require that a formal RFP be submitted to Napa County and a determination would then be made by the County Executive and require approval by the County Board of Supervisors. The pricing model for this arrangement has a large degree of variance, depending on level of service requested, staffing level, and the capital and maintenance costs that would be assumed by the city. In this relationship, St. Helena would have an indirect relationship with the actual service provider, which is CAL-FIRE. Any discussion regarding service levels, cost off-sets, performance measures, and auxiliary services (dispatching, fire prevention, vehicle and facilities maintenance, etc.) would be held with Napa County.

It is likely that the actual cost for these services when contracting through Napa County would be very comparable to the costs of a direct Cooperative Services Agreement with CAL-FIRE.

There could be some additional offsets for the use of the St. Helena Fire Station and the utilization of this facility to support CAL-FIRE administrative, command, and support functions. However, the issues of station and vehicle maintenance would be a point of negotiations that would have an impact on the cost of services. Again, the only way to obtain the most realistic price for these services is by actually going through the RFP process. However, CPSM has developed the pricing estimates shown in the following table in order to provide a comparison for this service option.

TABLE 5-11: Projected Costs: Napa County Professional Services Agreement Projected Cost
Personnel Costs (1 Engine/3 Personnel) $2,400,000
Dispatching Services (50%) 40,000
TOTAL $2,440,000
Not Included:

Overtime & Supervision
Fire Prevention Services
Payment for Part-time personnel
Capital Replacement
Insurance & Maintenance (Vehicles & Building)
Utilities
Agenda Item #13.1.

61 Establishing a Public Safety Model (Combined Police and Fire/EMS Department)
Successful public safety models are not very prevalent throughout the U.S. Of the country’s nearly 18,000 police agencies (local police, county sheriffs, state police), only approximately 130 operate under the public safety model. Under this model, cross-trained police officers and firefighters provide both services. California, with nearly 550 cities, towns, and counties, hosts only five public safety organizations, two of which are in the San Francisco Bay area (Rohnert Park and Sunnyvale). It is difficult to fully understand why police and fire consolidations are not more common. Both job functions are certainly under the umbrella of “public safety” but realistically are quite different. The job requirements vary considerably and the selection and training criteria, require different skill sets. Recent developments that espouse anti-police sentiments have made law enforcement recruitment much more difficult. Firefighter recruitment on the other hand, has not been as difficult. Usually, the applicant pool for vacant firefighter positions is much more bountiful than that for police vacancies.

The transition of the St. Helena Police and Fire Departments to a combined public safety model would be very challenging. The transition process would take a considerable length of time.

CPSM estimates it would require a minimum three years to complete. The major factor of such a transition would be the city’s ability to recruit and train individuals to fill these rolls.

CPSM estimates that a St. Helena Public Safety Department would require a total of 17 personnel. This includes the existing 11-personnel earmarked for Police duties, along with 6 firefighting staff personnel.

It would be uncertain if the city would be able to use existing employees while providing the necessary training to enable each person to obtain certifications as Police Officer, Firefighter-1, and EMT-Basic. There would be limitations as to the number of people who could enroll in local training academies and the timeframe to complete the necessary training. It is also likely that some of the existing personnel, both police and fire, will choose not to take the public safety route and will move on to other positions. Filling these positions would further delay the process of generating the total number of personnel with the appropriate certifications.

Another complication would arise in selecting and establishing sufficient competencies for supervisory and command staff. The key to organizational efficiency will be in having a supervisory staff that is capable of managing either of the three areas of operations (law enforcement, firefighting, and EMS). In all likelihood there will be a transition period in which there will be multiple employees who do not have all the required certifications and they will assume roles in their respective disciplines until sufficient cross-training has occurred.

There is also a very high likelihood that the transition from the existing police and fire departments to a public safety model will be criticized and accusations will be made alleging that the quality of service will be compromised. Fire unions are very vocal and politically active in most communities and it is very common that negative sentiments are expressed and misinformation generated that will be critical of the public safety model. In addition, the St. Helena Volunteer Fire Dept. Association may similarly express sentiments that are unsupportive of change. The St. Helena Volunteer Fire Dept. Association has been active in the community for many years and it is very likely that they will express sentiments that will complicate political decision-making involved.

The following table shows cost projections developed by CPSM; these estimates project the start-up costs associated with developing a combined Police/Fire Public Safety Department.

Again, we made multiple assumptions regarding staffing, service levels, training, and equipment; Agenda Item #13.1.

62 the actual costs and implementation timeline are likely to change if this transition were to unfold.

Currently, the combined annual cost for operating separate Police and Fire Departments is approximately $7.1 million. CPSM is projecting that the first year of costs associated with a new public safety model would increase this amount by approximately 30 percent.

TABLE 5-12: Projected Costs: St. Helena Department of Public Safety Projected Cost
Current Police Budget (including dispatch) $4,489,352
Public Safety Officer Incentive (11 @ 15%) 350,000
Firefighters PSO Incentive (6 @ $200K) 1,200,000
Training for PSO 75,000
Overtime 200,000
Part-time Employees 100,000
911 Dispatch (CAL-FIRE) 80,000
TOTAL $6,494,352
Not Included:

Fire Prevention Services
Capital Replacement
Utilities & Maintenance (Vehicles & Building)
Summary of Alternative Service Options
In our assessments of local fire departments, we typically observe agencies considering a change in the service delivery model that is being driven by two key factors:
■ The cost of providing services.
■ The ability to exert greater control as to the level of services being provided.

In looking at the current Fire and EMS delivery model being utilized in St. Helena; it is our assessment that the existing model is providing a high level of service at a cost that is significantly lower than the available alternatives. St. Helena has a very cost-effective model, primarily because of the small number of full-time employees and the utilization of part-time employees to supplement staffing levels. Currently, St. Helena is utilizing part-time personnel to fill more than 40 percent of its on-duty staffing requirements (approximately 11,303 hours annually).

This is resulting in a substantial cost savings; we estimate that the use of part-time employees is saving the city nearly $260,000 annually because part-time employee salaries on average, are approximately $23 per hour less than the full-time employees’ fully burdened hourly rates (11,303 X $23 = $259,969). In addition, if full-time personnel were utilized on an overtime basis (@ time and one-half) to cover the hours currently being worked by part-time employees, this additional cost would be in excess of $630,000 annually (11,303 X $56 = $632,968). We would also expect that in the absence of part-time employees, annual overtime will similarly increase by 30 percent. This would raise annual overtime costs to approximately $235,000 or approximately a $55,000 annual increase over current overtime expenditures.

In addition, the current staffing model in St. Helena is being supported in part by the St. Helena Volunteer Fire Dept. Association. This is a significant benefit to the city as the St. Helena Volunteer Fire Dept. Association provides direct payments for apparatus replacement, equipment and building maintenance, and countless hours of volunteer services. In the absence of the St.

Helena Volunteer Fire Dept. Association, the city would be required to provide these services and funding through other means and this would further increase the cost of operating the Agenda Item #13.1.

63 department. CPSM believes that if one of the alternative service models is pursued, it is very likely that the assistance currently being provided by the St. Helena Volunteer Fire Dept. Association will be either eliminated or reduced significantly.

The current SHFD budget is slightly over $2.5 million. Neither of the two possible contracting options (contracting with CAL FIRE or contracting with Napa County) would likely result in any appreciable savings. In addition, a key downfall in contracting with an outside entity is a lack of control in both determining the level of service being provided and in managing future cost escalations.

Cost Comparisons (FY24-25):

Existing Fire Department Budget $ 2.69 million
Existing Police Budget $ 4.49 million
Projected CAL-FIRE Contract $ 2.48 million
Projected Napa County Contract $ 2.44 million
Projected Public Safety Model $ 6.5 million
Realistically, the public safety model would require a significant increase in the existing police and firefighter salaries. This is in part due to the higher cost of a public safety officer (estimated to be approximately 15 to 20 percent higher than the existing police officer salary). In addition, the public safety model will likely preclude the use of part-time employees and this would have a significant cost implication.

Recommendation: St. Helena should maintain its current service delivery model, which utilizes a municipal fire department that combines both career and part-time employees along with cooperative response agreements with neighboring agencies. (Recommendation No. 14.)
§§§
Agenda Item #13.1.

64 SECTION 6. RESPONSE TIME ANALYSIS
Response times are typically the primary measurement used in evaluating Fire and EMS services.

Most deployment models attempt to achieve a four-minute initial travel time for both Fire and EMS calls and a full-force travel time of eight minutes for fire calls. A full-force travel time indicates the time it takes for the initial response of all resources assigned to the call to arrive on the scene.

While these times have validity, the actual impact of a speedy response time is limited to very few incidents. For example, in a full cardiac arrest, analysis shows that successful outcomes are rarely achieved if basic life support (CPR) is not initiated within four minutes of the onset of the arrest. However, cardiac arrests occur very infrequently; on average these are 1 percent to

1.5 percent of all EMS incidents.36 There are also other EMS incidents that are truly life-threatening and the time of response can clearly impact the outcome. These involve drownings, electrocutions, and severe trauma (often caused by gunshot wounds, stabbings, and severe motor vehicle accidents, etc.). Again, the frequency of life-threatening calls is limited, typically not more than 10 to 15 percent of the overall EMS call activity.

Regarding response times for fire incidents, the frequency of actual fires in St. Helena (structure and outside fires) is very low, approximately 1.1 percent of all incidents. Actual structure fires were approximately 0.7 percent of all calls, or six in the 12-month period evaluated.

The criterion for fire response is based on the concept of “flashover.” This is the state at which super-heated gasses from a fire in an enclosed area results in a near-simultaneous ignition of the combustible material in the area. In this situation, usually after an extended period of time (upwards to ten minutes), the fire expands rapidly and is much more difficult to contain. When the fire reaches this hazardous state, a larger and more destructive fire occurs.

Additional research indicates that the speed of fire spread and the degradation of structural components is occurring much faster in modern construction.37 The introduction of lightweight construction, increases in house size, open living areas that promote smoke and flame spread, and more flammable interior contents and construction materials, are all contributing to this outcome. The following figure is a comparison in the time to flashover when comparing modern construction with legacy or older construction methods.

Another important factor in the whole response time question is what we term “detection time.” This is the time it takes to detect a fire or a medical situation and notify 911 to initiate the response. In many instances, particularly at night or when automatic detection systems (fire sprinklers and smoke detectors) are unavailable or inoperable, the detection process can be extended. Fires that go undetected and are able to expand in size, become more destructive and are more difficult to extinguish. In St. Helena, as is the case throughout California, automatic fire sprinklers are required in most new construction, including single-family residential structures.

Because of the presence of automatic fire sprinklers, the speed of response to structure fire incidents is somewhat ameliorated as the sprinkler system, if functioning, will automatically contain the fire and minimize the extent of its spread.

36. Myers, Slovis, Eckstein, Goodloe et al. (2007).” Evidence-based Performance Measures for Emergency Medical Services System: A Model for Expanded EMS Benchmarking.” Pre-hospital Emergency Care.

37. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-011-0249-2 Agenda Item #13.1.

65 FIGURE 6-1: Times to Flashover: Modern vs. Legacy Construction Methods

MEASURING RESPONSE TIMES
There have been no documented studies that have made a direct correlation between response times and outcomes in Fire and EMS events. No one has been able to show that a fourminute response time is measurably more effective than a six-minute response time. The logic has been “faster is better,” but this has not been substantiated by any detailed analysis.

Furthermore, the ability to measure the difference in outcomes (patient saves, reduced fire damage, or some other quantifiable measure) between a six-minute, eight-minute, or tenminute response is not a performance measure often utilized in the fire service.

For example, in St. Helena nearly 9.2 percent of calls (54 calls within the city), had an initial response time of 10 minutes or higher. Though this is a significant number of calls, there is no indication that the outcomes on these calls were markedly worse than those calls with faster arrivals. So, in looking at response times it is prudent to design a deployment strategy around the actual circumstances that exist in the community and the fire problem that is perceived to exist.

This requires a “fire risk assessment” and a political determination as to the desired level of protection for the community. It would be imprudent, and very costly, to build a deployment strategy that is based solely upon response times.

For the purpose of this analysis, response time is a product of three components: dispatch time, turnout time, and travel time.
■ Dispatch time is the time interval that begins when the alarm is received at the communication center and ends when the response information is transmitted via voice or electronic means to the emergency response facility or emergency response units in the field.

Dispatch time is typically the responsibility of the 911 Center.38

38. Note: In St. Helena, 911 calls are initially received by the Calistoga/St. Helena Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). The time it takes for this call to be processed and transferred to the CAL-FIRE ECC is not include in these time calculations.

Agenda Item #13.1.

66 ■ Turnout time is the time interval that begins when the notification process to emergency response facilities and emergency response begins through an audible alarm or visual announcement or both and ends at the beginning point of travel time. ■ Travel time is the time interval that initiates when the unit is en route to the call and ends when the unit arrives at the scene.
■ Response time, also known as total response time, is the time interval that begins when the call is received by the primary dispatch center and ends when the dispatched unit arrives on the scene to initiate action.

ST. HELENA RESPONSE TIMES
For this study, and unless otherwise indicated, our response time calculations measure the first arriving unit only. Typically, we track only those responses in which the unit is responding with lights and sirens (hot). Out of the 844 total calls, our response time analysis was based on a total of 587 calls. We excluded 168 mutual aid responses, 21 canceled calls, 24 calls where no units recorded a valid on-scene time, 43 calls where one or more segments of the first arriving unit’s response time could not be calculated due to missing or faulty data, and 1 call where the first arriving unit response was greater than 30 minutes. It is important to note that there were no calls that were run as non-emergency that were excluded from the response time calculations.

On the basis of these calculations, we determined:
■ The average dispatch time was 1.6 minutes.
■ The average turnout time was 1.4 minutes.
■ The average travel time was 2.9 minutes.
■ The average total response time was 5.9 minutes.
■ The average response time was 5.1 minutes for EMS calls and 5.7 minutes for fire calls. ■ The average response time was 10.9 minutes for outside fires and 5.7 minutes for structure fires.

According to NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Departments, 2020 Edition, the alarm processing time or dispatch time should be less than or equal to 64 seconds 90 percent of the time. This standard also states that the turnout time should be less than or equal to 80 seconds (1.33 minutes) for fire and special operations 90 percent of the time, and a 60 second turnout for EMS calls. Travel times are recommended to be less than or equal to 240 seconds (4 minutes) for the first arriving engine company 90 percent of the time for both fire and EMS calls. The following table shows the average and 90th percentile response time in minutes for the first arriving unit, by call type, for the SHFD.

Agenda Item #13.1.

67 TABLE 6-1: Average and 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving Unit, by Call Type
Call Type Average Response Time, Min. 90th Percentile Response Time, Min. Call Dispatch Turnout Travel Total Dispatch Turnout Travel Total Count Medical and other 1.5 1.2 2.4 5.1 2.2 2.1 3.8 6.9 335
MVA 1.6 1.3 3.4 6.3 3.2 1.9 6.4 8.6 15
EMS subtotal 1.5 1.2 2.4 5.1 2.2 2.1 3.9 6.9 350
False alarm 2.1 1.7 3.8 7.6 2.8 2.5 8.6 12.2 53
Good intent 1.8 1.8 4.0 7.6 2.8 3.8 8.0 11.1 6
Hazard 2.5 1.7 4.0 8.1 4.0 2.6 9.2 13.9 42
Outside fire 2.4 1.7 6.7 10.9 2.7 2.2 14.0 18.5 3
Public service 1.6 1.6 3.4 6.5 2.6 3.0 5.4 9.2 129
Structure fire 1.7 1.7 2.3 5.7 2.1 3.2 3.1 7.6 4
Fire subtotal 1.9 1.6 3.6 7.1 3.2 2.8 6.8 11.1 237
Total 1.6 1.4 2.9 5.9 2.5 2.5 4.9 8.5 587
Observations:
■ The average dispatch time was 1.6 minutes.
■ The average turnout time was 1.4 minutes.
■ The average travel time was 2.9 minutes.
■ The average total response time was 5.9 minutes.
■ The average response time was 5.1 minutes for EMS calls and 7.1 minutes for fire calls. ■ The average response time was 10.9 minutes for outside fires and 5.7 minutes for structure fires. ■ The 90th percentile dispatch time was 2.5 minutes.
■ The 90th percentile turnout time was 2.5 minutes.
■ The 90th percentile travel time was 4.9 minutes.
■ The 90th percentile total response time was 8.5 minutes. ■ The 90th percentile response time was 6.9 minutes for EMS calls and 11.1 minutes for fire calls ■ The 90th percentile response time was 18.5 minutes for outside fires and 7.6 minutes for structure fires.

As stated previously, all SHFD responses are currently being responded to with lights and sirens.

However, in many instances, units realize that many calls are non-emergency and they slow down their response, even though the call is still being categorized as an emergency response.

For example, look at the 90th percentile response times in the above table for Hazard, Good Intent, and False Alarm calls. The response times to these categories of calls are noticeably higher than other call types. This is not an uncommon occurrence and we often see this situation in the agencies we evaluate. However, by not officially excluding these calls as non-emergency responses, the net effect is an increase in the calculation of overall response time. CPSM believes that if SHFD were to officially downgrade its responses to non-emergency calls and Agenda Item #13.1.

68 exclude these calls from the emergency response time calculations, the net effect would be a decrease in emergency response times. Many agencies have taken this approach and have adopted different response time standards for emergency and non-emergency responses. We believe if SHFD were to take this approach, the response times for emergency calls can be reduced by at least one minute.

That said, the response times being generated in St. Helena are exceptional. The fire station is a critical link in service delivery and where facilities are located is the single most important factor in determining overall response times and workload distribution. As noted previously, the SHFD operates from a single fire station located at 1500 Main St.

The next four figures illustrate the SHFD station location and estimated travel distance projections from this station: 240 seconds (indicated by the green overlay), 360 seconds (indicated by the amber overlay), and 480 seconds (indicated by the red overlay), and composite times. These projections are based on actual road travel distances and the posted speed limits on these roadways.

FIGURE 6-2: St. Helena Station Location with Travel Projection of 240 Seconds Agenda Item #13.1.

69 FIGURE 6-3: St. Helena Station Location with Travel Projection of 360 Seconds § § §
Agenda Item #13.1.

70 FIGURE 6-4: St. Helena Station Location with Travel Projection of 480 Seconds § § §
Agenda Item #13.1.

71 FIGURE 6-5: St. Helena Station Location with Composite Travel Projections The preceding figures show that approximately 70 to 75 percent of the developed areas of the city are covered under the 240-second benchmark. We would estimate that approximately 85 percent of the developed areas of the city are covered under the 360-second overlay and approximately 95 percent of the city is covered under the 480-second benchmark. These maps only depict travel distances and not actual response times.

The next three figures show the actual locations of fire, EMS, and other emergency responses carried out by the St. Helena Fire Department during the year-long study period. It is apparent from these graphics that most responses in St. Helena should result in travel times that are within three to four minutes. It also appears that the overall distribution of calls is generally concentrated in the central city areas.

Agenda Item #13.1.

72 FIGURE 6-6: SHFD Fire Runs
§ § §
Agenda Item #13.1.

73 FIGURE 6-7: SHFD EMS Runs
§ § §
Agenda Item #13.1.

74 FIGURE 6-8: SHFD Other Runs
In our analysis we also looked at those calls with extended total response times, that is, those response times of 10 minutes or greater within city limits. We determined that approximately

9.2 percent of all responses (54 calls) resulted in a total response time greater than 10 minutes.

The following figure illustrates the location of the estimated 54 calls that had a total response time of 10 minutes or greater. Though the overall response times during the one-year evaluation period were exceptional, there were a sizable number of calls with extended response times.

There does not appear to be any pattern or geographic location that are generating these response times. Several of the calls with extended response times were in outlying areas; however, most were not.

It is always surprising when agencies see this graphic and question why so many calls with extended response times are in close proximity to responding units. Typically, our findings indicate that when agencies do not adjust their mode of response from emergency to nonemergency on the basis of the call-screening process, responding units still slow down their response when they have indications that the call is non-emergency. Though we did not evaluate closely the locations and call types for the 54 instances of extended response, our speculation is that many of these were responses that were purposely slowed but were still tabulated as an emergency response. As noted above, we did not exclude any calls from the response time calculations because they were classified as a non-emergency response.

Agenda Item #13.1.

75 FIGURE 6-9: SHFD Responses with Total Response Times of 10 Minutes or Greater §§§
Agenda Item #13.1.

76 SECTION 7. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
Fire suppression, prevention programs, and EMS service delivery need to be planned and managed so that these efforts achieve specific, agreed-upon results. This requires that a set of goals be established for the activities that make up any given program. Determining how well an organization or program is doing requires that these goals be measurable and that they are measured against desired results. This is the goal of performance measurement.

Simply defined, performance measurement is the ongoing monitoring and reporting of progress toward pre-established goals. It captures data about programs, activities, and processes, and displays data in standardized ways that help communicate to service providers, customers, and other stakeholders how well the agency is performing in key areas. Many agencies in both government and business refer to performance measures as Key Performance Indicators or KPIs.

Measuring performance in the fire service provides a basis for determining if the current methods of deployment, the distribution of resources, and the overall effectiveness of operations are appropriately matched in meeting the service demands of the community. Performance measurement provides an organization with tools to assess performance and identify areas in need of improvement or adjustment. In short, what gets measured gets improved.

The need to continually assess performance requires adding new words and definitions to the fire service lexicon. Fire administrators need to be familiar with the different tools available and the consequences of their use. In Managing the Public Sector, business professor Grover Starling applies the principles of performance measurement to the public sector. He writes that the consequences to be considered for any given program include:

Administrative Feasibility: How difficult will it be to set up and operate the program? Effectiveness: Does the program produce the intended effect in the specified time? Does it reach the intended target group?
Efficiency: How do the benefits compare with the costs? Equity: Are the benefits distributed equitably with respect to region, income, gender, ethnicity, age, and so forth?
Political Feasibility: Will the program attract and maintain key actors with a stake in the program area?39
Performance measurement systems vary significantly among different types of public agencies and programs. Some systems focus primarily on efficiency and productivity within work units, whereas others are designed to monitor outcomes produced by major public programs. Still others track the quality of services provided by an agency and the extent to which citizens are satisfied with these services.

Within the fire service, performance measures tend to focus on inputs (the amount of money and resources spent on a given program or activity) and short-term outputs (the number of fires, number of EMS calls, response times, etc.). One of the goals of any performance measurement system should be also to include efficiency and cost-effectiveness indicators, as well as explanatory information on how these measures should be interpreted. An explanation of these types of performance measures are shown in the following table.

39. Grover Starling, Managing the Public Sector, (Cengage Learning), 396.

Agenda Item #13.1.

77 TABLE 7-1: The Five GASB Performance Indicators40
Category Definition
Input indicators These are designed to report the number of resources, either financial or other (especially personnel), that
have been used for a specific service or program.

Output indicators These report the number of units produced or the services provided by a service or program.

Outcome indicators These are designed to report the results (including quality) of the service.

Efficiency (and costeffectiveness) indicators These are defined as indicators that measure the cost (whether in dollars or employee hours) per unit of output or outcome.

Explanatory information This includes a variety of information about the environment and other factors that might affect an
organization’s performance.

One of the most important elements of performance measurement within the fire service is to describe service delivery performance in a way that both citizens and those providing the service have the same understanding. The customer will ask, “Did I get what I expected?” the service provider will ask, “Did I provide what was expected?” Ensuring that the answer to both questions is “yes” requiring alignment of these expectations and the use of understandable terms. The author of the “Leadership” chapter of the 2012 edition of ICMA’s Managing Fire and Emergency Services “Green Book” explains how jargon can get in the way:

Too often, fire service performance measures are created by internal customers and laden with jargon that external customers do not understand. For example, the traditional fire service has a difficult time getting the public to understand the implications of the “time temperature curve” or the value of particular levels of staffing in the suppression of fires. Fire and emergency service providers need to be able to describe performance in a way that is clear to customers, both internal and external. In the end, simpler descriptions are usually better.41 The SHFD does not utilize performance measures in tracking operational, administrative, prevention, or training activities within the department. Though SHFD keeps records of select activities, these indices are not utilized in the regular review and reporting of department activities. It is critical that SHFD develop a series of internal reporting processes that provide a direct link to department goals or specific target measures. It is also critical that these measures be both quantitative and qualitative in nature and reflect on multiple areas of service delivery within the organization. This type of ongoing analysis and the monitoring of trends are most useful to justify program budgets and to measure service delivery levels.

Staff throughout the organization should participate in the development of any measures. In addition to helping facilitate department wide buy-in, this could provide an opportunity for

40. From Harry P. Hatry et al., eds. Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting: Its Time Has Come (Norwalk, CT: GASB, 1990).

41. I. David Daniels, “Leading and Managing,” in Managing Fire and Emergency Services (ICMA:

Washington, DC: 2012), 202.

Agenda Item #13.1.

78 upper management to better understand what the line staff believes to be critical goals—and vice versa. For the same reason, the process of developing performance measures should include citizen input, specifically with regard to service level preferences. Translating this advice from the citizens into performance measures will link the citizens and business community to the department, and will identify clearly if the public’s expectations are being met.

Recommendation: SHFD should implement a series of performance measures that enable ongoing review of service outcomes. The process of developing these measures should utilize input from SHFD members, the community, the City Council, and City Administration. (Recommendation No. 15.) ≈ ≈ ≈
Following are a number of performance measures that may be considered:

Operations:
■ Response times (fire and percentile/average/frequency of excessive times). □ Alarm/dispatch handling times.
□ Turnout times.
□ Travel times.
□ On-scene time.
□ Call duration.
□ Canceled en route.
■ Workload measures.
□ Emergency vs. nonemergency responses.
□ Number and frequency of EMS transports—ALS/BLS.
□ Response to automatic fire alarms/frequency and outcomes. □ Company inspections/area occupancy familiarization.
□ Fire preplanning.
□ Public education: contact hours/numbers by age group. ■ Outcome measures.
□ EMS/save rates/action taken.
□ EMS protocol compliance.
□ Fire loss/limit of fire spread—point of origin, room of origin, etc. □ On-duty injuries/worker’s comp claims.
□ Lost time—sick/injury.
□ Vehicle accidents.
□ Equipment lost or broken.

Agenda Item #13.1.

79 Training:
■ Fire and EMS hours.
■ Officer development.
■ Skills assessment compliance.
■ Specialty training.
■ Professional development/formal education/certifications. ■ Fitness performance.

Prevention:
■ Plans review (numbers/valuation amount/completion time). ■ Inspections (new and existing).
□ Numbers.
□ Completion time.
□ Violations (found/corrected).
□ Quantification by type of violation and occupancy type. ■ Fire investigations.
□ Numbers and determinations.
□ Occupancy types, time of occurrence, ignition source. □ Fire loss/structure and contents.
□ Arson arrests/convictions.
□ Fire deaths (demographics/occupancy type/cause and origin).

Miscellaneous:
■ Customer service surveys (by engine/by shift).
□ Following emergency response.
□ Public assist.
□ Inspections (prevention and company).
□ Public education.
□ In-service training (employee assessments).
■ Financial/budgetary.
□ Overtime expenditures and cause.
□ Apparatus repair costs and out-of-service time.
§§§
Agenda Item #13.1.

80 SECTION 8. ESSENTIAL RESOURCES

FIRE PREVENTION AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
Ensuring that services are delivered effectively is paramount in any fire service organizational mission. The fire prevention services are perhaps the most critical of these services in that organizational milieu. The foundation of a good risk management program is to prevent fires before they occur and reduce the losses from those that do occur.

The fire departments that are most effective in reducing losses are those that have successfully integrated prevention as a core value throughout the organization and continuously review the impact of prevention on the overall services provided by the department. The prevention effort in St. Helena is compounded because of the additional risk from wildfire, as well as structure fires.

There are basic approaches that can be used to ensure that prevention is treated as a paramount department-wide priority. One way to accomplish this is to have that core value of an organization referenced directly in the mission statement.

In St. Helena the Fire Inspector is responsible for fire prevention code enforcement, public safety education, and the administration of the city’s weed abatement program. The Fire Chief conducts fire investigations and the city utilizes Interwest, a private fire engineering company, to do its fire plans review. The city has a robust in-service engine company fire inspection program.

Nearly 400 fire inspections are conducted on a two-year cycle (200 annually) at local businesses, manufacturing facilities, multifamily residential structures, hotels, motels, medical facilities, assisted living centers, and schools. CPSM recognizes the SHFD in-service fire inspection program as a Best Practice.

The city’s weed abatement program includes more than 2,300 properties that receive annual inspections. The weed abatement effort is carried out by on-duty fire crews and the fire inspector. The city’s code review process involves the plans review and inspections for approximately 40 properties annually. These properties involve new construction, renovations, and protection system inspections. Typically, each permit translates into two inspections.

The City of St. Helena has adopted the 2019 California Fire Code (CFC), which is based on the International Fire Code (IFC) and the International Building Code (IBC). The Fire Department is responsible fire inspections, weed abatement inspection and enforcement, and public fire education. The SHFD works closely with the city’s Building Department in carrying out its inspection duties. The permitting process, inspection scheduling, and collection of all fees are carried out through the Building Department. The Fire Department does not receive any revenue from its inspection, plans review, and permitting services.

TABLE 8-1: SHFD Fire Prevention Activities, 2022–2023*
Activity 2022 2023*
In-service fire company inspections 153 230
New construction plans review 43 30
New construction inspections 83 58
Weed Abatement Inspections 2,322 2,322
Total Inspections and Plans Reviews 2,601 2,640
Note: *2023 Fire Prevention activities 1-1-23 thru 11-16-23.

Agenda Item #13.1.

81 CPSM estimates that the costs incurred by the SHFD in providing these services are approaching $200,000 annually. The majority of these services are provided to business, multifamily residential properties, manufacturing, institutions, health care, wineries, and processing entities. Many fire agencies have moved to, or are moving to, full cost recovery for fire prevention services. These costs are passed on as development charges or as ongoing business expenses. SHFD is not recovering any of its inspections or plans review costs. Annually, the city pays Interwest approximately $12,000 for it plans review services, all of which is recovered from fees charged for these services. We believe, however, that there should be a direct off-set for the fire inspections services and fees generated through the permitting process. The city should attempt to achieve the full cost recovery for fire prevention and permitting services.

Recommendation: The City of St. Helena should implement fire inspection, weed abatement, and permitting fees in order to recover the full cost of providing these services in the community. (Recommendation No. 16.) ≈ ≈ ≈
Some of the costs associated with fire prevention activities (public education, fire investigations, etc.) are generally costs that are not charged for and are provided from municipal taxation.

However, these costs make up a small percentage of the SHFD fire prevention expenditures.

Fire Investigations
Fire investigations are conducted primarily by the Fire Chief. In 2023, a total of 26 fire investigations were completed. These investigations are utilized to identify any trends or patterns in the types of fires occurring in the city along with providing reporting on the cause and origin of the fire along with estimating fire loss. When needed the State Fire Marshal’s office or a mutual aid partner will be brought in for those more complex investigations involving suspected arson or when there is a fire death.

ISO RATING
The ISO collects data for more than 39,000 communities and fire districts throughout the country.

This information is analyzed using a proprietary Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS). This analysis is then tabulated in generating a Public Protection Classification (PPC). The PPC classifications range from 1 to 10, with Class 1 representing “superior property fire protection” and Class 10 indicating that an area does not meet the minimum criteria set by the ISO. In 2013, the revised FSRS was released; it adds an emphasis on a community's effort to limit loss before an incident occurs (fire prevention).

Since the 1800s, insurance companies have been involved in one way or another in “rating” fire departments. As cities grew and buildings became larger and communities more industrialized, insurance companies sometimes incurred large losses from fires. Much of the time, these losses were due to inadequate water supplies and ineffective fire suppression capabilities. To help reduce losses, insurance companies developed criteria to evaluate community fire suppression capabilities and to quantify the level of fire services provided. Once quantified, insurance companies used the information (rating) to determine and assign fire insurance rates. The emphasis then, as now, was primarily to reduce dollar loss from fires. Though improving water supplies and fire suppression can and do improve life safety, the purpose of rating fire departments is to adjust insurance rates to lessen insurance company losses.

Agenda Item #13.1.

82 ISO uses data and information provided by each community to derive a Public Protection Classification (PPC). Community evaluations are performed periodically or when there is reason to believe there may be a change in the PPC. As it is intended, the PPC is only used to assess a community’s fire protection—it does not consider other emergencies or important services provided by the fire department such as EMS, wildfire mitigation, technical rescue, or hazmat incident response. The ISO acknowledges the use of the PPC is limited to assessing fire suppression capabilities and that fire departments do many more things to improve public safety.42
In developing a PPC, the following major categories are evaluated:
■ Emergency Communications: Fire alarm and communication systems, including telephone systems, telephone lines, staffing, and dispatching systems. ■ Fire Department: The fire department, including equipment, staffing, training, and geographic distribution of fire companies.
■ Water Supply: The water supply system, including the condition and maintenance of hydrants and the amount of available water compared to the amount needed to suppress fires. ■ Fire Prevention: Programs that contain plan review; certificate of occupancy inspections; compliance follow-up; inspection of fire protection equipment; and fire prevention regulations related to fire lanes on area roads, hazardous material routes, fireworks, barbecue grills, and wildland-urban interface areas.
■ Public Fire Safety Education Programs: Fire safety education training and programs for schools, private homes, and buildings with large loss potential or hazardous conditions, and a juvenile fire-setter intervention program.

St. Helena received an ISO Class 3 rating in 2022. The city’s score was 76.20, which is at the upper end of the Class 3 rating (70.0 to 79.9). CPSM recognizes the city’s achievement as a Class 3 ISO rating as a Best Practice. Nationwide, in 2022, only 2,117 communities of the more than 39,000 communities rated received a higher rating than St. Helena. The St. Helena rating places the community in the top 10 percent of those ratings in 2022.

It is also important to note that SHFD received good scoring in the areas of Emergency Communications, receiving 8.72 points out of 10. The water utility system was scored at 32.19 out of a possible 40. St. Helena was short by only 3.8 points in achieving a Class 2 Rating. Three areas in which these points can be achieved are as follows:
■ Credit for Training………………………………………………………………3.32 Points Available ■ Water Supply: Credit for Hydrant Testing ……....…………………………3.31 Points Available ■ Fire Department: Credit for Company Personnel ……...………………10.66 Points Available CPSM believes that the needed 3.8 points to obtain a Class 2 rating can be satisfied without the addition of personnel. Improvements in Training Activities (Monthly Hours, Officer Training, Recruit Training, and Pre-Fire Planning Inspections), along with increased Fire Hydrant Inspection and Testing, can generate more than the additional 3.8 points needed.

42. Flippin, P., Gaull E., Laun, J., Flicko, R., District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services Fleet Management Audit and Assessment (District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Washington, DC 2013).

Agenda Item #13.1.

83 EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS
Training is one of the most important functions that a fire department should be performing on a regular basis. One could even make the argument that training is, in some ways, more important than emergency response, because a department that is not well-trained, prepared, and operationally ready will be unable to effectively and safely fulfill its emergency response obligations. A comprehensive, relative, and ongoing training program is absolutely critical to the fire department’s level of success.

An effective fire department training program must cover all of the essential elements of that department’s core missions and responsibilities. The program must include an appropriate combination of technical/classroom training, manipulative or hands-on/practical evolutions, and training assessment to gauge the effectiveness of these efforts. Most of the training, but particularly the practical, hands-on training evolutions, should be developed based upon the department’s own operating procedures while remaining cognizant of widely accepted practices and standards.

Certain Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations dictate that minimum training covering various topics must be completed on an annual basis. This training covers:
■ A review of the respiratory protection standard, self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) refresher and user competency training, SCBA fit testing (29 CFR 1910.134). ■ Blood Borne Pathogens Training (29 CFR 1910.1030).
■ Hazardous Materials Training (29 CFR 1910.120).
■ Confined Space Training (29 CFR 1910.146).
■ Structural Firefighting Training (29 CFR 1910.156).

Education and training programs help to create the character of a fire service organization.

Agencies that place a real emphasis on their training have a tendency to be more proficient in carrying out day-to-day duties. The prioritization of training also fosters an image of professionalism and instills pride in the organization.

In-Service Fire & EMS Training
The training functions of the SHFD are coordinated by the department’s station Captains with oversight from the Fire Chief. Station officers (Captains) are assigned the responsibility for ensuring that personnel under their supervision receive the requisite training and assuring that the required level of competency is achieved.

In-service fire training, beyond OSHA requirements, is typically not highly regulated by either state or local regulations. Unlike EMS certifications, which have very specific continuing education requirements, fire service training generally follows the ISO criteria of 16 hours per month (192 hours annually) for subjects related to structural firefighting. In addition, ISO has specific guidelines for company level (group) training, driver operator training, hazardous materials training, and pre-fire planning. There are also specific requirements for recruit training (new firefighter), but these tend to generally follow state criteria and there are often distinctions made between career firefighters and volunteers. SHFD does not have a specified train requirement for its firefighters. The agency has a guideline for annual training and a listing of Agenda Item #13.1.

84 various hours spent for the different categories. Generally, a good rule of thumb is to commit two hours of combined training (Fire and EMS) in each 24-hour tour.

Recommendation: The St. Helena Fire Department should establish a minimum shift training requirement (in hours) for each employee and implement this requirement in the department’s Standard Operating Guidelines. (Recommendation No. 17.)
≈ ≈ ≈
The departmental training calendar is printed on a chalk board at the Helena Fire Department.

This provides a good, quick reference for on-duty personnel with regards to the current training guidelines. It is recommended that a digital calendar, referencing the various shift assignments, be created to provide an electronic reference that can also be accessed remotely. In addition, this recordkeeping allows individuals or officers to identify past training that may have been missed. Simultaneously, these records will document departmental training assignments throughout the year.

Recommendation: The St. Helena Fire Department should implement an electronic training calendar and utilize this recordkeeping to document training activities throughout the year. (Recommendation No. 18.) ≈ ≈ ≈
Quite often training exercises are repeated over time and the ability maintain an ongoing record of when a particular evolution or drill was completed will be beneficial for maintaining accurate recordkeeping.

Oversight of training activities is a key department function. The ability to incorporate timely and relevant training activities is essential. The St. Helena Fire Department is at a disadvantage in not having a dedicated training officer to develop the training calendar, provide source material, and to monitor the completion of the required training activities by individual employees. CPSM believes that the SHFD should designate a Station Officer as the department’s Training Officer and assign these functions as part of their program management responsibilities.

Recommendation: The St. Helena Fire Department should assign a Fire Captain to assume the role of the fire department Training Officer, with responsibility to coordinate training activities for the department. (Recommendation No. 19.)
≈ ≈ ≈
The department training officer should be able to draw from department members in developing the training curriculum and source materials. In addition, department members who have particular expertise in various training topics should be available to the training officer to produce video tapes, training objectives, and handout materials for the various training topics.

The department should also consider the establishment of a Training Steering Committee to serve as a resource to the Training Officer in the development and delivery of the department’s training program.

Recommendation: The St. Helena Fire Department should establish a Training Steering Committee to assist the department Training Officer in developing Agenda Item #13.1.

85 the training curriculum, identifying source materials, and the implementing the training calendar. (Recommendation No. 20.)
≈ ≈ ≈
The Fire Chief should play in integral part in developing and directing the department’s training activities. The Training Officer should present the recommended training calendar to the Chief for approval and implementation. There is also the option of entering into a cooperative training delivery arrangement with either Calistoga or CAL-FIRE to coordinate the delivery of in-service fire training.

Firefighter Recruit Training
Fire service agencies have traditionally trained new firefighters in-house utilizing NFPA guidelines.

It is very common for smaller agencies, particularly those with a limited number of position openings (including St. Helena), to utilize an on-the-job training process and task-book progression to train and qualify new employees or members for various assignments. SHFD currently requires all new firefighter applicants to have, as a prerequisite for hiring, certifications for both Firefighter-1 and EMT-B. This approach for the hiring of new personnel is very costeffective in that it eliminates the need to conduct a multiweek training academy and allows SHFD to bring new employees into line positions more rapidly. CPSM recognizes the SHFD new employee hiring prerequisites as a Best Practice.

EMS Training
EMS training and scope of practice guidelines are established by state statute and are administered by the California Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA). EMSA has authorized the creation of Local EMS Agencies (LEMSAs) to administer the day-to-day management and oversite of EMS operations in either regional or countywide geographic subareas. Napa County has established the Napa County EMS Agency as a part of the County Health Department to serve as the LEMSA for Napa County. The County EMS Agency employs a Medical Director who is responsible for the supervision of patient care, ensuring quality assurance, and authorizing the training requirements for all EMTs and Paramedics operating in the county. Service agencies in Napa County must enter into a provider service agreement that stipulates the level of care that can be provided and a series of requirements involving continuing education, reporting and recordkeeping, equipment and medications to be carried, and the quality assurance processes. Local providers such as the St. Helena Fire Department are required to enter into individual provider agreements in order to deliver basic life support services in their respective communities.

Napa County has entered in a contract with American Medical Response (AMR) to provide Advanced Life Support (ALS) services throughout the county along with ambulance transport services. AMR co-responds with SHFD units in delivering these services.

EMT recertification requires 24 hours of approved EMS continuing education (CE) or an approved 24-hour refresher course certificate taken every two years. At least 12 of the 24 hours of continuing education coursework must be instructor-based. In addition, all EMTs must have a valid CPR card and pass a skills verification test.

Much of the required training for SHFD employees is obtained through the Image-Trend online training program and approved coursework. AMR offers frequent training opportunities in meeting these criteria; however, St. Helena does not take advantage of these training offerings that are available locally at no charge. CPSM believes that St. Helena should pursue joint EMS Agenda Item #13.1.

86 training opportunities with AMR to both improve field working relationships and provide the necessary EMS continuing education requirements.

Recommendation: The St. Helena Fire Department should pursue joint training opportunities with AMR to enhance improved working relationships and to provide the needed EMS continuing education credits (CEs) for EMT recertification. (Recommendation No. 21.)
Physical Fitness Evaluation
Employee physical fitness is necessary for Fire and EMS personnel to do their jobs effectively while avoiding injuries. NFPA 1583, Standard on Health-Related Fitness Programs for Fire Department Members, is a recognized industry standard for monitoring and maintaining firefighter fitness.

SHFD maintains a rigid fitness standard for its emergency response personnel. SHFD personnel are required to successfully complete the Pack Test-Work Capacity Testing for Wildland Fire Fighting as an annual fitness qualification. CPSM recognizes the SHFD fitness requirements for its line employees to be a Best Practice.

Annual Medical Evaluations
Closely aligned with the need for firefighter fitness assessment is the need for firefighters to have an annual medical evaluation to ensure employee well-being and health status so they can safely perform their duties.

Firefighters are susceptible to developing hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, and obesity.

According to the NFPA, 43 percent of firefighter deaths are caused by overexertion and stress. In 2017, the Firefighter Cancer Support Network revealed that 61 percent of career firefighter lineof-duty deaths occurred as a result of cancer from 2002 to 2017. Periodic and directed medical testing and screening are vital to the well-being of firefighters and are effective in identifying problems at early stages in order to facilitate treatment. NFPA 1582, Standard on Comprehensive Occupational Medical Program for Fire Departments, outlines an occupational medical program for firefighters aimed at reducing health risks and provides guidance for periodic screening and medical evaluations. The following medical testing is recommended under the provisions of NFPA 1582:
■ Blood analysis.
■ Urinalysis.
■ Pulmonary function test.
■ Chest X-ray (every five years).
■ EKG.
■ Infectious disease screening.
■ Cancer screening.
■ Audiometric exam.
■ Vision testing.

St. Helena conducts an annual medical evaluation for its firefighters but this evaluation does not follow the parameters of NFPA 1572.

Agenda Item #13.1.

87 Recommendation: The St. Helena Fire Department should modify its annual medical physicals for firefighters and utilize the screening criteria specified in NFPA 1572, Standard on Comprehensive Occupational Medical Program for Fire Departments. (Recommendation No. 22.)
≈ ≈ ≈
In close alignment with annual medical evaluations is the issue involving employee drug testing. The city of St. Helena requires new employees to undergo drug testing, including firefighters. The city does not have drug testing requirements when there is reasonable suspicion or in a post-driving accident situation. CPSM believes that the fire department should expand it policy regarding drug testing to involve testing after a driving accident or when a supervisor has reasonable suspicion that an employee is under the influence.

Recommendation: The city of St. Helena should implement a drug testing policy that requires employees to undergo testing when there is reasonable suspicion or when the employee is involved in a vehicle accident while driving a fire department vehicle. (Recommendation No. 23.)

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Emergency management is the discipline and profession of applying science, technology, planning, and management to deal with extreme events that can injure or kill large numbers of people, do extensive damage to property, and disrupt community life. When such events occur and cause extensive harm, they are called disasters.43
Napa County has an adopted and well-designed Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) that includes the city of St. Helena. The county COP is an integrated plan based on the National Incident Management System; it provides an all-hazards approach in managing larger emergency incidents. The plan outlines a concept for emergency operations, assigns roles and responsibilities, and prescribes management and procedures for the Emergency Operations Center. Napa County has a total area of nearly 790 square miles and a population in 2020 estimated at 138,000. St. Helena is one of five municipalities in the county; the county seat is in Napa City.

The county EOP provides emergency management coordination, planning, and training opportunities for its municipal partners. This plan is issued in accordance with the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), the cornerstone of California’s emergency response system, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act, and the California Emergency Services Act (ESA), which establishes the authority for jurisdictions to guide their operations during a major disaster.

The County EOP is a usable and thorough document last updated and distributed in 2020. The City of St. Helena does not have its own EOP but operates under the guidelines and in cooperation with the county plan. The city has designated a large meeting room in St. Helena Fire Department to function as the city’s EOC when needed. This area is used for multiple purposes throughout the year but is very viable, if equipped appropriately, as a forum from which the coordination for a single-agency or joint operations event can be executed.

43. Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government. Eds. Thomas E. Drabek, Gerard J. Hoetmer. International City Management Association, 1991. p. xvii Agenda Item #13.1.

88 The EOC is intended to provide these primary functions:
■ Serve as a central information sharing center.
■ Collect, gather, and analyze data.
■ Maintain a countywide common operating picture of response activities. ■ Prepare OA-wide situation reports.
■ Coordinate/communicate Policy Group priorities.
■ Implement event management-by-objective.
□ Reconcile competing objectives.
□ Coordinate resource allocation priorities.
■ Maintain communication with DOCs and city/special district EOCs. □ Ensure that departments are aware of current incident objectives and make collaborative decisions.
□ Maintain a common level of situational awareness throughout the operational area. ■ Communicate and coordinate with the REOC.
■ Serve as a coordination and communication center for all county stakeholders, including the private sector and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as community hospitals, clinics, and ambulance providers.

While the Napa CEOP and its coordination with the city of St. Helena is well-designed and comprehensive in its organization, it is the responsibility of the City of St. Helena to ensure that key staff members along with elected officials and designated non-governmental organization are well-versed in the plan’s objectives and drill regularly in the activation of the EOC and the execution of its key activities. Given the frequent changing of staff both at the city and county levels, it is recommended that the City of St. Helena conduct a training drill that activates the EOC and test its emergency management communications and processing activities with the county on an annual basis.

Recommendation: The city of St. Helena should initiate an effort with Napa County Emergency Management that simulates the full activation of the city’s EOC and the exercise of the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) on an annual basis. (Recommendation No. 24.)
The following is a list of the key activities of the EOP that should be exercised in these training activities:
■ Organization and assignment of key responsibilities.
■ Administration and logistics of setting up the EOC.
■ The coordination of transportation resources.
■ Instituting and testing the necessary communications links. ■ Public works and engineering activities.
■ Firefighting.

Agenda Item #13.1.

89 ■ Law Enforcement, Looting and Evacuations
■ Mass care, emergency assistance, housing and human services. ■ Public health and medical services.
■ Search and rescue.
■ Oil and hazardous material response.
■ Agricultural and natural resources.
■ Energy.
■ Long-term community recovery.
■ External affairs.
■ Debris management.
■ Mass fatalities management.

The City of St. Helena has not developed a municipal continuity of operations plan (COOP). It is vital that each department within the city develop a detailed plan for the continuity of its specific operations, the succession of leadership, and the preservation of records.

Recommendation: The City of St. Helena should initiate an effort in which every city department develops and exercises a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP). (Recommendation No. 25.)
≈ ≈ ≈
A Continuity of Operations Plan details how a particular agency will continue to operate under adverse conditions including under circumstances where its primary operating locations are no longer functional or the normal staffing levels have been reduced so that an altered service model is required. FEMA provides a very functional guide in developing agency-specific COOP planning documents.
(See: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/org/ncp/coop/continuity_plan_federal_d_a.pdf). The Butte / Silver Bow County COOP document could serve as a model for this planning document.44
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER (911)
As mentioned previously, the current arrangement of agencies involved in the 911 Emergency Communications process in St. Helena appears redundant and likely prone to delays or even dropped calls. Currently the are three separate agencies involved in the processing 911 calls that originate in St. Helena. These include:
■ Calistoga / St. Helena consolidated public safety answering point (PSAP). ■ CAL-FIRE ECC.
■ Napa City Central Dispatch.

44. https://www.co.silverbow.mt.us/DocumentCenter/View/4842/Annex--COOP?bidId= Agenda Item #13.1.

90 Each of these entities operate from separate facilities, utilizing different personnel, and have differing levels of supervision and oversight in managing their individual operations. St Helena does not receive periodic reports regarding the combined activities of each of these entities providing services to the city. St. Helena officials are very aware of the difficulties associated with their current call taking and dispatching processes and have expressed frustration in finding a viable and cost-effective solution to this issue.

Part of the problem observed by CPSM in the composite of dispatching services currently being provided is that none of the three agencies are providing any reporting regarding the services being provided or any assessment regarding the quality of these services. St. Helena is currently paying an annual service fee to CAL FIRE for its services. In FY-24 this amount was nearly $80,000 and the city receives no reporting regarding these services. Napa City is responsible for dispatching AMR units into St. Helena. AMR is the provider of ALS services for the city and works in close cooperation with SHFD in the delivery of EMS care. Again, no reporting is provided to St.

Helena regarding the volume of activity in the city, any qualification regarding the types of patients encountered, number of transports, or any compliance assessment regarding this care.

The Calistoga/St. Helena PSAP was recently initiated and the system has experienced growing pains. There have been multiple position vacancies and service levels have suffered. Little or no reporting has been distributed from this center with regard to its services and the effectiveness of this operation.

Dispatch operations is a key element in the quality of public safety services being provided in a community. The dispatch center is a type of “gate-keeper” in determining the type of emergency being reported and the type of response that is warranted. With the mass volume of calls originating through the 911 system, it is essential that agencies have dispatch screening systems in effect that can rapidly and accurately determine the severity of incoming calls and effectively determine the appropriate response patterns and resources deployed on the basis of these assessments. This is the prime objective of how an efficient public safety dispatching system should be operating and St. Helena should be taking the steps necessary to ensure that its composite of dispatching operations is working effectively towards this end.

Recommendation: The City of St. Helena should initiate an effort to fully evaluate its dispatching operations and obtain the necessary reporting to understand the level of effectiveness of these operations. (Recommendation No. 26.)
≈ ≈ ≈
It is important that St. Helena receive regular reports regarding all aspects of these dispatching operations. These reports should be produced on a monthly basis and have the following information:
■ Number of calls processed for St. Helena.
■ Call types.
■ Call processing times (from receipt of the incoming call to the dispatch of resources). ■ Number of dropped calls.
■ Breakout of emergency and non-emergency calls.
■ Dispatching compliance with call-screening protocol guidelines.

Agenda Item #13.1.

91 Once St. Helena begins receiving a full reporting regarding all aspects of dispatching activities it will be in a more informed position to establish service delivery standards and to observe any trends that can be measured over time.

There are number of guiding standards that can be utilized in making this analysis. Comparisons can be made regarding the services being received and what ultimately is the desired level of service for St. Helena. The following entities have reputable standards regarding emergency public safety dispatching services that can be utilized by St. Helena in making these evaluations:
■ ISO.
■ NFPA 1225, Standard for Emergency Service Communications. ■ APCO ANS 1.107.1-2015, Standard for the Establishment of a Quality Assurance and Quality Improvement Program for Public Safety Answering Points. ■ IAED MPDS, Medical Priority Dispatching System.
■ IAED FPDS, Fire Priority Dispatching System.
■ Priority Dispatch, ProQA.
§ § §
Agenda Item #13.1.

92 SECTION 9. DATA ANALYSIS
This data analysis was prepared as a key component of the study of the fire services provided by the St. Helena Fire Department (SHFD) and the emergency medical services (EMS) provided by American Medical Response (AMR) in the City of St. Helena, and which was conducted by the Center for Public Safety Management LLC (CPSM). This analysis examines all calls for service between November 1, 2022, and October 31, 2023, as recorded in the St. Helena Emergency Command Center’s computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system as provided by the CAL FIRE Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit, SHFD’s National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) records, and AMR’s records management system.

In this report, CPSM analyzes calls and runs. A call is an emergency service request or incident. A run is a dispatch of a unit (i.e., a unit responding to a call). Thus, a call may include multiple runs.

The St. Helena Fire Department (SHFD) serves a population of about 5,300 people in an area of over five square miles covering the City of St. Helena and the surrounding area. SHFD is an allhazards response fire department, providing service and protection for fire and medical emergencies, hazardous material responses, vehicle accidents, and other incidents where life and property are threatened. The SHFD operates out of one fire station with six full-time firefighters and 18 part-time firefighters. It utilizes two Type I and one Type III engine, one Type I truck, two brushes, one water tender, two utility units, and one command vehicle.

In addition to the fire protection service provided by the SHFD, the City of St. Helena contracts with American Medical Response (AMR) for the emergency medical services (EMS) throughout the city.

This analysis is made up of two independent parts. The first part focuses on the fire protection service provided by SHFD. The second part studies the EMS provided by AMR in the City of St.

Helena.

Between November 1, 2022, and October 31, 2023, SHFD responded to 844 calls, of which 45 percent were EMS calls, 33 percent were fire calls, and 22 percent were other calls. The total combined workload (deployed time) for SHFD units was 388.8 hours. In responding to calls that involved the fire department, the average dispatch time was 1.6 minutes, and the average response time was 5.9 minutes. The 90th percentile dispatch time was 2.5 minutes and the 90th percentile response time was 8.5 minutes.

The average dispatch time was 1.0 minutes, and the average response time was 6.0 minutes.

The 90th percentile dispatch time was 2.4 minutes and the 90th percentile response time was 9.9 minutes.

Agenda Item #13.1.

93 PART 1: FIRE PROTECTION AND RESCUE
We received CAD data and NFIRS data for the St. Helena Fire Department (SHFD). We first matched the NFIRS and CAD data based on the incident numbers provided. Then, we classified the calls in a series of steps. We first used the NFIRS incident type to identify canceled calls and to assign emergency medical service (EMS), motor vehicle accident (MVA), and fire category call types. For calls that did not have matched NFIRS records, we instead used the incident type description in the CAD data to identify the call type. Calls that occurred outside SHFD’s response area were identified as aid given. The method used to categorize call types is shown in Attachment IV.

We received records for a total of 871 calls that occurred between November 1, 2022, and October 31, 2023. We removed 27 calls to which a dispatched SHFD unit did not have at least an en route or an arrive time. As a result, a total of 844 calls were included in this part of the study.

This part of the analysis is made up of four sections. The first section focuses on call types and dispatches. The second section explores the time spent and the workload of individual units.

The third section presents an analysis of the busiest hours in the year studied. The fourth and final section provides a response time analysis of responding SHFD units.

Agenda Item #13.1.

94 SHFD RESPONDING CALL TOTALS
Between November 1, 2022, and October 31, 2023, the St. Helena Fire Department (SHFD) responded to 844 calls. Of these, three were outside fire calls and six were structure fire calls within the City of St. Helena.

SHFD Responding Calls by Type
Table 9-1 shows the number of calls that SHFD responded to by call type, average calls per day, and the percentage of calls that fall into each call type category. Figure 9-1 shows the percentage of calls by grand call type. Figures 9-2 and 9-3 show the percentage of calls that fall into each EMS (Figure 9-2) and fire (Figure 9-3) type category.

TABLE 9-1: SHFD Calls by Type
Call Type Total Calls Calls per Day Call Percentage
Medical and other 357 1.0 42.3
Motor vehicle accident 20 0.1 2.4
EMS Subtotal 377 1.0 44.7
False alarm 67 0.2 7.9
Good intent 10 0.0 1.2
Hazard 51 0.1 6.0
Public service 141 0.4 16.7
Outside fire 3 0.0 0.4
Structure fire 6 0.0 0.7
Fire Subtotal 278 0.8 32.9
Canceled 21 0.1 2.5
Aid given* 168 0.5 19.9
Total 844 2.3 100.0
Note: *Calls outside St Helena were labeled as aid given.

Agenda Item #13.1.

95 FIGURE 9-1: SHFD Responding Calls by Grand Type
FIGURE 9-2: SHFD Responding EMS Calls by Type
Agenda Item #13.1.

96 FIGURE 9-3: SHFD Responding Fire Calls by Type
Observations:
■ SHFD responded to an average of 2.3 calls, including 0.5 aid given and 0.1 canceled calls, per day.
■ EMS calls for the year totaled 377 (45 percent of all calls), an average of 1.0 per day. ■ Fire calls for the year totaled 278 (33 percent of all calls), an average of 0.8 per day. □ Public service calls were the largest category of fire calls at 51 percent of fire calls, an average of 0.4 calls per day.
□ False alarm calls made up 24 percent of fire calls, an average of 0.2 calls per day. □ Structure and outside fire calls combined made up three percent of fire calls, or one call every 41 days on average.

Agenda Item #13.1.

97 SHFD Responding Calls by Type and Duration
The following table shows the duration of calls by type using four duration categories: less than 30 minutes, 30 minutes to one hour, one to two hours, and two or more hours.

TABLE 9-2: Calls by Type and Duration
Call Type Less than
30 Minutes
30 Minutes
to One Hour
One to
Two Hours
Two or
More Hours Total
Medical and other 307 42 7 1 357
Motor vehicle accident 11 5 4 0 20
EMS Subtotal 318 47 11 1 377
False alarm 60 3 4 0 67
Good intent 9 1 0 0 10
Hazard 41 7 3 0 51
Public service 124 11 6 0 141
Outside fire 2 1 0 0 3
Structure fire 3 1 1 1 6
Fire Subtotal 239 24 14 1 278
Canceled 18 1 2 0 21
Aid given 121 22 17 8 168
Total 696 94 44 10 844
Observations:
■ A total of 375 EMS calls (97 percent) lasted less than one hour, and 12 EMS calls (three percent) lasted one or more hours.
□ A total of 16 motor vehicle accidents (80 percent) lasted less than one hour, and four motor vehicle accidents (20 percent) lasted one to two hours. ■ A total of 263 fire calls (95 percent) lasted less than one hour, and 15 fire calls (five percent) lasted one or more hours.
□ All outside fire calls lasted less than one hour.
□ A total of four structure fire calls (67 percent) lasted less than one hour, one structure fire call (17 percent) lasted one to two hours, and one structure fire call (17 percent) lasted two or more hours.

Agenda Item #13.1.

98 SHFD Responding Calls by Month and Hour of Day
Figure 9-4 shows the monthly variation in the average daily number of calls handled by SHFD between November 1, 2022, and October 31, 2023. Similarly, Figure 9-5 illustrates the average number of calls received each hour of the day.

FIGURE 9-4: SHFD Responding Calls per Day by Month
Observations:
■ Average EMS calls per day ranged from 0.8 in April 2023 to 1.2 in both July and October 2023. ■ Average fire calls per day ranged from 0.4 in May 2023 to 1.1 in September 2023. ■ Average calls per day overall ranged from 1.9 in May 2023 to 2.7 in October 2023.

Agenda Item #13.1.

99 FIGURE 9-5: Average SHFD Responding Calls by Hour of Day Observations:
■ Average EMS calls per hour ranged from 0.01 between midnight and 1:00 a.m. to

0.08 between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.
■ Average fire calls per hour ranged from 0.01 between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. to

0.07 between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m.
■ Average calls per hour overall ranged from 0.03 between midnight and 1:00 a.m., and between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., to 0.16 between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Agenda Item #13.1.

100
SHFD Units Arriving at Calls
In this section, we limit ourselves to calls where a SHFD unit arrives. For this reason, there are 75 fewer calls in Table 9-3 than in Table 9-1. Table 9-3, along with Figures 9-6 and 9-7, detail the number of calls with one, two, and three or more SHFD units arriving at a call, broken down by call type.

TABLE 9-3: Calls by Type and Number of Arriving SHFD Units Call Type Number of Units Total
One Two Three or More Calls
Medical and other 344 8 1 353
Motor vehicle accident 12 6 0 18
EMS Subtotal 356 14 1 371
False alarm 58 0 0 58
Good intent 6 1 0 7
Hazard 37 6 2 45
Public service 135 2 1 138
Outside fire 2 1 0 3
Structure fire 1 2 3 6
Fire Subtotal 239 12 6 257
Canceled 12 0 0 12
Aid given 112 14 3 129
Total 719 40 10 769
Total Percentage 93.5 5.2 1.3 100.0
Note: Out of 75 calls that did not have an arriving unit, nine were canceled calls, six were EMS calls, 21 were fire calls, and 39 were aid-given calls.

Agenda Item #13.1.

101
FIGURE 9-6: Number of Arriving SHFD Units for EMS Calls FIGURE 9-7: Number of Arriving SHFD Units for Fire Calls Agenda Item #13.1.

102
Observations:

Overall
■ Out of 844 total calls, SHFD arrived at 769 calls (91 percent). ■ On average, 1.1 units arrived at all calls; for 93 percent of calls, only one unit arrived. ■ Overall, three or more units arrived at one percent of calls.

EMS
■ On average, 1.0 units arrived per EMS call.
■ For EMS calls, one unit arrived 96 percent of the time, and two or more units arrived 4 percent of the time.

Fire
■ On average, 1.1 units arrived per fire call.
■ For fire calls, one unit arrived 93 percent of the time, two units arrived five percent of the time, and three or more units arrived two percent of the time. ■ For outside fire calls, one unit arrived 67 percent of the time, and two units arrived 33 percent of the time.
■ For structure fire calls, one unit arrived 17 percent of the time, two units arrived 33 percent of the time, and three or more units arrived 50 percent of the time.

Agenda Item #13.1.

103
SHFD WORKLOAD: RUNS AND TOTAL TIME SPENT
The workload of SHFD’s units is measured in two ways: runs and deployed time. The deployed time of a run is measured from the time a unit is dispatched through the time the unit is cleared.

Because multiple units respond to some calls, there are more runs (932) than calls (844) and the average deployed time per run varies from the average duration per call.

Runs and Deployed Time
Deployed time, also referred to as deployed hours, is the total deployment time of SHFD units deployed on all runs. Table 9-4 shows the total deployed time, both overall and broken down by type of run, for all non-administrative SHFD units. Table 9-5 and Figure 9-8 present the average deployed minutes by hour of day.

TABLE 9-4: SHFD Annual Runs and Deployed Time by Type
Run Type Minutes
per Run
Total
Hours
Percent
of Hours
Minutes
per Day
Total
Runs
Runs
per Day
Medical and other 22.6 139.1 35.8 22.9 370 1.0
Motor vehicle accident 34.0 15.3 3.9 2.5 27 0.1
EMS Subtotal 23.3 154.4 39.7 25.4 397 1.1
False alarm 15.5 17.8 4.6 2.9 69 0.2
Good intent 15.6 2.9 0.7 0.5 11 0.0
Hazard 21.6 22.7 5.8 3.7 63 0.2
Public service 18.5 45.3 11.7 7.5 147 0.4
Outside fire 24.9 1.7 0.4 0.3 4 0.0
Structure fire 69.2 18.5 4.7 3.0 16 0.0
Fire Subtotal 21.1 108.8 28.0 17.9 310 0.8
Canceled 14.9 6.0 1.5 1.0 24 0.1
Aid given 35.7 119.6 30.8 19.7 201 0.6
Other Subtotal 33.5 125.6 32.3 20.6 225 0.6
Total 25.0 388.8 100.0 63.9 932 2.6
Agenda Item #13.1.

104
Observations:

Overall
■ The total deployed time for the year was 388.8 hours. The daily average was 63.9 minutes for all units combined.
■ There were 932 runs, including 201 runs dispatched for aid-given calls and 24 runs dispatched for canceled calls. The daily average was 2.6 runs.

EMS
■ EMS runs accounted for 40 percent of the total workload. ■ The average deployed time for EMS runs was 23.3 minutes. The deployed time for all EMS runs averaged 25.4 minutes per day.

Fire
■ Fire runs accounted for 28 percent of the total workload. ■ The average deployed time for fire runs was 21.1 minutes. The deployed time for all fire runs averaged 17.9 minutes per day.
■ There were 20 runs for structure and outside fire calls combined, with a total workload of

20.1 hours. This accounted for five percent of the total workload. ■ The average deployed time for outside fire runs was 24.9 minutes per run, and the average deployed time for structure fire runs was 69.2 minutes per run.

Agenda Item #13.1.

105
TABLE 9-5: SHFD Deployed Minutes by Hour of Day
Hour EMS Fire Other Total
0 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.8
1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.9
2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.8
3 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.7
4 0.5 0.5 0.1 1.1
5 0.5 0.7 0.3 1.5
6 0.5 0.6 1.0 2.2
7 1.1 0.6 0.5 2.2
8 0.8 1.2 0.6 2.6
9 1.1 1.1 1.2 3.4
10 1.4 0.6 1.3 3.3
11 1.6 0.6 0.8 3.0
12 1.5 0.7 1.3 3.4
13 1.1 1.7 1.9 4.6
14 1.7 1.1 1.8 4.6
15 2.1 0.7 1.8 4.6
16 2.0 0.8 1.4 4.3
17 1.3 0.5 1.3 3.1
18 1.5 1.2 1.4 4.1
19 1.0 1.1 0.9 3.0
20 1.1 0.6 0.9 2.6
21 1.3 0.8 1.0 3.1
22 0.7 1.0 0.5 2.2
23 0.7 0.9 0.1 1.7
Total 25.4 17.9 20.6 63.9
Agenda Item #13.1.

106
FIGURE 9-8: Average SHFD Deployed Minutes by Hour of Day Observations:
■ Hourly deployed time was highest during the day from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., averaging between 4.3 minutes and 4.6 minutes.
■ Average deployed time peaked between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., averaging 4.6 minutes. ■ Average deployed time was lowest between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., averaging 0.7 minutes.

Agenda Item #13.1.

107
SHFD Workload by Unit
Table 9-6 provides a summary of each SHFD unit’s workload for the period between November 1, 2022, and October 31, 2023. Tables 9-7 and 9-8 provide a more detailed view of the workload, showing each unit’s runs broken out by run type (Table 9-7) and its daily average deployed time by run type (Table 9-8).

TABLE 9-6: SHFD Workload by Unit
Unit Type Minutes
per Run Hours Percent Minutes
per Day Runs Runs
per Day
B17 Utility 14.0 1.2 0.3 0.2 5 0.0
BR17 Brush 26.3 3.1 0.8 0.5 7 0.0
BR217 Brush 76.8 1.3 0.3 0.2 1 0.0
CH170 Command 35.0 26.2 6.7 4.3 45 0.1
E17 Engine 22.3 296.1 76.2 48.7 798 2.2
E317 Engine 24.1 10.9 2.8 1.8 27 0.1
E417 Engine 60.2 21.1 5.4 3.5 21 0.1
TRK17 Truck 40.9 6.1 1.6 1.0 9 0.0
U17 Utility 47.3 2.4 0.6 0.4 3 0.0
WT17 Water tender 76.9 20.5 5.3 3.4 16 0.0
Total 25.0 388.8 100.0 63.9 932 2.6
Agenda Item #13.1.

108
TABLE 9-7: Total Runs by Type and SHFD Unit
Unit Unit
Type EMS False
Alarm
Good
Intent Hazard Public
Service
Out
Fire
Struct
Fire Cancel Aid
Given Total
B17 Utility 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 5
BR17 Brush 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 7
BR217 Brush 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
CH170 Admin 12 1 0 7 2 1 4 1 17 45
E17 Engine 370 67 10 46 131 3 7 21 143 798
E317 Engine 8 0 1 2 9 0 1 1 5 27
E417 Engine 2 1 0 3 3 0 0 1 11 21
TRK17 Truck 1 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 2 9
U17 Utility 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3
WT17 Water
tender 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16
Total 397 69 11 63 4 147 16 24 201 932
TABLE 9-8: Deployed Minutes per Day by Type and SHFD Unit Unit Unit
Type EMS False
Alarm
Good
Intent Hazard Public
Service
Out
Fire
Struct
Fire Cancel Aid
Given Total
B17 Utility 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
BR17 Brush 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5
BR217 Brush 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2
CH170 Admin 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.2 1.5 4.3
E17 Engine 23.5 2.9 0.4 2.6 6.3 0.2 1.0 0.8 10.9 48.7
E317 Engine 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 1.8
E417 Engine 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 3.5
TRK17 Truck 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.1 1.0
U17 Utility 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4
WT17 Water
tender 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.4
Total 25.4 2.9 0.5 3.7 0.3 7.5 3.0 1.0 19.7 63.9
Observations:
■ Engine E17 made the most runs (798 or an average of 2.2 runs per day) and had the highest total annual deployed time (296.1 hours or an average of 48.7 minutes per day). □ EMS calls accounted for 46 percent of runs and 48 percent of total deployed time. □ Outside and structure fire calls accounted for one percent of runs and three percent of the total deployed time.

Agenda Item #13.1.

109
SHFD Workload by Location
Table 9-9 breaks down the workload of SHFD by the locations where the calls occurred.

Table 9-10 provides further detail on the workload associated with structure and outside fire calls, also broken down by location.

TABLE 9-9: Annual Workload by Location
Location Calls Percent
Calls Runs Runs Per
Day
Minutes
Per Run
Work
Hours
Percent
Work
Minutes
Per Day
St. Helena 676 80.1 731 2.0 22.1 269.2 69.2 44.3
Napa* 120 14.2 141 0.4 29.0 68.1 17.5 11.2
Deer Park 18 2.1 25 0.1 51.1 21.3 5.5 3.5
Calistoga 14 1.7 17 0.0 32.5 9.2 2.4 1.5
Rutherford 5 0.6 5 0.0 22.5 1.9 0.5 0.3
Yountville 3 0.4 4 0.0 16.7 1.1 0.3 0.2
Dry Creek 2 0.2 2 0.0 182.8 6.1 1.6 1.0
Santa Rosa 2 0.2 3 0.0 32.9 1.6 0.4 0.3
Capell Valley 1 0.1 1 0.0 31.4 0.5 0.1 0.1
Del Norte County 1 0.1 1 0.0 450.4 7.5 1.9 1.2
Pope Valley 1 0.1 1 0.0 22.3 0.4 0.1 0.1
Spanish Flat 1 0.1 1 0.0 114.0 1.9 0.5 0.3
Total 844 100.0 932 2.6 25.0 388.8 100.0 63.9
Note: *Unincorporated Napa County.

TABLE 9-10: SHFD Runs for Structure and Outside Fires by Municipality Location
Structure Fires Outside Fires Total
Deployed
Hours
Percent
Deployed
Hours Runs Minutes
per Run Runs Minutes
per Run
St. Helena 16 69.2 4 24.9 20.1 27.0
Napa* 5 20.5 13 63.1 15.4 20.7
Calistoga 3 72.1 0 NA 3.6 4.8
Deer Park 3 92.6 8 90.0 16.6 22.3
Dry Creek 2 182.8 0 NA 6.1 8.2
Capell Valley 1 31.4 0 NA 0.5 0.7
Pope Valley 1 22.3 0 NA 0.4 0.5
Rutherford 1 41.0 0 NA 0.7 0.9
Spanish Flat 1 114.0 0 NA 1.9 2.6
Yountville 1 22.9 0 NA 0.4 0.5
Total 34 67.7 28 77.2 74.4 100.0
Note: *Unincorporated Napa County area.

Agenda Item #13.1.

110
Observations:

City of St. Helena
■ There were 676 calls or 80 percent of the total calls within St. Helena. ■ There were 731 runs, including 24 runs dispatched for canceled calls. The daily average was

2.0 runs.
■ The total deployed time for the year was 269.2 hours or 69 percent of SHFD’s total annual workload. The daily average was 44.3 minutes for all units combined.

Aid Given
■ There were 168 calls or 20 percent of the total calls. ■ There were 201 runs, including 30 runs dispatched for canceled calls. The daily average was

0.6 runs.
■ The total deployed time for the year was 119.6 hours or 31 percent of SHFD’s total annual workload. The daily average was 19.8 minutes for all units combined.

Agenda Item #13.1.

111

ANALYSIS OF BUSIEST HOURS
In this analysis, we included all 844 calls given in Table 9-1. For these calls, there is significant variability in the number of calls from hour to hour. One special concern relates to the resources available for hours with the heaviest workload. We tabulated the data for each of the 8,760 hours between November 1, 2022, and October 31, 2023. Table 9-11 shows the number of hours in which there were zero to two or more calls during the hour. Table 9-12 shows the ten one-hour intervals that had the most calls during the studied period. Table 9-13 examines the number of times a call overlapped with another call.

TABLE 9-11: Frequency Distribution of the Number of Calls Calls in an Hour Frequency Percentage
0 7,965 90.9
1 749 8.6
2+ 46 0.5
Total 8,760 100.0
TABLE 9-12: Top Ten Hours with the Most Calls Received
Hour Number
of Calls
Number
of Runs
Total
Deployed Hours
7/27/2023, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. 3 4 1.8
3/14/2023, noon to 1:00 p.m. 3 4 1.1
11/25/2022, 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. 3 3 0.5
3/28/2023, noon to 1:00 p.m. 2 4 2.9
1/16/2023, 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 2 4 2.6
8/1/2023, 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. 2 4 2.4
10/10/2023, 11:00 a.m. to noon 2 4 2.0
1/19/2023, 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 2 3 1.7
10/8/2023, 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. 2 3 1.6
4/26/2023, 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 2 3 1.3
Note: Total deployed hours is a measure of the total time spent responding to calls received in the hour. The deployed time from these calls may extend into the next hour or hours.

TABLE 9-13: Frequency of Overlapping Calls
Scenario Number of
Calls
Percent of All
Calls Total Hours
No overlapped call 819 97.0 345.5
Overlapped with one call 25 3.0 5.2
Agenda Item #13.1.

112
Observations:
■ During 46 hours (0.5 percent of all hours), two or more calls occurred; in other words, the department responded to two or more calls in an hour roughly once every eight days. ■ The highest number of calls to occur in an hour was three, which happened three times. □ One hour with three calls was 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on July 27, 2023. The hour’s three calls involved four individual dispatches resulting in 109 minutes of deployed time. These three calls included one canceled call, one medical and other call, and one public service call. □ Another hour with three calls was noon to 1:00 p.m. on March 14, 2023. The hour’s three calls involved four individual dispatches resulting in 68 minutes of deployed time. These three calls included two hazard calls and one public service call.
□ The third hour with three calls was 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on November 25, 2022. The hour’s three calls involved three individual dispatches resulting in 32 minutes of deployed time.

These three calls included one aid-given call, one hazard call, and one medical and other call.

Agenda Item #13.1.

113

SHFD RESPONSE TIME
In this part of the analysis, we present response time statistics for different call types. We separate response time into its identifiable components. Dispatch time is the difference between the time a call is received and the time a unit is dispatched. Dispatch time includes call processing time, which is the time required to determine the nature of the emergency and the types of resources to dispatch. Turnout time is the difference between dispatch time and the time a unit is en route to a call’s location. Travel time is the difference between the time en route and arrival on scene.

Response time is the total time elapsed between receiving a call to arriving on scene.

In this analysis, we included all calls to which at least one non-administrative unit arrived.

Canceled and aid-given calls were not included. In addition, calls with a total response time exceeding 30 minutes were excluded. Finally, we focused on units that had complete time stamps, that is, units with all components recorded, so that we could calculate each segment of response time.

Based on the methodology above, for 844 calls (Table 9-1), we excluded 168 aid-given calls, 21 canceled calls, 24 calls where no units recorded a valid on-scene time, 43 calls where one or more segments of the first arriving unit’s response time could not be calculated due to missing or faulty data, and 1 call with a total response time exceeding 30 minutes. As a result, in this section, a total of 587 calls are included in the analysis.

SHFD Response Time by Type of Call
Table 9-14 breaks down the average and 90th percentile dispatch, turnout, travel, and total response times by call type. A 90th percentile means that 90 percent of calls had response times at or below that number. For example, Table 9-14 shows an overall 90th percentile response time of 8.5 minutes, which means that 90 percent of the time, a call had a response time of no more than 8.5 minutes. Figure 9-9 illustrates the average response time by call type.

Agenda Item #13.1.

114
TABLE 9-14: Average and 90th Percentile Response Time of First Arriving SHFD Unit, by Call Type
Call Type Average Response Time, Min. 90th Percentile Response Time, Min. Call
Count Dispatch Turnout Travel Total Dispatch Turnout Travel Total Medical and other 1.5 1.2 2.4 5.1 2.2 2.1 3.8 6.9 335
Motor vehicle
accident 1.6 1.3 3.4 6.3 3.2 1.9 6.4 8.6 15
EMS Subtotal 1.5 1.2 2.4 5.1 2.2 2.1 3.9 6.9 350
False alarm 2.1 1.7 3.8 7.6 2.8 2.5 8.6 12.2 53
Good intent 1.8 1.8 4.0 7.6 2.8 3.8 8.0 11.1 6
Hazard 2.5 1.7 4.0 8.1 4.0 2.6 9.2 13.9 42
Public service 1.6 1.6 3.4 6.5 2.6 3.0 5.4 9.2 129
Outside fire 2.4 1.7 6.7 10.9 2.7 2.2 14.0 18.5 3
Structure fire 1.7 1.7 2.3 5.7 2.1 3.2 3.1 7.6 4
Fire Subtotal 1.9 1.6 3.6 7.1 3.2 2.8 6.8 11.1 237
Total 1.6 1.4 2.9 5.9 2.5 2.5 4.9 8.5 587
FIGURE 9-9: Average Response Time of First Arriving SHFD Unit, by Call Type Agenda Item #13.1.

115
Observations:
■ The average dispatch time was 1.6 minutes.
■ The average turnout time was 1.4 minutes.
■ The average travel time was 2.9 minutes.
■ The average total response time was 5.9 minutes.
■ The average response time was 5.1 minutes for EMS calls and 7.1 minutes for fire calls. ■ The average response time was 10.9 minutes for outside fires and 5.7 minutes for structure fires. ■ The 90th percentile dispatch time was 2.5 minutes.
■ The 90th percentile turnout time was 2.5 minutes.
■ The 90th percentile travel time was 4.9 minutes.
■ The 90th percentile total response time was 8.5 minutes. ■ The 90th percentile response time was 6.9 minutes for EMS calls and 11.1 minutes for fire calls. ■ The 90th percentile response time was 18.5 minutes for outside fires and 7.6 minutes for structure fires.

Agenda Item #13.1.

116
The following table shows the average response time by the time of day. The table also shows the 90th percentile response times. Figure 9-10 shows the average response time by the time of day.

TABLE 9-15: Average and 90th Percentile Response Times of First Arriving SHFD Unit, by Hour of Day
Hour
Minutes 90th Percentile
Response Time,
Minutes
Number
Dispatch Turnout Travel of Calls Response
Time
0 1.3 2.8 3.8 7.9 10.3 8
1 1.0 2.3 3.0 6.3 7.2 10
2 1.5 2.8 2.6 6.9 8.9 8
3 1.5 2.6 3.4 7.5 9.5 11
4 1.7 1.9 2.9 6.5 8.2 17
5 1.4 2.3 2.6 6.3 8.4 10
6 2.1 2.1 3.9 8.1 13.1 13
7 1.8 1.5 2.3 5.6 7.8 24
8 2.1 1.3 3.1 6.5 9.2 29
9 1.6 1.1 2.4 5.1 7.8 39
10 1.8 1.0 3.1 5.9 6.9 33
11 1.7 1.2 2.1 4.9 7.7 27
12 1.6 1.2 3.0 5.8 9.8 36
13 1.7 1.2 3.2 6.1 10.1 40
14 1.6 1.2 2.7 5.5 7.2 40
15 1.7 1.0 2.5 5.3 7.4 38
16 1.8 1.1 2.9 5.8 9.2 33
17 2.0 1.4 3.3 6.8 12.6 24
18 1.7 1.2 3.9 6.8 12.9 35
19 1.7 1.3 2.2 5.1 6.7 28
20 1.3 1.2 2.6 5.2 6.7 30
21 1.4 1.5 2.5 5.4 8.0 22
22 1.2 1.7 3.4 6.2 13.8 18
23 1.3 2.1 2.8 6.2 7.8 14
Total 1.6 1.4 2.9 5.9 8.5 587
Agenda Item #13.1.

117
FIGURE 9-10: Average Response Time of First Arriving SHFD Unit, by Hour of Day Observations:
■ Average dispatch time was between 1.0 minutes (1:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.) and 2.1 minutes (8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.).
■ Average turnout time was between 1.0 minutes (10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.) and 2.9 minutes (2:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m.).
■ Average travel time was between 2.1 minutes (11:00 a.m. to noon) and 3.9 minutes (6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.).
■ Average response time was between 4.9 minutes (11:00 a.m. to noon) and 8.1 minutes (6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.).
■ The 90th percentile response time was between 6.7 minutes (7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) and

13.8 minutes (10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.).

Agenda Item #13.1.

118
SHFD Response Time Distribution
Here, we present a more detailed look at how response times to calls are distributed. The cumulative distribution of total response time for the first arriving unit to EMS calls is shown in Figure 9-11 and Table 9-16. Figure 9-11 shows response times for the first arriving unit to EMS calls as a frequency distribution in whole-minute increments, and Figure 9-12 shows the same for the first arriving unit to outside and structure fire calls.

The cumulative percentages here are read in the same way as a percentile. In Figure 9-11, the 90th percentile of 6.9 minutes means that 90 percent of EMS calls had a response time of

6.9 minutes or less. In Table 9-16, the cumulative percentage of 95.2 and 77.8, for example, means that 95.2 percent of EMS calls and 77.8 percent of outside and structure fire calls, respectively, had a response time under 8 minutes.

FIGURE 9-11: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time for First Arriving SHFD Unit, EMS
Agenda Item #13.1.

119
FIGURE 9-12: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time for First Arriving SHFD Unit, Outside and Structure Fires
TABLE 9-16: Cumulative Distribution of Response Time for First Arriving SHFD Unit Response Time
(minute)
EMS Structure and Outside Fires
Frequency Cumulative
Percentage Frequency Cumulative
Percentage
1 0 0.0 0 0.0
2 2 0.6 0 0.0
3 20 6.3 0 0.0
4 84 30.3 0 0.0
5 99 58.6 2 28.6
6 59 75.4 2 57.1
7 51 90.0 0 57.1
8 18 95.1 1 71.4
9 6 96.9 0 71.4
10+ 11 100.0 2 100.0
Agenda Item #13.1.

120
PART 2. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE
In this part, we examine the response and workload of American Medical Response Inc. (AMR) in the City of St. Helena between November 1, 2022, and October 31, 2023.

We received call data and separated chief complaint information from the AMR records management system. We used the chief complaint information to assign an EMS call category.

The method of call categorization is described in Attachment V.

We received records for a total of 836 calls that occurred between November 1, 2022, and October 31, 2023. Based on the agency’s suggestion, we included a total of 755 calls as shown in the following table in this part of the study. In addition, out of the 755 calls, AMR units did not arrive at 51 calls. We label these 51 calls as canceled and did not include them in the response time analysis.

This part of the analysis includes four sections. The first section focuses on call types and dispatches. The second section examines the time spent and the workload of AMR units. The third section provides a response time analysis. The fourth and final section is an analysis of AMR ambulance transport.

TABLE 9-17: AMR Responding Calls by Type
Final Priority Code Description Total Calls
1 Potentially Life-Threatening Emergency Response 659
2 Non- Life-Threatening Emergency Response 19
3 Emergency Response 10
4 Non-Emergency Interfacility ALS Transports 67
Total 755
Agenda Item #13.1.

121

AMR RESPONDING CALLS BY TYPE
Between November 1, 2022, and October 31, 2023, AMR responded to 755 calls inside the City of St. Helena.

AMR Responding Calls by Type
Table 9-18 and Figure 9-13 show the number of calls by type, average calls per day, and the percentage of calls that fall into each call type category for the 12 months studied. Note that Table 9-18 and Figure 9-13 were created separately from the subsequent results. Since the call type description was not available in the provided call data, we instead used separate chief complaint information to categorize calls. The chief complaint data included 713 calls.

TABLE 9-18: AMR Responding Calls by Type
Call Type Total Calls Calls per
Day Percentage
Breathing difficulty 32 0.1 4.5
Cardiac and stroke 65 0.2 9.1
Fall and injury 108 0.3 15.1
Illness and other 353 1.0 49.5
Overdose and psychiatric 42 0.1 5.9
Seizure and unconsciousness 113 0.3 15.8
Total 713 2.0 100.0
Note: This table includes the chief complaint information provided separately from the data included in subsequent tables and will not match.

Agenda Item #13.1.

122
FIGURE 9-13: AMR Responding EMS Calls by Type
Observations:
■ Illness and other calls were the largest category of EMS calls at 50 percent of EMS calls, an average of 1.0 calls per day.
■ Cardiac and stroke calls made up nine percent of EMS calls, an average of 0.2 calls per day.

Agenda Item #13.1.

123
AMR Responding Calls by Type and Duration
The following table shows the duration of calls by grand call type using four duration categories:
less than 30 minutes, 30 minutes to one hour, one to two hours, and two or more hours.

TABLE 9-19: AMR Responding Calls by Type and Duration
Call Type Less than
30 Minutes
30 Minutes
to One Hour
One to
Two Hours
Two or
More Hours Total
EMS 161 153 310 80 704
Canceled 49 2 0 0 51
Total 210 155 310 80 755
Note: Out of 755 calls, AMR units dd not arrive 51 calls. These 51 calls were labeled as canceled.

Observations:
■ On average, there were 1.1 EMS calls per day that lasted more than one hour. ■ A total of 314 EMS calls (45 percent) lasted less than one hour, 310 EMS calls (44 percent) lasted one to two hours, and 80 EMS calls (11 percent) lasted two or more hours.

Agenda Item #13.1.

124
Average AMR Responding Calls by Month and Hour of Day
Figure 9-14 shows the monthly variation in the combined daily number of calls handled by AMR in the city. Similarly, Figure 9-15 illustrates the average number of calls received each hour of the day.

FIGURE 9-14: Average AMR Responding Calls by Month
Observations:
■ Average EMS calls per day overall ranged from 1.2 in March 2023 to 2.8 in July 2023 ■ Average total calls per day overall ranged from 1.3 in March 2023 to 3.1 in July 2023.

Agenda Item #13.1.

125
FIGURE 9-15: Average AMR Responding Calls by Hour of Day Observations:
■ Average EMS calls per hour overall ranged from 0.03 between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. to

0.14 between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
■ Average total calls per hour overall ranged from 0.03 between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. to

0.16 between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Agenda Item #13.1.

126
AMR WORKLOAD: RUNS AND TOTAL TIME SPENT
The workload of AMR units is measured in two ways: runs and deployed time. Because multiple units respond to some calls, there are more runs (1,378) than calls (755) and the average deployed time per run varies from the average duration per call.

AMR Unit Runs and Deployed Time
The following table provides a summary of each AMR unit’s workload for the period between November 1, 2022, and October 31, 2023. Figure 9-16 presents the average deployed minutes by hour of day.

TABLE 9-20: AMR Workload by Unit
Unit Minutes
per Run Hours Percent Minutes
per Day Runs Runs
per Day
MED51 75.7 78.2 7.3 12.9 62 0.2
MED54 72.8 8.5 0.8 1.4 7 0.0
MED57 64.4 36.5 3.4 6.0 34 0.1
MED59 59.6 135.1 12.6 22.2 136 0.4
MED60 72.3 89.2 8.3 14.7 74 0.2
MED61 61.1 94.8 8.9 15.6 93 0.3
MED62 48.4 62.9 5.9 10.3 78 0.2
MED63 58.5 75.0 7.0 12.3 77 0.2
MED64 64.9 51.9 4.9 8.5 48 0.1
MED65 75.8 56.9 5.3 9.3 45 0.1
MED66 69.1 53.0 5.0 8.7 46 0.1
MED67 66.4 56.5 5.3 9.3 51 0.1
MED68 72.6 42.3 4.0 7.0 35 0.1
MED69 64.8 30.2 2.8 5.0 28 0.1
MED72 22.7 0.4 0.0 0.1 1 0.0
MED74 481.2 8.0 0.8 1.3 1 0.0
MED92 61.3 2.0 0.2 0.3 2 0.0
QRV71 17.2 66.3 6.2 10.9 231 0.6
QRV79 22.1 121.0 11.3 19.9 329 0.9
Total 46.5 1,068.7 100.0 175.7 1,378 3.8
Observations:
■ The total deployed time for the year was 1,068.7 hours. The daily average was 2.9 hours for all units combined.
■ There were 1,378 runs, including 89 runs dispatched for canceled calls. The daily average was

3.8 runs.

Agenda Item #13.1.

127
FIGURE 9-16: Average Deployed Minutes by Hour of Day
Observations:
■ Hourly deployed time was highest during the day from 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., averaging between 10.2 minutes and 12.6 minutes.
■ Average deployed time peaked between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., averaging 12.6 minutes. ■ Average deployed time was lowest between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., averaging 2.2 minutes.

Agenda Item #13.1.

128

AMR RESPONSE TIME
The method of response time analysis is similar to that introduced in the response time analysis section for the SHFD. In this analysis, we included all calls within the City of St. Helena to which at least one AMR unit arrived. For 755 total calls, we excluded 51 canceled calls, 64 nonemergency interfacility ALS transport calls, and 22 calls where one or more segments of the first arriving unit’s response time could not be calculated due to missing or faulty data. As a result, a total of 618 calls are included in this section’s analysis.

The following table summarizes the average and 90th percentile total response times, broken out by the final priority code for calls. The 90th percentile of 9.9 minutes means that 90 percent of AMR responding calls had a response time of 9.9 minutes or less.

TABLE 9-21: Average and 90th Percentile AMR Response Times Final
Priority
Code
Average Response Time, Min. 90th Percentile Response Time, Min. Total Dispatch Turnout Travel Total Dispatch Turnout Travel Total Calls 1 1.0 0.4 4.4 5.8 2.4 1.1 7.9 9.7 597
2 1.5 0.6 5.0 7.2 3.1 1.1 10.9 14.1 13
3 1.2 3.1 12.7 17.0 4.3 19.6 55.1 55.4 8
Total 1.0 0.4 4.5 6.0 2.4 1.1 8.2 9.9 618
Observations:
■ The average dispatch time was 1.0 minutes.
■ The average turnout time was 0.4 minutes.
■ The average travel time was 4.5 minutes.
■ The average total response time was 6.0 minutes.
■ The 90th percentile dispatch time was 2.4 minutes.
■ The 90th percentile turnout time was 1.1 minutes.
■ The 90th percentile travel time was 8.2 minutes.
■ The 90th percentile total response time was 9.9 minutes.

Agenda Item #13.1.

129
AMR Response Time by Hour of Day
The average turnout, travel, and total response time of the AMR unit by hour of day are shown in Table 9-22. The table also shows 90th percentile response times. Figure 9-17 shows the average AMR response time by hour of day.

TABLE 9-22: Average and 90th Percentile AMR Response Time, by Hour of Day Hour
Time in Minutes Number
Dispatch Turnout Travel of Calls Response
Time
90th Percentile
Response Time
0 0.9 1.3 5.6 7.8 12.1 9
1 0.7 0.6 6.1 7.4 18.2 17
2 1.7 0.5 3.9 6.0 11.2 9
3 1.3 3.4 6.1 10.8 25.4 9
4 1.0 0.8 4.2 6.0 9.2 14
5 1.1 1.9 8.8 11.8 19.8 7
6 1.8 0.6 4.8 7.2 9.2 13
7 1.0 0.3 3.9 5.2 6.2 14
8 0.9 0.4 4.9 6.2 6.3 20
9 1.1 0.6 5.0 6.7 9.4 35
10 1.3 0.3 4.1 5.6 8.9 42
11 1.0 0.3 4.1 5.4 10.6 31
12 1.0 0.3 5.1 6.5 14.3 43
13 0.8 0.3 5.7 6.8 15.3 39
14 1.0 0.3 4.3 5.6 7.8 43
15 1.0 0.3 3.2 4.4 8.0 44
16 1.1 0.4 4.0 5.5 9.6 47
17 1.3 0.2 6.2 7.7 20.3 24
18 1.2 0.4 3.3 4.9 7.3 35
19 0.9 0.3 4.4 5.6 11.5 25
20 0.9 0.3 3.8 5.0 7.6 31
21 1.1 0.3 3.7 5.1 7.5 31
22 0.8 0.5 5.0 6.3 11.0 24
23 0.7 0.6 4.2 5.6 8.2 12
Total 1.0 0.4 4.5 6.0 9.9 618
Agenda Item #13.1.

130
FIGURE 9-17: Average AMR Response Time, by Hour of Day
Observations:
■ Average dispatch time was between 0.7 minutes (1:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.) and 1.8 minutes (6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.).
■ Average turnout time was between 0.2 minutes (5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and 3.4 minutes (3:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.).
■ Average travel time was between 3.2 minutes (3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.) and 8.8 minutes (5:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.).
■ Average response time was between 4.4 minutes (3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.) and 11.8 minutes (5:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.).
■ The 90th percentile response time was between 6.2 minutes (7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.) and

25.4 minutes (3:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.).

Agenda Item #13.1.

131
AMR Response Time Distribution
Here, we present a more detailed look at how response times to calls are distributed. The cumulative distribution of total response time is shown in Figure 9-18 and Table 9-23.

Figure 9-18 shows response times as a frequency distribution in whole-minute increments.

In Table 9-23, the cumulative percentage of 83.5, for example, means that 83.5 percent of AMR responding calls had a response time under 8 minutes.

FIGURE 9-18: Cumulative Distribution of AMR Response Time Agenda Item #13.1.

132
TABLE 9-23: Cumulative Distribution of AMR Response Time Response Time
(minute) Frequency Cumulative
Percentage
1 2 0.3
2 20 3.6
3 66 14.2
4 128 35.0
5 117 53.9
6 89 68.3
7 53 76.9
8 41 83.5
9 20 86.7
10 21 90.1
11 10 91.7
12 7 92.9
13 8 94.2
14 2 94.5
15 6 95.5
16 4 96.1
17 5 96.9
18 0 96.9
19 2 97.2
20 3 97.7
21 1 97.9
22 1 98.1
23 3 98.5
24 3 99.0
25 2 99.4
26 1 99.5
27 0 99.5
28 0 99.5
29 0 99.5
More than 29 3 100.0
Agenda Item #13.1.

133

AMR AMBULANCE TRANSPORT
In this section, we present an analysis of the AMR ambulances’ activity that involved transporting patients, the variations by hour of day, and the average time for each stage of transport service.

We identified transport calls by requiring that at least one AMR ambulance had recorded both a “beginning to transport” time and an “arriving at the hospital” time.

Transport Runs by Type
The following table shows the number of calls by call type broken out by transport and nontransport calls.

TABLE 9-24: AMR Transport Calls by Call Type
Call Type Number of Calls Conversion
Non-transport Transport Total Rate
EMS 218 486 704 69.0
Canceled 51 0 51 0.0
Total 269 486 755 64.4
Observations:
■ 69 percent of EMS calls involved transporting one or more patients. ■ On average, 1.3 EMS calls per day involved transporting one or more patients.

Agenda Item #13.1.

134
Average Transport Calls per Hour
Table 9-25 and Figure 9-19 show the average number of total and transport calls received each hour of the day over the studied period. In Table 9-25, the conversion rate measures the percent of AMR calls that transported one or more patients.

TABLE 9-25: AMR Transport Calls per Hour, by Time of Day Hour EMS
Calls
Transport
Calls
EMS Calls
per Day
Transports Calls
per Day
Conversion
Rate
0 12 8 0.0 0.0 66.7
1 21 16 0.1 0.0 76.2
2 11 5 0.0 0.0 45.5
3 10 4 0.0 0.0 40.0
4 16 7 0.0 0.0 43.8
5 10 7 0.0 0.0 70.0
6 15 8 0.0 0.0 53.3
7 16 8 0.0 0.0 50.0
8 23 18 0.1 0.0 78.3
9 39 28 0.1 0.1 71.8
10 43 33 0.1 0.1 76.7
11 33 28 0.1 0.1 84.8
12 46 33 0.1 0.1 71.7
13 42 28 0.1 0.1 66.7
14 48 36 0.1 0.1 75.0
15 51 35 0.1 0.1 68.6
16 52 42 0.1 0.1 80.8
17 31 21 0.1 0.1 67.7
18 38 29 0.1 0.1 76.3
19 33 21 0.1 0.1 63.6
20 34 21 0.1 0.1 61.8
21 36 23 0.1 0.1 63.9
22 29 16 0.1 0.0 55.2
23 15 11 0.0 0.0 73.3
Total 704 486 1.9 1.3 69.0
Note: The conversion rate is measured by dividing the number of transport calls by the number of total EMS calls.

For example, between midnight and 1:00 a.m., there were eight transport calls out of 12 EMS calls. This gives a conversion rate of 0.667 or 66.7 percent.

Agenda Item #13.1.

135
FIGURE 9-19: Average Transport Calls by Hour
Observations:
■ Average hourly EMS calls per day peaked between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., averaging

0.14 calls per day.
■ Average hourly EMS calls per day was lowest between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., averaging

0.03 calls per day.
■ Average hourly transport calls per day peaked between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., averaging

0.12 calls per day.
■ Average hourly transport calls per day was lowest between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., averaging 0.01 calls per day.
■ The hourly transport conversion rate was highest between 11:00 a.m. and noon at 85 percent of EMS calls.
■ The hourly transport conversion rate was lowest between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., at 40 percent of EMS calls.

Agenda Item #13.1.

136
Transport Calls by Type and Duration
The following table shows the average duration of transport and non-transport EMS calls.

TABLE 9-26: Transport Call Duration
Call Type
Non-transport Transport
Average
Duration, Min.

Number of
Calls
Average
Duration, Min.

Number of
Calls
EMS 24.5 218 92.7 486
Canceled 8.4 51 0.0 0
Total 21.4 269 92.7 486
Note: The duration of a call is the longest deployed time of any of the units responding to the same call.

Observations:
■ The average duration was 24.5 minutes for non-transport EMS calls and 92.7 minutes for EMS calls where one or more patients were transported to a hospital.

Agenda Item #13.1.

137
Transport Time Components
The following table gives the average deployed time for AMR ambulance transport runs, along with three major components of the deployed time: on-scene time, travel to hospital time, and at-hospital time, broken out by transport destination.

The on-scene time is the interval from the unit arriving on-scene time through the time the unit departs the scene for the hospital. Travel to hospital time is the interval from the time the unit departs the scene to travel to the hospital through the time the unit arrives at the hospital.

At-hospital time is the time it takes for patient turnover at the hospital.

This table analyzes times by run. Normally, the number of runs (490 in Table 9-27) will exceed the number of calls (486 in Table 9-26) as a call may have multiple runs. In addition, average times may differ slightly from similar averages measured per call.

TABLE 9-27: Time Component of AMR Unit Transport Runs by Destination Transport Destination
Average Time Spent per Run Minutes Number
of Runs On
Scene
Traveling
to Hospital
At
Hospital Deployed
St. Helena Hospital 18.8 11.7 31.6 68.2 299
Providence Queen of the Valley (QVH) 16.9 29.3 35.9 92.0 94 Kaiser Permanente Vallejo (KVH) 16.9 50.6 36.1 111.4 22 Kaiser Santa Rosa 19.5 51.1 48.8 127.1 17
UCSF Parnassus 25.9 95.2 48.6 192.1 8
UC Davis 28.2 106.6 59.3 214.2 6
Santa Rosa Memorial 41.1 36.7 29.2 120.4 5
Stanford Tri Valley 19.8 84.0 50.6 182.8 2
Sutter Santa Rosa 17.9 41.9 65.0 151.5 2
Other* 34.7 97.5 49.1 203.4 35
Total 20.0 27.5 35.3 91.6 490
Note: *Other includes transport destinations that were missing or appeared once in the CAD data. Average unit deployed time per run is lower than the average call duration for some call types because call duration is based on the longest deployed time of any of the units responding to the same call, which may include an engine or ladder. Total deployed time is greater than the combination of on-scene, transport, and hospital wait times as it includes turnout and initial travel times.

Observations:
■ The average time spent on-scene for a transport EMS call was 20.0 minutes. ■ The average travel time from the scene of the EMS call to the hospital was 27.5 minutes. ■ The average deployed time spent on transport EMS calls was 91.6 minutes. ■ The average deployed time at the hospital was 35.3 minutes, which accounts for approximately 39 percent of the average total deployed time for a transport EMS call.

Agenda Item #13.1.

138
ATTACHMENT I: ACTIONS TAKEN
TABLE 9-28: Actions Taken Analysis for Structure and Outside Fire Calls Action Taken Number of Calls
Outside Fire Structure Fire
Extinguishment by fire service personnel 1 4
Fire control or extinguishment, other 2 0
Investigate 0 1
Salvage & overhaul 0 3
Note: Totals are higher than the total number of structure and outside fire calls because some calls recorded multiple actions taken.

Observations:
■ Out of three outside fires, one was extinguished by fire service personnel, which accounted for 33 percent of outside fires.
■ Out of six structure fires, four were extinguished by fire service personnel, which accounted for 67 percent of structure fires.

Agenda Item #13.1.

139
ATTACHMENT II: FIRE LOSS
Table 9-29 presents the number of outside and structure fires, broken out by levels of fire loss.

There was no recorded loss for outside fires. Table 9-30 shows the amount of property and content loss for structure fires inside SHFD’s service area between November 1, 2022, and October 31, 2023.

TABLE 9-29: Total Fire Loss Above and Below $25,000
Call Type No Loss Under $25,000 $25,000 plus Total
Outside fire 3 0 0 3
Structure fire 3 2 1 6
Total 6 2 1 9
TABLE 9-30: Content and Property Loss, Structure and Outside Fires Call Type Property Loss Content Loss
Loss Value Number of Calls Loss Value Number of Calls
Structure fire $55,500 3 $2,900 3
Note: The table includes only fire calls with a recorded loss greater than 0. There were no recorded losses for outside fires.

Observations:
■ All outside fires and three structure fires had no recorded loss. ■ Structure fires:
□ The highest total loss for a structure fire was $50,000. □ The average recorded total loss for all structure fires was $9,733. □ Three structure fires had content losses with a combined $2,900 in losses. □ Out of six structure fires, three recorded property losses, with a combined $55,500 in losses.

Agenda Item #13.1.

140
ATTACHMENT III: AID RECEIVED
Between November 1, 2022, and October 31, 2023, SHFD received aid from external EMS and fire agencies in 429 calls that occurred inside the City of St. Helena. This section examines the response and workload of the assisting agencies during the study period.

Table 9-31 shows the number of calls that the assisting agencies responded to by call type, average calls per day, and the percentage of calls that fall into each call type category.

Table 9-32 provides further detail on the workload associated with each assisting agency.

TABLE 9-31: Aid Received Calls by Type
Call Type Total Calls Calls per Day Call Percentage
Medical and other 347 1.0 80.9
Motor vehicle accident 20 0.1 4.7
EMS Subtotal 367 1.0 85.5
False alarm 4 0.0 0.9
Good intent 6 0.0 1.4
Hazard 4 0.0 0.9
Public service 27 0.1 6.3
Structure fire 6 0.0 1.4
Fire Subtotal 47 0.1 11.0
Canceled 15 0.0 3.5
Total 429 1.2 100.0
Note: Of the 429 total calls, the assisting agency responded to 423 calls jointly with SHFD and responded to six calls independently.

TABLE 9-32: Aid Received Workload by Agency
Agency Minutes
per Run
Total
Hours
Percent
of Hours
Minutes
per Day
Total
Runs
Runs
per Day
AMR 22.6 255.1 89.1 41.9 678 1.9
Cal Fire 33.1 16.0 5.6 2.6 29 0.1
Calistoga FD 38.3 3.2 1.1 0.5 5 0.0
Capell Valley FD 45.0 0.8 0.3 0.1 1 0.0
Deer Park FD 12.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 1 0.0
Rutherford FD 3.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 3 0.0
Yountville FD 32.0 5.3 1.9 0.9 10 0.0
Other 40.7 5.4 1.9 0.9 8 0.0
Total 23.4 286.2 100.0 47.0 735 2.0
Observations:
■ Assisting agencies responded to 429 calls inside the city, an average of 1.2 calls per day. ■ The total deployed time for the year was 286.2 hours. The daily average was 47.0 minutes for all assisting units combined.

Agenda Item #13.1.

141
ATTACHMENT IV: SHFD RESPONDING CALL TYPE IDENTIFICATION When available, NFIRS data serves as our primary source for assigning call categories. For 603 non-aid given calls, NFIRS incident type codes were used to assign call types for canceled, EMS, fire, and motor vehicle accident (MVA) calls. Table 9-33 summarizes the identified call types based on the NFIRS incident type. For 73 additional calls without NFIRS incident type codes, the CAD data’s call type description was used as described in Table 9-34. In both tables, the 168 aid-given calls were not included.

TABLE 9-33: Call Types by NFIRS Incident Type Code and Description Call Type Code Description Count
Canceled 611 Dispatched and canceled en route 21
False Alarm
700 False alarm or false call, other 23
715 Local alarm system, malicious false alarm 4
730 System or detector malfunction, other 2
733 Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 3
735 Alarm system activation due to malfunction 1
740 Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 1
741 Sprinkler activation (no fire), unintentional 1
743 Smoke detector activation (no fire), unintentional 2 745 Alarm system activation (no fire), unintentional 27 Good Intent
600 Good intent call, other 4
632 Prescribed fire 1
651 Smoke scare, odor of smoke, not steam 3
671 Hazardous material release investigation 1
Hazard
400 Hazardous condition (no fire), other 44
440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem, other. 3
444 Power line down 1
Medical & Other
311 Medical and other 17
320 Emergency medical service incident, other 8
321 EMS call. 280
381 Rescue or EMS standby for hazardous conditions 1
Motor Vehicle
Accident
322 Motor vehicle accident with injuries 7
323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident 1
324 Motor vehicle accident with no injuries 10
Outside Fire
141 Mobile property (vehicle) fire, other 1
151 Outside rubbish, trash, or waste fire 1
160 Passenger vehicle fire 1
Public Service
500 Service call, other 1
511 Lock-out 6
521 Water (not people) evacuation 1
522 Water or steam leak 1
550 Public service assistance, other 106
551 Assist police or other governmental agency 5
Agenda Item #13.1.

142
Call Type Code Description Count
553 Public service 3
554 Assist invalid 4
812 Flood assessment 1
Structure Fire 111 Building fire 4
118 Trash or rubbish fire in a structure 2
Total 603
TABLE 9-34: Call Type by CAD Type Description
Call Type Description Calls
False Alarm Fire – Commercial Alarm 2
Fire – Residential Alarm 1
Good Intent Fire – Smoke Check 1
Hazard
Hazard - Electrical 1
Hazard – Fire Menace Standby 1
Hazard - Tree Down 1
Medical and Other Medical 51
Motor Vehicle Accident Med – Traffic Collision 2
Public Service
PA - AGENCY 1
PA - Other 1
PA - Person 11
Total 73
Agenda Item #13.1.

143
ATTACHMENT V: AMR RESPONDING CALL TYPE IDENTIFICATION
For the 713 calls given in the chief complaint data, we categorized the call types based on the primary impression information in the data. The categorization method for these calls is presented in the following table.

TABLE 9-35: Call Type by Primary Impression
Call Type Primary Impression Calls
Breathing Difficulty Acute Respiratory Distress (Dyspnea) 32 Cardiac and Stroke
Cardiac arrest 5
Cardiac arrhythmia/dysrhythmia 18
Chest Pain, Other (Non-Cardiac) 16
Heatstroke and Sunstroke 2
Palpitations 2
ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) 1
Stroke 18
Traumatic Circulatory Arrest 3
Fall and Injury
Epistaxis 2
Eye Injury 1
Injury 105
Illness and Other
Abdominal Pain 39
Acute abdomen 2
Acute Pain, not elsewhere classified 26
Allergic Reaction 6
Anaphylactic Shock 1
Anaphylaxis 1
Apparent Life-Threatening Event 1
Common Cold 2
Contact with Venomous Animal 1
COVID-19 - Confirmed by testing 2
Diabetic Hyperglycemia 1
Diabetic Hypoglycemia 6
Diarrhea 1
Dizziness 19
Ear problem 1
Extremity Pain 46
Eye Pain 1
Fever 12
Gastrointestinal hemorrhage 1
Generalized Weakness 49
Headache 8
Health hazard contact /Suspected exposure 1
Hypertension 5
Hypotension 9
Agenda Item #13.1.

144
Call Type Primary Impression Calls
Nausea 15
No Complaints or Injury/Illness Noted 49
Obvious Death 8
Pain (non-traumatic) 20
Pregnancy-related conditions 1
Preterm labor without delivery 1
Sepsis/Septicemia 3
Urinary system disorder 7
Vaginal Hemorrhage 1
Vomiting 4
Other 3
Overdose and
Psychiatric
Alcohol intoxication 14
Alcohol use 6
Behavioral/psychiatric episode 16
Mental disorder 2
Overdose - Alcohol 1
Overdose - Cannabis 1
Overdose - Unspecified 1
Substance abuse 1
Seizure and
Unconsciousness
Altered Mental Status 29
Confusion/Delirium 2
Seizures without status epilepticus 13
Syncope / Fainting 69
Total 713
- END -
Agenda Item #13.1.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Planning
DATE: October 8, 2024
FROM: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Staff briefing regarding the process to rezone the Noble House Housing site

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Receive report and provide feedback.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
n/a

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To inform the City Council regarding the necessary steps and process in order to rezone the Noble House housing
site.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Should the City Council decide to pursue a City initiated rezoning, the City would not receive any fees to pay for staff time and the City would incur costs to complete the CEQA process.

BACKGROUND:

At the September 24, 2024 City Council meeting, Vice Mayor Hall requested that staff bring an item to the October 8th City Council meeting to discuss the rezoning of the Noble House housing site to High Density Residential and how that process can be expedited by the City.

This housing site was analyzed and presented to the City Council as part of a 9212 report recently and one of the issues identified is that the 1.9 acre site (located off Fulton Lane and bisected by the wine train tracks), has a General Plan and zoning designation of Business Professional Office (BPO). In the BPO zone, housing is only allowed on upper floors. This would make it difficult for the property owner to achieve the target number of units which was said to be 60 in their project description without a change to the General Plan and zoning designation for the housing site.

DISCUSSION:

Typically development projects like the future development of the Noble House housing site are initiated by the landowner and/or a developer, who submit an application to the City for processing by City staff, and ultimate consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council if applicable. This report outlines that typical approach, and then discusses whether the entitlement process could be expedited through any potential streamlining laws, or by having the City initiate a General Plan and zoning amendment to allow for housing on that site.

Agenda Item #13.2.

In a property owner initiated rezoning, the typical City review process is outlined below:

1. City Council approves a pre-application for the General Plan Amendment/zoning change;

2. Applicant files formal General Plan and zoning amendment applications; may include other discretionary applications necessary to develop the site;

3. CEQA document is prepared by a consultant and paid for by applicant (not an Exemption);

4. Planning Commission public hearing; and

5. City Council public hearing.

The time for this process can vary widely, and is largely dependent on the extent to which the application complies with the City’s requirements at the time of application, and the level of CEQA review required for the project. The processing time for an application of this type can range from 7 months to 18 months.

In the last few years the State has passed a number of housing streamlining bills, including multiple bills which allow commercial and office zoned properties to be developed with residential uses without requiring any discretionary action by the City.

This could allow for the property at the Noble House housing site to be developed as housing without a General Plan amendment and zoning change, which would significantly reduce the processing time and potentially reduce the extent of CEQA review required for the project. It does appear that this property could qualify for streamlining, except that these bills require that the housing units developed be sold or rented at a lower level of affordability than is contemplated in the Noble House project description, and a developer taking advantage of these streamlining provisions must pay prevailing wage for the housing development and/or enter into a project labor agreement with labor unions. This would likely increase the construction costs associated with the development of the housing site, and the applicant therefore may not be interested in using this option.

Finally, the City does have the option to initiate a General Plan amendment and rezoning prior to or without a property owner application, although it is unusual for the City to initiate such a change for an individual property.

In the case when the City initiates the rezoning, the detailed process is outlined below:

1. Staff drafts a project description and attaches to a General Plan Amendment and zoning map amendment application;

2. Application is routed for review to internal departments;

3. Staff prepares RFP to select a CEQA consultant;

4. CEQA consultant selected and PSA awarded by City Council;

5. CEQA consultant runs preliminary technical studies including traffic and water use and prepares initial study;

6. Department comments submitted to case planner;
Agenda Item #13.2.

7. CEQA document prepared based on if impacts can be mitigated to level of insignificance;

8. CEQA public review occurs;

9. Response to comments prepared and staff prepares staff report for Planning Commission public hearing; and

10. If Planning Commission recommends City Council approval, staff prepares staff report for City Council approval.

Anticipated time frame: 6-12 months (depending on level of CEQA review) There are issues that are worthy of consideration should the City Council decide to direct staff to rezone the subject property:
 The City incurs the cost for processing, including the CEQA document. The CEQA document would likely either be a Mitigated Negative Declaration or focused EIR (this requires the onboarding of a CEQA consultant to analyze).  The CEQA review and preparation would occur without the property owners input and possibly before the project is fully developed by by the property owner, which makes it difficult to ensure we are accurately portraying the project.  A GPA and zoning change will not fulfill all the processing requirements to build an infill housing development. There likely will be other entitlements needed (Major Design Review, PD Overlay, etc...) and ultimately not save applicant time as these applications would require internal review and Planning Commission public hearing post the approval of the GPA and zoning change.  Lastly, the CEQA process would require identifying mitigation measures without the applicant participating in that process but would be the responsibility of the applicant to implement.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: N/A
GOAL:

Miscellaneous/Other
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Wine Train Fulton Lane Site
Agenda Item #13.2.

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1096.014

03.21.2024
JOB NO.

DATE
A1
FULTON LANE SITE | ST. HELENA, CA

NAPA VALLEY WINE TRAIN
ARCHITECTURAL:

A1 TITLE SHEET
A2 SITE PLAN
A3 BUILDING PLANS
A4 TYPICAL UNIT PLANS
SHEET INDEX:

APN: 009-193-006-000
SITE AREA: 2.54 AC
PROPOSED DENSITY: 18.90 DUA

UNIT MIX
BUILDING A (2 STORIES):

STUDIO UNITS 38
1-BED UNITS 8
4-BED UNITS 2
TOTAL 48
BUILDING B (2 STORIES):

STUDIO UNITS 11
1-BED UNITS 4
4-BED UNITS 2
TOTAL 17
TOTAL:

STUDIO UNITS 49
1-BED UNITS 12
4-BED UNITS 4
TOTAL 65

PARKING
SPACES PROVIDED: 65
PROJECT DATA:

NAPA VALLEY WINE TRAIN - FULTON LANE SITE ST. HELENA, CA VICINITY MAP: PROJECT LOCATION
NORTH

TITLE SHEET

FULTON LN

RAILROAD AVE

ST HELENA HWY

LIBRARY LN
Agenda Item #13.2.

N
244'-4"
56'-3"
132'-4"
56'-3"
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1096.014

03.21.2024
JOB NO.

DATE
A2
FULTON LANE SITE | ST. HELENA, CA

NAPA VALLEY WINE TRAIN
0 8 16 32
0 16 32 64
0 32 64 128
0 10 20 40
0 20 40 80
0 30 60 120
0 40 80 160
0 50 100 200
0 100 200 400
0 4 8 16

SITE PLAN

RAILROAD AVE

FULTON LN

BUILDING B

BUILDING A
Agenda Item #13.2.

City Council
October 8, 2024
Noble House Housing Site
Rezoning Discussion
Agenda Item #13.2.

Background
• Site is 1.9 acres
• General Plan: Business
Professional Office
• Zoning: BPO (housing only
allowed on upper floors)
• Site located on Fulton
Lane, bisected by railroad
tracks
• Site is NOT included in
Measure B initiative
Agenda Item #13.2.

2019 General Plan
Subject Site
Agenda Item #13.2.

Typical Rezoning Process-Owner
initiated

1. City Council approves a pre-application for the General Plan Amendment/zoning change;

2. Applicant files formal General Plan and zoning amendment applications; may include other discretionary applications necessary to develop the site;

3. CEQA document is prepared by a consultant and paid for by applicant (not an Exemption);

4. Planning Commission public hearing; and

5. City Council public hearing.

Time frame estimated 7 -18 months
Agenda Item #13.2.

Would Housing Streamlining Bills
Apply?
• Site could qualify streamlining EXCEPT:
• Bills require the housing units developed be sold or rented at a lower price of affordability than contemplated in the Noble House project
• Developer must pay prevailing wage for the housing development and/or enter into a project labor agreement with labor unions Agenda Item #13.2.

Rezoning Process-City initiated

1. Staff drafts a project description and attaches to a General Plan Amendment and zoning map amendment application;

2. Application is routed for review to internal departments;

3. Staff prepares RFP to select a CEQA consultant;

4. CEQA consultant selected and PSA awarded by City Council;

5. CEQA consultant runs preliminary technical studies including traffic and water use and prepares initial study;

6. Department comments submitted to case planner;

7. CEQA document prepared based on if impacts can be mitigated to level of insignificance;
Agenda Item #13.2.

Rezoning Process-City initiated
(con’t)

8. CEQA public review occurs;

9. Response to comments prepared and staff prepares staff report for Planning Commission public hearing; and

10. If Planning Commission recommends City Council approval, staff prepares staff report for City Council approval.

Time frame estimated 6-12 months
Agenda Item #13.2.

Issues to Consider with City
Initiated Rezoning
• The City incurs the cost for processing, including the CEQA document. The CEQA document would likely either be a Mitigated Negative Declaration or focused EIR (this requires the onboarding of a CEQA consultant to analyze).
• The CEQA review and preparation would occur without the property owners input and possibly before the project is fully developed by the property owner • A GPA and zoning change will not fulfill all the processing requirements to build an infill housing development.
• The CEQA process would require identifying mitigation measures without the applicant participating in that process but would be the responsibility of the applicant to implement.

Agenda Item #13.2.

Recommended Action
Receive report and provide feedback
Agenda Item #13.2.

Site Plan
Agenda Item #13.2.

Questions and Discussion
Agenda Item #13.2.