City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
City of Kenosha
FINAL REPORT
Needs Assessment Study for City of Kenosha Fire Department
Relative to an Additional Fire Station and Medical Rescue Squad
Russell Hissom, CPA Partner
December 4, 2014
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Table of Contents
Project Scope ............................................................................................................................2
Project Background and Methodology ....................................................................................3
Current State Assessment .......................................................................................................8
Department Organization ............................................................................................................. 8
Existing Fire and EMS Facilities and Vehicles ............................................................................. 8
Current Staffing Information ......................................................................................................... 9
Current Service Delivery Profile ................................................................................................... 9
Future State – Potential Adjustments to Service ..................................................................14
EMS Unit Assessment ................................................................................................................ 14
Fire Unit Assessment ................................................................................................................. 14
Approaches to Improving Service Levels and Efficiency within Emergency Response ............ 15
Appendix A ..............................................................................................................................18
Appendix B ..............................................................................................................................20
Appendix C ..............................................................................................................................22
Appendix D ..............................................................................................................................24
Appendix E ..............................................................................................................................31
Preliminary Findings Documents Released ............................................................................... 31
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
Project Scope
The City of Kenosha (the “City”) retained the services of Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP (“Baker Tilly”,
“we”, or “our”) to conduct an evaluation and needs assessment for an additional fire station and medical
unit (ambulance). The City is obligated to ensure that fire and EMS services are provided to its community
with the appropriate balance of service level and cost. Recent growth and redevelopment in urban
centers as well as growth on the outskirts of the City have raised questions about the current fire station
and EMS unit resources. The City commissioned this third party analysis to help in determining whether
appropriate resources, specifically med units and fire stations, exist to support emergency response
services that meet the current needs of the community.
This project concentrated on existing service levels based on historical alarm data of the City’s fire and
EMS services that fall under the direction of the City of Kenosha Fire Department (KFD) as they relate to
industry accepted standards. A common industry standard utilized by fire and EMS agencies across the
country is the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). This report will draw upon those standards
and other best practices in order to help frame the current service response situation and lead the City
towards future departmental goals.
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 2
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
Project Background and Methodology
The City of Kenosha Fire Department is comprised of four (4) main Divisions and one (1) Bureau that
include the following:
>
>
>
>
>
Suppression Division
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Division
Training Division
Maintenance Division
Fire Prevention Bureau
The following is key summary information related to the Department:
>
The current total service area for the Department is approximately 28.5 square miles
>
The 2010 census indicated that there were 100,039 persons residing within the City limits
>
There are a total of six (6) stations that serve the City (numbered 2 thru 7)
>
There are six (6) fire engine station service areas that correspond to the six (6) stations and cover
the entire emergency response area the City is responsible for
>
There are four (4) emergency medical station service areas that cover the entire emergency
response area
>
There are three (3) ladder truck station service areas that cover the entire emergency response
area
>
The emergency response system is served by 3 hospitals within or close to the city limits (with
one being less than 0.25 miles outside limits)
>
There were approximately 11,384 incidents responded to in 2013
>
There are a total of 154 funded positions in the 2014 adopted budget for the Department with 147
of these positions residing in either the Suppression Division (90) or the EMS Division (57).
>
The Department operates on a three (3) platoon system, with each platoon rotating through shifts
that are 24 hours on-duty and 48 hours off-duty
>
There is a Local 414 Labor Agreement in effect from 2013 through 2015 with the international
association of firefighters
The goal of this study is to perform a high level of analysis to determine whether the safety response
needs of the City population are being met by the current resources available. Specifically, this study will
concentrate on the fire and EMS service levels being provided and how they may compare to industry
standards and best practices. Ultimately, the decision to add resources such as a medical unit
(ambulance) and/or a fire station will be at the discretion of the City. The analytics performed herein are
intended to provide guidance in this decision making process.
The most direct method in determining the ability of emergency response services to meet public need
relates to the time it takes for emergency personnel and resources to arrive at the scene. Other service
level issues such as quality of service and outcomes of emergency events are more subjective and more
difficult to quantify. For these reasons, this needs assessment will concentrate on emergency response
times and how they relate to industry standards and best practices.
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 3
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has published a set of standards identified as NFPA
1221 and NFPA 1710 that address the organization and deployment of fire suppression operations,
emergency medical operations, and special operations to the public by career fire departments. These
are general criteria for managing resources and systems, such as health and safety, incident
management, training, communication, and pre-incident planning. These guidelines serve as the industry
accepted standards for high level performance metric evaluation. Specifically, NFPA publishes
emergency response time standards that serve as a guide for agencies to benchmark against. It is very
important to note the difference between a “standard” and a “code” or “regulation”. A standard does not
require compliance, but rather serves to help agencies to benchmark their own expectations, key
performance indicators, and response time goals. A code or regulation implies a directive maintained by
an authority. This study utilizes these NFPA standards in evaluating the need for an additional fire station
and/or medical unit (ambulance).
Factors that may create variations in both actual and desired emergency response times compared
across communities include but are not necessarily limited to:
>
>
>
>
>
Population demographics and densities
Infrastructure variation and distribution
Climate
Geography / Topography
Alarm type distribution
In addition to the community-specific characteristics mentioned above, availability of funds for resources
is another important consideration when determining emergency response standards. There are costbenefit tradeoffs that community leaders and officials must also include in the decision making processes.
Ultimately, the City of Kenosha will need to determine its own service standards for the City’s given
characteristics, needs, and available resources. Each individual community must draw conclusions on
their ability, desire, and degree to which they will adhere to the NFPA standards in setting that
community’s own specific standards and goals.
For the purpose of this report, an “alarm” will be defined as an emergency incident that has a request for
service which comes from the public safety answering point (PSAP) or dispatcher. Each “alarm” may
have multiple responding vehicles. For instance, if one ambulance, one engine, and one ladder truck
respond to an “alarm”, there will be three “alarm responses” (or “responses to alarm”) for that specific
“alarm” logged with data specific to each vehicle. Data provided for analysis included all responding
vehicles as reported by ComSys Inc. via a Cisco data system.
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 4
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
Alarm data is sometimes broken into four major response types that are made by fire departments: fire
incident alarms, EMS alarms, HazMat alarms, and “other” alarms. This report will categorize all alarms by
either “fire alarm” or “EMS alarm” in order to simplify the analysis results. Alarms that are sometimes
classified as “other” or “HazMat” will be categorized within either fire alarms or EMS alarms. The figure
below is taken from NFPA publication and describes the types of alarm categories and resulting response
by the fire department.
Source: “Fire Service Performance Measures”, NFPA Fire Analysis and Research Division; Jennifer Flynn, 2009
http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/Research/NFPA%20reports/Fire%20service%20statistics/osfsperformancemeasures.pdf
Each alarm is generally broken down into the following 5 components in alarm incident development and
response timeline.
Incident
Occurence
Call placed
to
Dispatcher
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Alarm
Processing
Time (APT)
Turnout
Time
Travel Time
to Incident
Page 5
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
For this study, each alarm was analyzed for the final three of five components: Alarm Processing
Time (APT), Turnout Time (TT), and Travel Time. The first two components (incident occurrence and
call placed to dispatcher) are within the control of the public, not an agency responsible for dealing with
the emergency. Alarm Processing Time is defined as the elapsed time from the time a call for assistance
is received at a PSAP until appropriate emergency response units (ERUs) are dispatched (NFPA 1221).
Turnout time is defined as the time interval that begins with notification of the emergency response
facilities (ERFs) and ERUs by either an audible alarm or visual annunciation or both and ends at the
beginning point of travel time (NFPA 1710). Travel time is defined as the time interval that begins when a
unit is en route to the emergency incident and ends when the unit arrives at the scene (NFPA 1710). The
summation of these three segments will then be analyzed in what this report will define as “total response
time”. It is this total response time that is the most important indicator of service level being provided to
the public. While it is important to recognize that the Alarm Processing Time is not within the control of the
fire or EMS agency, but rather the PSAP agency, this component still contributes to the time between
when an emergency is reported and when help arrives on scene. The total response time reflects on fire
and EMS departments in terms of the “public eye”.
It is important to note that NFPA distinguishes between volunteer fire departments and career fire
departments, and has separate standards for each. The City of Kenosha is classified as a career fire
department, which NFPA 1710 addresses. A volunteer fire department has a separate set of standards
that fall under NFPA 1720, which is not relevant to this study.
The City and Kenosha County have been utilizing a joint dispatch service for several decades which is
operated by an independent service provider. Aggregated alarm data was provided by ComSys Inc. for
analysis and review. The following are important pieces of information in understanding the data analysis
methodology:
>
Aggregated data was analyzed for a time period extending from June 1, 2013 through November
1, 2014 (17 month period) in order to ensure a recent timeframe yet significant sample set.
>
The data set analyzed concentrated on the 12 primary “front line” units (5 engines, 3 ladder
trucks, and 4 med units) as well as the 3 secondary med units identified as Med Unit #2, Rescue
#33, and Rescue #44.
>
Med Unit #2 is only placed into service when 39 FTE (plus 1 battalion chief) are on staff during a
shift, given the policy of 3 FTE per unit. Rescue #33 and Rescue #44 are considered backup
vehicles. They are only deployed in rare situations or when repairs are needed to one of the
“front line” med units. The data shown in this report will reflect on the lower utilization of these
units.
>
The analysis for response time segments does isolate “first-arriving” vehicles (units) in order to
accurately assess the effectiveness of the KFD’s service levels. NFPA standards are relevant to
these “first-arriving” (on-scene) units and including secondary arriving units would skew data
analysis by inflating times. The preliminary working documents completed as part of the project
work team’s initial discussion incorrectly included all units rather than isolating “first-arriving” units
when comparing response times to NFPA standards (see Appendix E for discussion on changes
in analysis methodology from time of preliminary document release to final report release).
>
Alarms that were not considered to be “emergency” type alarms were excluded from the analysis
given that there is not typically a need for immediate response given the lower severity of the
incident. These alarm types included: investigations, no burning bans, and “standby at quarters.”
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 6
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
>
Data range parameters were applied to each of the three alarm time segments in order to
eliminate outlying data that could have the potential to skew analysis results. Outlying data could
be as result of system recording error, personnel data entry or modification error, or extraordinary
event circumstances not representative of typical department operations. The following data
ranges limit alarm data to:
−
−
−
>
Alarm Processing Time:
Turnout Time:
Travel Time:
0 minutes to 4 minutes
0 minutes to 4 minutes
0 minutes to 20 minutes
The City of Kenosha has service agreements with both UW Parkside, just north of the City limits
and with the Town of Bristol, just west of the City limits. Service calls made as part of these
agreements are included in the alarm data analysis.
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 7
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
Current State Assessment
Department Organization
The current organizational structure of the KFD consists of four divisions and one bureau. Overseeing the
divisions and bureau are the Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief (see Appendix A for Organizational Chart).
>
>
>
>
>
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Division (1 Division Chief)
Training Division (1 Division Chief)
Maintenance Division (1 Supervisor)
Fire Prevention Bureau (1 Division Chief and 1 Assistant Division Chief)
Suppression Division (3 Battalion Chiefs)
Existing Fire and EMS Facilities and Vehicles
There are 6 stations that serve as the infrastructure and support system of these divisions. Each station
has an associated “emergency station service area” (numbered #2 thru #7) associated with it (see
Appendix B for Station Service Area Map). There is no Station Service Area 1 since Station 1 has been
retired as a fire station and is now the City’s administration building. These 6 station service areas
comprise the main emergency response coverage area of the KFD. Within the total response area of the
City are the following specific emergency resource station service areas:
>
>
>
Medical Station Service Areas #3, #4, #5, and #7 (4 total)
Engine Station Service Areas #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #7 (6 total)
Ladder Truck Station Service Areas #3, #4, #7 (3 total)
Each specific emergency station service area group (medical, engine, and ladder truck) covers the entire
emergency response area, yet has different coverage areas assigned to those numbered station service
areas. In other words, the three (3) ladder truck station service areas cover the same total area as the six
(6) engine station service areas. While there is “assigned” coverage for each station service area, it
should not be assumed that the units associated with those station service areas only serve the
same numbered station service area. The emergency response efforts work as an integrated
system and units often travel outside of their station service areas to provide service. The vehicles
associated with each specific station service area are as follows:
Station
Service Area
Engine
Ladder Truck
Med Unit
Rescue
2
Engine #2
3
Engine #3
Ladder Truck #3
Med Unit #3
Rescue #33
4
Engine #4,
Engine #44
Ladder Truck #4
Med Unit #4
Rescue #44
5
Engine #5
6
Engine #6
Engine #55
7
Med Unit #2
Other
MERV #1
MERV #2
Med Unit #5
Ladder Truck #7
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Med Unit #7
P-19
Page 8
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
Current Staffing Information
The 2014 adopted budget included 154 funded full time equivalent (FTE) positions for the KFD (see
Appendix C for Funded Full-Time Positions). The 154 FTE positions include 90 FTE for Suppression and
57 FTE for EMS for a total of 147 FTE that contribute directly to fire and EMS services on a daily
operational basis. At the time of the study, there were approximately 10 vacancies within the KFD. Hiring
of personnel within the KFD is coordinated so that multiple new staff members can be trained
simultaneously in order to achieve economies of scale. Training of new KFD members is an expensive
process and requires significant time commitment from KFD instructors. It is also up to the Department
and City to determine the need to fill vacancies, which are often created by retirements or forced
separations. A detailed staffing analysis was not within the scope of this study.
The KFD operates on a 3 platoon system whereby the workday of a typical emergency response FTE
consists of twenty-four (24) hours on continuous active duty followed by forty-eight (48) hours off duty.
There is a 52.32 hour per week per employee when accounting for work reduction days. Each FTE
receives 8 work reduction days, 4 holidays, and between 9 and 11 vacation days. Sick time is unlimited.
The 5 primary engines, 3 ladder trucks, and 4 primary med units result in 12 “front line units” being staffed
at all times. Given the City policy to staff a minimum of 3 personnel on each responding “front line” unit,
the minimum staffing to support these 12 “front line” units during any particular shift is 36 FTE plus a
battalion chief (37 total). If sufficient staff exists, med unit #2 is staffed to provide additional EMS
capability. This would require a minimum of 39 FTE plus a battalion chief (40 total). Med Unit #2 only
participated in 103 of the 24,629 EMS unit alarm responses. Note that in a “best case” scenario, when
there are no FTE on leave, the total personnel per shift for a platoon is 48 FTE.
Current Service Delivery Profile
As described in sections above, the primary industry benchmark that KFD service delivery was compared
to is the NFPA 1221 and 1710 standards for “alarm processing time”, “turnout time”, and “travel time”,
which in aggregate make up what is defined in this report as the “total response time.” These response
time segments will provide an effective measure of the KFD’s ability to serve the community, especially as
it relates to a leading industry organization’s defined benchmarks. It is important to reiterate that these are
standards and not codes or requirements. While NFPA specifies standards for “percent less than”
metrics, it is also important to review averages for alarm time segment response.
The NFPA standards for travel time shown in the table below represent recommendations for the “first
1
responder with automated external defibrillator (AED)” to EMS incidents . The guidelines also indicate
that when advanced life support (ALS) is provided, this response unit should adhere to an 8-minute travel
time, assuming that the first responder with AED (considered the BLS responder) has adhered to the 4
minute travel time. NFPA time standards for fire response are based on fire propagation curves with
consideration for time to flashover stage and potential spread to surrounding buildings. NFPA time
standards for EMS response are based on the maximum amount of time a patient in cardiac arrest can
survive without intervention. Therefore, it is important that the data analysis isolates the first-arriving unit
capable of providing service that will appropriately handle fire and EMS emergencies. These standards
were developed based on a 10-year process involving empirical data and real-world experience.
Additionally, the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) utilizes these NFPA defined
standards as benchmarks in determining accreditation approvals. However, this does not mean that an
agency necessarily must adhere to all standards in order to receive accreditation. The data analysis
1
Note that this report has redefined “first responder” as “first-arriving unit” to clarify that arrival on scene is
a more appropriate measure when discussing “total response time”
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 9
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
summary table below provides a snapshot of the 3 major time segments. Times depicted by X:XX
represent duration in minutes and seconds.
Alarm Time
Segment
Fire Alarms (Incidents)
KFD
Alarm
Processing Time
Turnout Time
23% < 1:00
NFPA Standard
80% < 1:00
(Avg. of 1:30)
29% < 1:20
78% < 4:00
90% < 1:20
62% < 6:20
33% < 1:00
NFPA Standard
80% < 1:00
23% < 1:00
90% < 1:00
(Avg. of 1:25)
90% < 4:00
(Avg. of 3:05)
Total Response
Time
KFD
(Avg. of 1:15)
(Avg. of 1:39)
Travel Time
EMS Alarms (Incidents)
87% < 4:00
90% < 4:00
(Avg. of 2:38)
90% < 6:20 *
(Avg. of 6:12)
73% < 6:00
90% < 6:00 *
(Avg. of 5:17)
The full results of this analysis with a breakdown on an individual vehicle (unit) basis are available in
Appendix D. A few observations about the summary data in the above table include the following:
>
The “Alarm Processing Time” (APT) for both fire and EMS alarms falls short of NFPA standards.
The KFD does not have any direct control of this time segment given that it relies on the
capabilities of the dispatch center from the time an alarm is called in until the time the KFD is
notified of the incident.
>
The “Turnout Time” for both fire and EMS alarms falls short of NFPA standards. The department
does have complete control over this time segment and making attempts to improve these
numbers can be done with little to no capital investment, but rather additional training and
department policy adjustments.
>
The “Travel Times” for both fire alarms and EMS alarms are very close to meeting NFPA
standards. This is especially important given that improvements to this time segment could
require heavy capital investments related to additional resources (staff, infrastructure, and/or
vehicles).
>
Improvements to “Alarm Processing Time” and “Turnout Time” will have significant impact in
moving towards the 90% of alarms meeting 6:20 and 6:00, fire and EMS respectively, goals. It is
important to note that NFPA does not actually publish standards for “Total Response Time” but
one can infer from the summation of the three associated time segments that it would be very
close to those listed in the table above *.
In reviewing the more detailed analysis on a per vehicle basis (see Appendix D), the following
observations are of significance in understanding and interpreting emergency response service levels and
ultimately making decisions about the potential need for adjustments to standard operating procedures
and/or additional resources:
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 10
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
Fire Alarms (Data for 6/1/2013 through 11/1/2014)
>
Of the 4,117 vehicle responses to alarms, approximately 1,786 were “first-arriving” vehicles
(indicating “unique” alarms) that were analyzed. This indicates that on average, there were
roughly 2.3 units that responded to each alarm. Of the first-arriving units, 18.6% were med units
or rescue units, 59.5% were engines, and 21.9% were ladder trucks.
>
Due to the reporting format of the data, it was not feasible to discount med units as “first-arrivers”
(18.6% as stated above) and replace them with the first-arriving ladder truck or engine. This is
important to note since med units do not have fire suppression capabilities. A completely effective
analysis on “first-arriving” fire suppression units would remove med units and default to the firstarriving suppression unit. However, a med unit on scene at a fire incident can respond to EMS
needs of victims and do provide significant value, which varies with each incident.
>
Ladder Trucks #3, #4, and #7 were first-arriving units in 21.9% of the incidents and had travel
times that were nearly 2 minutes longer on average than the engine units. Ladder Truck #3 and
Ladder Truck #4 have Engine #3 and Engine #4 within their station service areas (same station
location); however Ladder Truck #7 is not paired with an engine at Station #7. Turnout times of
ladder trucks also tend to be higher than engines, which is not unusual given logistical issues
related to mobilizing a larger vehicle.
>
Response time segments for each individual vehicle do not indicate the location of the alarm that
the vehicle is responding to. For instance, while Ladder Truck #3 and Ladder Truck #7 have the
longest average travel times compared to other units, it is not known what percent of the incidents
they are responding to fall within each of the various station service areas. If Ladder Truck #7 is
responding to a large portion of its alarms that fall outside Station Service Area 7, then it is
expected that travel times will be longer than other units.
EMS Alarms (Data for 6/1/2013 through 11/1/2014)
>
Of the 24,629 vehicle responses to alarms, approximately 13,994 were “first-arriving” vehicles
(indicating “unique” alarms) that were analyzed. This indicates that on average, there were
roughly 1.8 units that responded to each alarm. Of the first-arriving units, 62.8% were med units
or rescue units, 33.9% were engines, and 3.3% were ladder trucks.
>
Engines and Ladder Trucks have BLS support capabilities and so it is appropriate to include
these units in the first-arriving data analysis.
>
The average travel time for all vehicles was 2:38. Most units had average travel times that fell
within about 30 seconds (plus or minus) of this average with the exception of Med Unit #7 at 4:06
and Ladder Truck #7 at 3:54. As mentioned in the section above related to fire alarm incidents, it
is not clear what percent of the alarms that these units responded to are geographically located
within Station Service Area 7. More than likely, a significant factor contributing to the higher than
average travel times is related to these vehicles responding outside of Station Service Area 7,
especially given the shape of the City geographical coverage (see Appendix B).
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 11
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
Unit Hour Utilization (Data for 6/1/2013 through 11/1/2014)
UHU is an industry measure most often analyzed for EMS vehicles to determine their utilization as it
relates to total available time. It is calculated by dividing the total time a unit is on a response to an alarm
into the total time the unit is available for service. For this study, it was assumed that each med unit is
available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Raw data was provided for each alarm that a unit responds to
with time of day for “enroute” to an alarm and “back-in-service” when the alarm has been cleared by the
unit. Summing all these time differences for each individual alarm (Back-in-Service minus Enroute) for
each unit will provide a total time that the unit is occupied on an alarm over a given timeframe.
The table below summarizes UHU for each Med Unit and Rescue Unit over the same 17-month period
that response time was analyzed. While response times isolated “first-arriving” units and only considered
“emergency” alarms, UHU considered all alarms that units responded to (“responses to alarms”) since the
measure must include each second of time that the unit is being utilized on an alarm. It must be noted
that not all alarms included data sufficient to determine total time a unit was occupied on an alarm. Of the
15,191 alarms associated with Med Units or Rescue Units during the 17-month period, only 14,000 of
those alarms (92%) included sufficient data to include in UHU calculations. It was necessary to have both
the “enroute” time and the “back-in-service” time. There were 1,191 alarms that did not have both times
available in the data set, and were not included in the analysis. This results in slightly understated UHU
percentages for units. An attempt to account for this lack of data could be as follows:
>
Assume that the missing alarm data for UHU calculations is representative of the average
calculated UHU
>
Reduce the “total time the unit is available” to 92% of 24 hrs. x 365 days x (17 months / 12
months) = 11,417 hrs.
>
Considering Med Units #3, #4, #5 and #7 only, multiply (11,417 hrs. / vehicle) x 4 vehicles =
45,669 hrs.
>
Divide “Total Service Time” by “total available time” = 8128 hrs. / 45,669 hrs. = 17.8% UHU
>
This is slightly higher than the 16.3% UHU shown in the table below
Unit Hour Utilization for Fire and EMS Alarms Responses:
Percent of Time Unit is "In-Use" (Enroute - Back in Service)
Total Service Alarm
Responses (each)
Total Service Time
(min)
Avg. Service Time
(min)
UHU
Med 2
Med 3
Med 4
Med 5
Med 7
Rescue 33
Rescue 44
102
5,148
3,293
4,281
1,120
34
22
63:33:08
2792:57:53
1987:27:07
2649:45:45
698:10:59
16:49:32
12:47:56
0:37:23
0:32:33
0:36:13
0:37:08
0:37:24
0:29:42
0:34:54
0.5%
22.5%
16.0%
21.3%
5.6%
0.1%
0.1%
Meds 3,4,5,7
All Med & Rescue
13,842
14,000
8128:21:44
8221:32:20
0:35:14
0:35:14
16.3%
9.4%
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 12
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
As explained previously, Med Unit #2, Rescue #33, and Rescue #44 are not primary or “front line” units
and are not staffed full time. Med Units #3, #4, #5, and #7 are the “front line” units and staffed full time.
UHU targets vary significantly by department and depend highly on the total responsibilities assigned to
staff as well as the target response times. Discussions with KFD Chiefs indicated that staff spend
substantial time during the day on activities such as public education, apparatus and station maintenance,
fire inspection, and training. There are no published industry standards for UHU. Communities often
choose to have lower UHU targets in order to improve response times and ensure the public is receiving
adequate service levels. Review of various studies of emergency response agencies revealed that UHU
can range from 10% to 25% even though these studies tend to suggest that “efficient” UHU measures
should be in the 25% to 40% range. Larger cities will often have UHUs of 40% or even higher.
Additionally, private industry has been known to use 45% as a threshold for adding new ambulances.
UHUs variance is a result of many factors including, but not limited to hospital accessibility, agency staff
responsibilities, response policies for med units by alarm type, and target response times. The City
should identify an acceptable level of UHU for its med units and manage to that standard.
Station Location and Coverage
The six (6) stations are located throughout the geography of the City as to adequately serve each station
service area assigned to the station (see Appendix B). The scope limitations of the study did not allow for
a detailed routing and geographical response analysis. However, the analysis of the response times
provides an appropriate measure of the ability of the “front line” units to serve the community. Since the
primary units act as a system in responding to alarms, there is no simple method for determining whether
stations are optimally situated within the City limits. This would be a separate study on its own. Med units,
engines, and ladder trucks work together to serve the City in aggregate and each unit is in no way limited
to serving the station service area associated with its particular station. This is especially true in the more
densely populated portions of the City. For instance, Med Unit #3 finishing a response to an alarm located
in the northwest corner of station service area 3 may be better positioned to answer an upcoming alarm in
southern station service area 5, eastern station service area 4, or southern station service area 6 than
any of the respective med units associated with those station service areas. This is due to the fact that a
unit already mobilized in the field does not need the turnout time required for a unit parked in a station
facility. This coverage model is actually required to create efficiencies throughout the service response
system.
Planned Development Considerations
There is planned development within Station Service Area 7 that includes a 280 unit residential
development (mostly 2 and 3 bedroom units) near 71st St and 125th Ave (just west of I-94) and a 6.5
million square foot (9 buildings) industrial park in the same area. This development area is located in the
southwest corner of Station Service Area 7. A very high level “rule of thumb” when considering alarm data
within a community is that on an annual basis there are approximately 100 alarms for every 1,000 people.
The City falls into this range per the data set analyzed as part of this study. Potential alarm data
increases from the residential units could be estimated at 280 units x (3 people / unit) x (1 alarm / 10
people) = 84 alarms annually. Additional alarms generated from the industrial park are much more difficult
to estimate. However, even if these 9 buildings generated a total of 100 alarms annually, the total
additional alarm count is less than 200 per year. Given that this is only “planned” development at this time
and that 200 additional potential alarms would be located in a less densely populated region of the City,
there are no indications at this time related to additional resource needs. This may change as
development in this area continues.
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 13
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
Future State – Potential Adjustments to Service
EMS Unit Assessment
The alarm data shown in Appendix D provides powerful insight into the service levels provided in EMS
alarm situations. The average total response time of 5:17 and average travel time of 2:38 indicate high
levels of service are being provided to the community. Perhaps most impressive is that 87.3% of alarms
have a travel time of 4:00 or less. While the total response time falls slightly short of 90% of alarms under
6:00, improvements in the alarm processing time (ATP) and turnout time (TT) segments could narrow this
gap. The KFD and the City should work with the dispatcher to determine why NFPA standards for ATP
are not being met and what can be done to remedy this situation. Additionally, internal policy and controls
can be explored in order to attempt to reduce turnout time. A study funded by NFPA and performed by
2
the Fire Protection Research Foundation received responses from 14 departments across the nation that
varied in population from 23,000 to 2.5 million. Within a data set of 115,206 EMS alarms, it was found that
only 54% of alarms were recorded with turnout times of 60 seconds or less (NFPA standard) and it took
109 seconds to reach the 90% level defined by NFPA.
The most important time component in terms of determining a need for additional resources is the travel
time. Each of the ladder trucks and Med Unit #7 have the highest “first-arriving” unit travel times and total
response times of all the “front line” units. This is not unexpected given several key factors. The following
observations should be given strong consideration prior to making conclusions about potential need for
additional resources.
>
This study did not analyze response times within station service area geographies but rather
analyzed response times by responding unit. The analysis does not speak to specifics of
response times for alarms within individual station service areas.
>
Higher travel times are expected for Med Unit #7 given that travel distances are greater both
within Station Service Area 7 (given the large coverage area of the station service area) and
outside of Station Service Area 7.
>
Ladder Trucks are expected to have slower response times given the size of the vehicles and
lower utilization indicating they are less likely to be dispatched from the field and more likely to be
parked within a station.
Fire Unit Assessment
The average total response time of 6:12 and average travel time of 3:05 indicate high levels of service are
being provided to the community. At 77.7% of alarms with a travel time of 4:00 or less, the KFD is close to
meeting the NFPA standards (90% less than 4:00). As mentioned above for the EMS results,
improvements to APT and TT will narrow the gap between total response time of the KFD and the NFPA
standards. The same study funded by NFPA mentioned above analyzed a data set of 22,564 fire alarms
and it was found that only 60% of alarms were recorded with turnout times of 80 seconds or less (NFPA
standard) and it took 123 seconds to reach the 90% level defined by NFPA.
The same observations made in the section above for EMS alarms are applicable to fire alarm response
times. There are no real “surprises” in the response analytics for any specific unit.
2
Quantitative Evaluation of Fire and EMS Mobilization Times; The Fire Protection Research Foundation,
May 2010; pg. 40
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 14
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
Approaches to Improving Service Levels and Efficiency within Emergency Response
The results of this study did not find conclusive evidence of an immediate specific need for additional
resources (units or stations). However, each community must make decisions about the appropriate and
desired level of service. It is not suggested that fire departments rely solely on NFPA standards to
determine whether emergency response is efficient and effective. As with any municipal resource
decision, there are cost-benefit considerations that must be weighed. A department could add resources
(staff, stations, vehicles, etc.) until NFPA standards are met, however that would not likely result in a cost
effective and efficient operation. In fact, while the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI)
utilizes these NFPA defined standards as benchmarks in determining accreditation approvals, not every
accredited agency meets all the standards of NFPA. The following are suggested methods for improving
service levels and/or department efficiency:
>
>
Determine whether existing FTE staffing levels could support more frequent use of underutilized
med units. The increased staffed time of a med unit would reduce total response times of the
“system” regardless of where this unit is stationed. The KFD can strategize about where this “5th”
primary med unit should be stationed based on current unit response times, current unit alarm
volumes, and other logistical factors identified by KFD chiefs and managing City staff. This type
resource modification likely means revisiting existing policies and employee agreements
including, but not limited to:
−
3 FTE per Med Unit: Reducing the number of personnel on med units to 2 for certain
types of alarms or situations might help contribute to the effort of adding a med unit into
the “front line” fleet. It is not typical in the industry to staff med units with 3 FTE
responders, but rather 2 FTE per med unit is most common. The advantage to 3 FTE per
med unit is that the majority of medical alarm incidents can be serviced with 3 FTE, which
would prevent the need for a second emergency responding vehicle. While a policy of 2
FTE per med unit would require the dispatch of a second unit for more serious medical
alarms, it would ensure that excessive staff is not dispatched for the lower level alarms
that only require 2 FTE, not 3 FTE. Given that the KFD medical alarms averaged 1.8
vehicles per alarm, it seems that most incidents are currently serviced with 2 vehicles.
For this reason, consideration should be given to the effects of staffing policy revisions
that reduce staff per med unit to the more industry common 2 FTE..
−
Review of the “unlimited” sick time leave clause in the collective bargaining agreement.
The KFD can analyze sick time days within the Department and determine how it
compares to expectations and even other similar sized departments. This can be done by
conducting a survey among other departments or researching existing studies performed
on sick time in emergency response municipal departments. This internal review process
should highlight staffing “availability” analysis in order to determine the percent of time
staffing levels meet the service level needs of the community. The purpose of the study
would be to reveal whether operational efficiencies could be achieved by modifying sick
time policy.
Review departmental policies and procedures related to dispatching multiple units:
−
There may be opportunities to reduce the number of units responding to emergencies
depending on the classification of that emergency. As discussed above in the “Current
Service Delivery Profile” section, there were an average of 2.3 vehicles responding to fire
alarms and 1.8 vehicles responding to medical alarms. If the KFD continues with the
policy of staffing each vehicle with 3 FTE, consideration should be given to limiting the
frequency with which lower level alarms (i.e. BLS) are responded to with more than one
vehicle, especially when that vehicle is not a med unit.
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 15
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
−
>
Of the 10,573 EMS alarms responded to by engine or ladder truck units in the data set,
only 5,199 of them were “first-arriving” units. This indicates that there were 5,374 alarms
where engines and ladder trucks were not “first-arriving” units, which is 22% of the total
24,629 EMS alarm calls within the data set. While these engines and ladder trucks may
nd
have been necessary “2 responders” in advanced life support (ALS) type alarms, there
nd
were likely many instances where they responded as “2 responders” in basic life
support (BLS) type alarms. It is also interesting to point out that Ladder Truck #3 and
Ladder Truck #4 combined for 944 alarm responses to EMS alarms. Given that these
ladder trucks have both an engine and a med unit located within their station service
area, there may be opportunities to reduce their involvement with EMS alarms.
Seek methods to reduce response time segments by modifying policy or procedure on
responding units:
−
Average total response times for “first responding” ladder trucks were more than 2
minutes longer than engines. There were 312 alarms where Ladder Truck #3 or Ladder
Truck #4 was a “first-arriving” unit to a fire alarm. This constitutes 17% of the 1,786 fire
alarms from the data set. There may be opportunities to reduce the number of times a
ladder truck is a first-arriving unit, especially given that Engine #3 and Engine #4 are
within these same station service areas. If the ladder trucks are currently intentionally
being used to respond to certain types of alarms because of equipment installed only on
those trucks, consideration must be given to moving or adding this equipment to vehicles
that may instead respond to these alarms.
−
Some departments have found innovative ways to effectively respond to lower level
emergencies (low level BLS) with faster, cheaper vehicle alternatives. This can involve
the use of a reduced capability med unit or even modified “suburban” type vehicle. This
practice is currently most common outside of the U.S., but is becoming more popular with
U.S. fire and EMS departments interested in reducing capital costs and operating costs.
The main goal of this initiative is to send the right type of vehicle to the right type of call.
This will result in reduced costs associated with operation and “wear and tear” on larger
vehicles when it is not necessary. This strategy is most effective when combined with
cross-staffing of vehicles, which can be limited by employee agreement terms.
−
As mentioned earlier in the report, the department can work with dispatch to reduce
alarm processing times.
−
As mentioned earlier in the report, internal standards can be put in place in attempt to
reduce turnout times. This may require additional training and adjustments in culture.
−
Cross-staffing of equipment would allow for more flexibility to utilize the appropriate and
available units given specific alarm needs. This can be both a cost and time saving
methodology but may require revisions to collective bargaining agreements.
−
Develop a plan to work towards CFAI accreditation. This would help in the
implementation of revised policies by providing incentive to work towards improved
service levels with the KFD’s given resources. The City should consider the cost-benefit
of the accreditation process. There are opportunities to implement CFAI accreditation
strategies and participate in CFAI sponsored industry events without fully committing to
accreditation.
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 16
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
−
The recommendation of this report is that the KFD and City work to make revisions to
existing policies, procedures, and employee agreements in a first attempt to improve
what are already high levels of service. There are certain unit response times, as noted
above in this report, that have room for improvement when compared to the system
operation as a whole. The recommendations in the report concentrate on using more
effective and efficient methods of existing resources to provide cost-effective solutions. It
is not clear from the results of the study that there is an immediate need for additional
resources but rather a need to reconsider existing operating methodology.
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 17
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
Appendix A
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 18
Page 19
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
Appendix B
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 20
AVENUE
25TH
AN R
O AD)
2" (S
HERID
S.T.H
. "3
CT.
AVENUE
15TH
16TH AVE.
12TH AVEN
UE
15 TH
15TH AVE.
.
AVE
AVE.
AVE.
13TH
AVE.
G
8TH AVE.
AVE.
DRIVE
ED Y
KE N
N
4TH
4TH AVE.
"A "
6T H
8TH AVE.
7TH AVE.
5TH AVE.
2ND AVE.
7TH AVE NU E
6TH AVE.
1ST AVE.
3RD AVE.
CT.
5TH AVE.
AVE.
8TH
7TH
CT.
9TH
CT.
5T H
7TH AVE.
8TH CT.
2ND AVE.
10TH AVE.
11TH AVE.
10TH
AVE.
14TH AVE.
12TH AVE.
AN RD.)
S.T.H. "32" (SHERID
14TH AVE.
AVE.
7TH AVE.
12TH
14TH AVE.
2N D
AV E
.
85TH ST.
14TH AVE.
86TH
SH O
RE
DR IV
E
LA K
E
3R D
AV E
.
AV
E.
15TH
16TH
3RD AVE.
Truck 3
91ST PL.
91ST PL.
11TH AVE.
92ND ST.
92ND PL.
93RD ST.
93RD ST.
95TH ST.
. "32
S.T.
H
3RD AVE.
94TH ST.
4T H AV E.
11TH AVE.
1ST AVE.
ST.
93
RD
ST
.
14TH AVE.
15TH AVE.
AVE
.
5T H
17TH AVE.
STREET
"
24TH
R
90TH
90TH
ST.
(SHERIDAN RD.)
O
K
87 TH PL
.
88TH ST.
89TH PL.
16TH AVE.
(22ND AVE.)
C.T.H. "ML"
BR
AVE.
24TH AVENUE
26TH AVE.
27TH AVE.
20TH AVE.
29TH
CT.
SP
NG
RI
O
88TH PL.
90TH ST.
91ST
PL
.
87 TH
ST.
88TH ST.
D.
86TH
PL.
ST.
86 TH
2N D
AV E
.
AVE.
15TH
AV
E.
AV
E.
17TH
AVE.
8TH AVENUE
S.T.H. "32" (SHERIDAN RD.)
13TH AVE.
12TH AVE.
13TH AVE.
12TH
AVE.
13TH AVE.
14TH AVE.
16TH AVE.
15TH AVE.
17TH AVE.
18TH AVE.
AV
E.
19TH AVE.
18TH
20TH AVE.
5T H
6TH
7TH AVE.
10TH AVE.
10TH AVE.
13TH AVE.
13TH CT.
14TH AVE.
15TH AVE.
16TH AVE.
17TH
19TH AVE.
20TH AVE.
21ST AVE.
22ND AVENUE
83RD ST.
87TH PL.
87TH PL.
29TH AVE.
CT
.
99TH ST.
33
RD
AVE.
98TH PL.
3RD AVE.
AVE.
10TH
11TH
11TH
AVE.
AVE.
13TH
13TH CT.
14TH AVE.
18TH AVE.
20TH AVE.
21ST AVE.
AVE.
22ND
26TH AVE.
AVE.
14TH
AVE.
13TH
AVE.
AVE.
16TH
17TH AVE.
AVE.
18TH
AVE.
18TH AVE.
22ND
23RD AVE.
25TH AVE.
CT.
25TH
7TH AVE.
AVE.
17TH
18TH AVE.
19TH AVE.
19TH
20TH AVE.
20TH AVE.
21ST AVE.
AVE.
23RD AVE.
23RD AVE.
25TH AVE.
24TH AVE.
N
SO
26TH AVE.
20TH AVE.
21ST AVE.
22ND AVE.
23RD AVE.
24TH AVE.
24TH AVE.
25TH AVE.
26TH AVE.
26TH AVE.
BU
CH
RO
25TH CT.
AN
AD
RO
AN
25TH AVE.
AD
RO
AD
24TH AVE.
27TH AVE.
27TH AVE.
O
LN
HN
JO
27TH AVE.
30TH AVENUE
21ST AVE.
27TH AVE.
LI
NC
28TH AVE.
30TH AVE.
31ST AVE.
31ST AVE.
32ND AVE.
15TH AVE.
23RD AVE.
24TH AVE.
25TH AVE.
25TH AVE.
26TH AVE.
28TH AVE.
28TH AVE.
29TH AVE.
28TH AVE.
31ST AVE.
AVE.
31ST CT.
32ND AVE.
33RD AVE.
33RD AVE.
34TH AVE.
14 TH
17TH AVE.
AVE.
18TH
19TH
AVE.
20TH AVE.
19TH
21ST AVE.
AVE.
26TH
AVE.
29TH
AVE.
28TH
29TH AVE.
29 TH AV
E.
30TH AVE.
32ND AVE.
32ND AVE.
33RD AVE.
33RD
34TH AVE.
35TH AVE.
16TH
21ST AVE.
24TH AVE.
25TH AVE.
23RD AVE.
22ND AVE.
26TH AVE.
28TH AVE.
29TH AVE.
30TH AVENUE
30TH
30TH AVE.
31ST AVE.
33RD AVE.
33RD AVE.
34TH AVE.
16TH AVE.
17TH AVE.
18TH AVE.
19TH AVE.
AVE.
23RD
22ND AVE.
28TH AVE.
24TH AVE.
23RD AVE.
31ST AVE.
31ST AVE.
32ND AVE.
34TH AVE.
AVE.
36TH AVE.
AVE.
38TH
AVE.
19TH
AVE.
17
17TH
TH
CT
CT.
.
17TH AVE.
19TH AVE.
21ST AVE.
21ST AVE.
AVE.
21ST
AVE.
25TH AVE.
27TH
28TH AVE.
22ND AVE.
26TH AVE.
AVE.
C.T.H. "G" (30TH AVENUE)
23RD AVE.
AVE.
24TH
AVE.
28TH
AVE.
31ST
32ND AVE.
33RD AVE.
34TH AVE.
34TH AVE.
35TH AVE.
35TH AVE.
35TH
35TH CT.
35TH AVE.
36TH AVE.
37TH AVE.
37TH AVE.
18TH
18TH AVE.
C.T.H. "Y"
22ND AVENUE
AVE.
AVE.
AVE.
29TH
29TH
33RD
AVE.
33RD AVE.
34TH AVE.
34TH AVE.
35TH AVE.
35TH AVE.
36TH AVE.
36TH AVE.
39TH AVENUE
AVE.
41ST
.
82 ND ST
H
96 T
97TH ST.
ST.
ST.
80TH ST.
94TH
PL.
.
CT.
47TH
C.T.H. "EZ" (39TH AVE.)
C.
T.
H
."
M
L"
(S
PR
IN
GB
RO
OK
33RD
RD
.)
49 TH
E.
98TH ST.
79TH
ST.
98TH ST.
E DR.
E.
97 TH
.
ST
78TH ST.
E.
STREET
43
RD
TH
95
87TH ST.
77TH ST.
77TH ST.
LA KE SH OR
STRE ET
93RD STREET
84TH ST.
84TH PL.
89TH STREET
AVE
PL.
Med-3
84TH ST.
90TH ST.
90TH PL.
83RD ST.
PL.
41 ST A
VE .
43RD
CT.
96TH
ST.
Fire
82ND ST.
ST.
76TH ST.
73RD ST.
74TH ST.
3R D AV E.
51ST
CT.
AVE .
24TH
25TH AVE.
AVENUE
27TH
26TH
AVE.
29TH
34TH AVE.
CT.
34TH
35TH AVE.
37TH AVE.
AVE.
37TH
AVE.
38TH
40TH AVE.
41ST
AVE.
88TH
2
74TH ST.
8T H AV
E.
20TH AVE.
25TH AVE.
AVE.
29TH
34TH
37TH AVE.
38TH AVE.
38TH AVE.
AVE.
40TH
42ND AVE.
41
ST
AV
E.
CT.
42ND
TH
86 .
PL
84TH ST.
73RD ST.
.
AVE
11T H
72ND AVE.
20TH AVE.
AVE.
27TH
28TH CT.
C.T.H. "G"
AVENUE
CT.
29TH
32ND
AVE.
CT.
30TH
32ND AVE.
AVE.
27TH
35TH
35 TH
AVE .
CT.
34TH
AVE.
36TH
AVE.
36TH
35TH AVE.
36TH AVE.
36TH AVE.
37TH AVE.
AVE.
H
38 T
39TH AVENUE
40TH AVE.
41ST AVE.
PERSHING
41ST AVE.
AVENUE
43RD
.
86 TH ST
.
DR
GE
.
AVE
98TH
ST.
95TH
E.
AV
99 T
H
94
T
PL H
.
LE
99TH
(22ND AVENUE)
29TH
AVE.
(30TH AVE.)
AVE .
38TH
AVE.
37TH
AVE.
AVE.
AVE.
37TH
38TH AVE.
39TH AVE.
AVE.
40TH
40TH AVE.
42ND ST.
43RD AVE.
BLVD.
43RD AVE.
AVE.
42ND
42ND AVE.
42ND AVE.
AVE.
43RD
44TH
AVE.
43RD AVE.
96
T
ST H
.
TH
48 E .
AV
LA
VIL
.
CT
DR IV
E
37TH
39TH AVE.
40TH AVE.
41ST AVE.
42ND ST.
44TH AVE.
AVE.
43RD
AVE.
44TH
47TH
46TH
AVE.
45TH AVE.
47TH AVE.
46 TH
AVE.
45TH
AVE.
48TH AVE.
48TH AVE.
AVE.
FA R
M
S
97TH
ST.
40TH AVE.
41ST AVE.
42ND AVE.
PRIVATE
PRIVATE
AVE.
45TH
46TH AVE.
47TH AVE.
46TH AVE.
AVE.
49TH AVE.
AVE.
50TH
AVE.
54TH
AVE.
AVE.
62ND
CIRCL E
60TH
66TH
COOPER ROAD
94
TH
ST
.
93RD
PL.
88 TH
38TH CT.
38TH
AVE.
43RD AVE.
42ND AVE.
AVE.
AVE.
44TH
43RD
AVE.
43RD AVE.
44TH
AVE.
45TH
46TH AVE.
47TH AVE.
48TH AVE.
48TH AVE.
47TH COURT
50TH AVE.
43RD AVE.
44TH AVE.
PERSHING
45TH AVE.
46TH
AVE.
47TH AVE.
48TH
AVE.
49TH AVE.
50TH AVE.
COOPER ROAD
COOPER ROAD
56TH AVE.
43RD AVE.
PERSHING
BLVD
47TH AVE.
46TH AVE.
48TH AVE.
50TH AVE.
49TH AVE.
AVE.
50TH
49TH AVE.
51ST AVE.
AVE.
52ND
54TH AVE.
56TH AVE.
57TH AVE.
49TH AVE.
55TH AVE.
PRIVATE
56TH
C.T.H. "H" (88TH AVE.)
AVE.
105TH
39TH AVE.
40TH AVE.
39TH AVE.
25
PL TH
.
42ND
AVE.
AVE.
43RD
45TH AVE.
BL
VD
44TH CT.
.
46TH AVE.
48TH
AVE.
47TH AVE.
46TH
AVE.
49TH
AVE.
50TH
51ST AVE.
53RD AVE.
55TH AVE.
54TH AVE.
AVE.
54TH AVE.
57TH AVE.
61ST AVE.
60TH AVE.
65TH
AVE.
AVE.
50TH
AVE.
51ST AVE.
52ND AVE.
53RD AVE.
54TH AVE.
55TH AVE.
56TH CT.
AVE.
58TH
61ST
AVE.
60TH AVE.
55TH
59TH AVE.
61ST AVE.
AVE.
66TH
65TH
62ND AVE.
AVE.
AVE.
64TH
65TH AVE.
63RD
AVE.
66TH
CT.
85TH
43RD
45TH
AVE.
47TH AVE.
50TH AVE.
52ND
AVE.
52ND AVE.
54TH
AVE.
53RD
AVE.
55TH AVE.
57TH
AVE.
57TH AVE.
58TH AVE.
60TH AVE.
62ND AVE.
63RD
AVE.
62ND
AVE.
64TH AVE.
65TH AVE.
AVE.
64TH
AVE.
69TH
70TH AVE.
McDOWELL
DR.
69TH
OLD GREEN BAY ROAD
CT.
96TH
120TH AVE.
AVE.
42ND AVE.
41ST AVE.
AVE.
48TH AVE.
AVE.
52ND
AVE.
51ST
53RD
54TH
AVE.
AVE.
AVE.
55TH
56TH AVE.
58TH AVE.
56TH AVE.
63 RD
(GREEN
S.T.H. "31"
77TH AVE.
BAY RO AD
)
63RD AVE.
AVENUE
AVE.
82ND
70TH COURT
85TH
AVE.
68TH AVE.
94 T
H
BIRCH DR.
91ST AVE.
UE
AVE N
87TH AVE.
AVE.
98TH
94 T
H
E
45TH AVE.
AVE.
56TH
63RD
AVE.
64TH AVE.
68TH AVE.
70TH
CT.
AVE.
84TH
C.T.H. "H" (88TH AVE.)
89TH AVE.
91ST AVE.
91ST
82ND
83RD
86TH AVE.
89TH
CT.
CT.
90TH
93RD.
AVE.
87TH AVE.
90TH AVE.
AVE.
92ND
COURT
93RD. AVE.
92ND AVE.
AVENUE
AVE.
86
TH
.
PL
81
ST
RI
DG
43RD AVE.
AVE.
45TH
46TH
AVE.
44TH
AVE.
47TH AVE.
AVE.
50 TH
65 TH
45TH
AVE.
50TH
AV
E.
AVE .
52 ND
AVE.
54TH
AVE.
48T
H
AVE
47
TH
.
CT
.
55
TH
53R AV
E.
D
CT
.
CT.
55TH
56TH AVE.
LANE
MA RK
ET
BRUMBACK
AVE.
64TH AVE.
68TH AVENUE
70TH AVENU
E
C.T.H. "H" (88TH AVENUE)
AVE.
91ST
AVE.
94TH
93RD AVE.
95TH
94TH CT.
96TH AVE.
AVE.
AVE
.
95 T
H
96TH
97TH AVE.
AVE.
AVE.
100TH
104TH AVE.
86
T
PL H
.
AVENUE
CO URT
94
TH
AVE.
AVE.
96TH
98 T
H
AVE
.
96TH
AVE.
AVE.
AVE.
99TH
AVE.
102ND
100TH
RID
GE
WEST
104TH AVENUE
84TH
PL.
103RD AVE.
.
AVE
110TH
114TH AVE.
S.T.H. "31" (GREEN BAY ROAD)
62 N
D
ND
42
B
DA B
95TH STREET
RK
PA
40TH CT.
45TH
45TH AVE.
47TH AVE.
48TH CT.
AVE.
S.T.H. "31" (GREEN BAY ROAD)
C.T.H. "H" (88TH AVENUE)
99TH AVE.
AVE.
99TH
AVE.
103RD
AVE.
103RD
99TH
AVE.
107TH
103RD AVE.
AVE.
105TH
106TH
AVE
.
AVE
.
10 7T
H
10 9T
H
108TH AVE.
AVE.
111TH
109TH AVE.
112TH
AVE.
AVE.
PK
WY
.
AVE.
113TH
PL EA
AI U
N
ES
115TH
AVE.
VILLAGE OF PLEASANT PRAIRIE
VILLAGE OF BRISTOL
72ND AVENUE
PL .
D
42 N
(EAST FRONTA GE ROAD)
Truck 4
!
(
91ST PL.
PL.
L.
DP
93R
89TH ST.
88TH
ST.
88TH
PL.
91ST ST.
ND
42
INTERSTATE 94
93RD STREET
.
RD
87TH PL.
PL
83RD PL.
82ND
71ST ST.
H
4T T.
C
SI
DE
87TH ST.
89TH PL.
DA
OW
AD
NE
ME
LA
120TH AVE.
89TH ST.
89TH PL.
ST.
88TH
.
AVE
(WEST FRONTA GE ROAD)
41ST
43
RD
52ND AVE.
AVE.
AVE.
53RD
CR
EE
K
WILLO
W
94TH
96TH AVENUE
104TH AVENU E
105TH AVE.
AVENUE
106TH
105TH
AVE.
AVE.
AVENUE
112TH
104TH AVE.
108TH AVE.
AVE.
107TH AVE.
106TH AVE.
AVE.
114TH
AVE.
113TH
111TH
10 7T
108TH
H
AVE .
AV
E.
115 TH
122ND AVE.
AVENUE
125TH
AVENUE
H
130
T
120TH AVE.
INTERSTATE 94
120TH AVE.
AVE.
141ST
14
2N
D
AV
E.
128TH AVENUE
14
7T
H
AV
E.
14
5T
H
AV
E.
AV
E.
15
0T
H
14
8T
H
144
TH
143
RD
CO
UR
T
144TH AVENE UE
AVE.
92 ND
D
63RVE .
A
128TH
P L.
86TH ST.
86TH PL.
87TH ST.
85 T
H
85TH PL.
82ND ST.
PL.
70TH ST.
72ND ST.
72ND ST.
81ST ST.
81ST ST.
68TH
69TH ST.
8T H AV E.
E.
AV
90 TH
PL .
87TH PL.
88 TH PL
.
85TH ST.
86TH PL.
86TH
PL.
87TH PL.
ST.
90 TH
64 TH
CT.
EASANT PRAIRIE
ST.
91 ST
OL D
F BRISTOL
91ST
CIR.
IDE
KS
EE
CR
86TH ST.
IE
PR AIR
136TH AVENUE
86TH PL.
89TH STREET
K
EE
CR
R
(136T H AVENUE)
85TH PL.
86TH ST.
20TH
AVE.
ITY
UN
IV
ER
S
63RD AVE.
65TH AVE.
AVE.
82ND
ST
.
.
AVE
95TH AVE.
58TH AVE.
AVE.
87TH
80TH
AVE.
AVE.
TH
95
AVE.
AVE.
97TH
98TH
INTERSTATE 94
WEST FRONTAGE ROAD
122ND AVE.
144TH AVENE UE
AVENU
E
152ND
AVE.
74
TH
155TH CT.
97TH AVE.
AVE.
98TH
100TH AVENUE
102ND AVE.
120TH AVE. (EAST FRONTAGE ROAD)
120TH AVE. (WEST FRONTAGE ROAD)
128TH AVENUE
C.T.H. "MB" (152ND AVENUE)
C.T.H. "MB" (156TH AVENUE)
93RD AVE.
97TH
AVE.
AVE.
118TH
CITY OF KENOSHA
TOWN OF PARIS
C.T.H. "UE" (136TH AVENUE)
C.T.H. "MB" (152ND AVENUE)
169TH AVENUE
C.T.H. "D" (172ND AVENUE)
C.T.H. "MB" (160TH AVE.)
84TH
88TH ST.
Truck 7
E
RIV
.H. "MB" (160TH AVENUE)
VE
BE
.
LN
ST.
123
80TH PL.
80TH PL.
83RD ST.
78TH PL.
ST.
68TH PL.
70TH ST.
76TH ST.
79TH ST.
65TH ST.
68TH
68TH
ST.
75TH ST.
78TH ST.
60TH ST.
67TH
ST.
71ST ST.
RO
AD
Y
RL
ST.
83 RD
85TH PL.
87TH PL.
91ST PL.
E
IV
DR
Med-4
85TH PL.
TH
88 L.
P
RO
AD
83RD PL.
80TH ST.
76TH ST.
59 TH
PL .
61ST ST.
ST.
69TH ST.
NG
RI
84TH ST.
85TH ST.
84TH ST.
79TH ST.
78TH ST.
74TH PL.
E.
83RD PL.
81ST ST.
79TH ST.
78TH ST.
73RD ST.
74TH ST.
ST.
66 T
H
ST.
56 TH
ST.
57 TH
ST.
PL .
2N D AV
ET
RE
ST
84TH ST.
124
83RD ST.
83RD ST.
77TH ST.
74TH ST.
ST.
64TH
ST.
ST.
59 TH
E.
D.
83RD ST.
82ND ST.
76TH ST.
73RD ST.
56 TH
59 TH
ST.
54 TH
E.
NR
82ND PL.
ST.
74TH ST.
73RD ST.
72ND ST.
1
!
(
Fire55TH ST.
65TH
70TH ST.
71ST ST.
51ST PL.
4T H AV
T IO
STA
83RD ST.
82ND ST.
81ST
73RD ST.
Med-3
PL.
3R D AV
84TH
IN
BA
Med-4
64
TH
CT
83 R .
D
PL .
D
PL.
83 R
81ST ST.
72RD ST.
STREET
67TH
PL.
ISLAND R
D.
PL.
PL.
S
T
EE
TR
80TH PL.
71ST
62ND ST.
132
69TH ST.
70TH ST.
61ST ST.
D R.
83RD
85TH
AVE.
BA IN ST
AT IO N RD
.
H
94 T
LA N
E
RD
83
ST.
82ND
124
S T.
80TH ST.
RO 70TH ST.
LT
VE
E
S
71ST ST.
68TH ST.
ST.
SI
MO
NS
ST.
AVE .
.
CT
T
81 S
80TH PL.
69TH ST.
59TH ST.
FireRescue
66TH ST.
51ST
51ST
ST.
53 RD
58 TH
48TH
PL.
AVE .
EVERGREEN DR.
TH
67
E.
AV
79TH ST.
80TH STREET
(
"
"5
ST.
46TH
PL.
E.
OAK ST.
W
A
P W LL
ST INE AY N U
T
.
79TH
PL.
50
."
)
AD
76TH ST.
78TH ST.
T
EL
78TH
EV .
PL.
OS RD
RO
79TH ST.
T.H
S.
H.
ST.
49TH
S.T.H. "50" (63RD ST.)
3
65TH ST.
48TH
Med-3
58TH
ST.
64TH ST.
!
(
ST
135
RO 63RD PL.
67TH ST.
Med-3
O
RO
T.
S.
0"
(R
S
OO
T
EL
EV
)
AD
ST.
47TH
5T H AV
MARY ANN DR.
78TH ST.
69TH ST.
63RD ST.
65TH ST.
66TH ST.
60TH
PL.
R IAL
M EM O
79TH ST.
74TH
ST.
74TH PL.
ST.
73RD ST.
55TH ST.
ED Y
KE NN
CEDAR LN.
D
78TH PL.
77TH ST.
73RD ST.
73RD PL.
134
65TH ST.
68TH ST.
71ST ST.
54TH ST.
ST.
7T H
BIRCH DR.
SHERRY LN.
76TH
ST.
AD
RO
64TH ST.
67TH ST.
.
RD
T
AN
GR
70TH ST.
TH
68 .
PL
63RD ST.
66TH ST.
68TH ST.
ON
IS
RR
HA
53RD ST.
56TH ST.
61ST ST.
ST.
50TH
51ST PL.
60TH STREET
ST.
45TH
46TH
51ST ST.
58TH ST.
44TH
Med-5
48TH ST.
50TH ST.
57TH ST.
43RD
6T H
MAPLE RD.
.
ST
80TH
89TH PL.
)
EL
CI M
R.
W
ES
T
W
O
O
70TH ST.
Med-4
62ND ST.
153
ST.
ST.
S.T.H. "158" (52ND ST.)
53RD ST.
42ND ST.
44TH
45TH
40TH PL.
41ST ST.
E.
ILM
73RD ST.
77TH ST.
78TH ST.
82ND STREET
TH
84
.
PL
.
DR
T.H
C.
82 ND
PL .
(W
70TH ST.
71ST ST.
73
RD
ST
.
BL
VD
60TH PL.
61ST ST.
AD
N
AD
O
SO
R
IL
W
FT
A
T
ST.
43RD ST.
40TH
PL.
6T H AV
82 ND
PL .
C"
."
69TH ST.
143
41ST PL.
42ND
46TH ST.
56TH ST.
RO
41ST ST.
44TH PL.
57TH ST.
60TH PL.
FireRescue
40TH ST.
AV E.
EW
AY
OT
)
AD
RO
PL.
76TH
68TH ST.
55TH ST.
40TH ST.
F.
39TH ST.
10 TH
R
EAST RID
G E IDG
81ST
ST.
CO U
RT
68TH ST.
50TH ST.
5
HN
VE.
8T H A
LE XIN GTON
.
80 TH ST
142
Med-4
67TH PL.
S.T.H. "50" (75TH STREET)
D
EVAR
BO UL
RIDGE
73RD ST.
67TH ST.
PL.
69TH ST.
72ND ST.
66TH PL.
G
ST.
39TH ST.
JO
38TH ST.
AVE.
ST.
66TH PL.
65TH PL.
41ST
48TH ST.
ST.
51ST ST.
59TH ST.
AD
O
!
(
46TH ST.
48TH
38TH ST.
37TH
ST.
8T H
74TH PL.
76TH ST.
CIR.
NO
R
VIE TH
W
DR
.
71ST ST.
65TH
PL.
66TH
PL.
66TH ST.
RD
HA
IN
R
35TH PL.
36TH ST.
40TH ST.
43RD ST.
S.T.H. "32"
.
DR
ST.
63RD ST.
63RD ST.
65TH ST.
68TH ST.
.
61 ST ST
62ND ST.
64TH
ST.
67TH
61ST ST.
64TH ST.
FireRescue
!
(
Med-5
STREET
35TH
AVE .
11T H
ST
.
67TH ST.
69TH
64TH ST.
4
58TH ST.
34TH ST.
ST.
35TH
AVE.
76TH ST.
74TH
ST.
63RD ST.
ST.
ST.
AVE .
PL.
56TH ST.
57TH
56TH ST.
33RD ST.
34TH
Lake
Michigan
11TH
74TH
ASHB URY
84TH PL.
89TH
ST.
73RD ST.
55TH ST.
31ST ST.
ST.
10 TH
ST.
70TH ST.
74TH ST.
EAST
H
7T
10 E .
AV
(W
AD
ST.
83RD
TH
111
.
AVE
H
3T
11
E.
AV
"
"C
82ND
84TH ST.
TH
111
E.
AV
C.T.H. "C" (93RD STREET)
.
T.H
I
RO
81 ST
PLACE
H 11
87 T A 0T
VE H
ST.
.
ST.
H
T
88
72ND ST.
73RD ST.
ST.
.
CT
E.
AV
T.
HS
86 T
80
PL TH
.
83RD PL.
H
OA
K
71ST ST.
STRE ET
68TH
ST.
68TH
70TH
70TH ST.
.
DR
82ND ST.
69TH ST.
H
97T
80TH ST.
84 TH ST
RE ET
OT
LM
80 TH
79TH PL.
68TH ST.
E
PR AIRI
ST.
66TH
DR.
109TH AVE.
79 TH
56TH ST.
53
TH CTRD
54
54 ST. .
T
CT H
.
156
32ND
30TH ST.
AD
ST.
55 TH ST.
55TH ST.
53RD ST.
28TH ST.
13 TH
CT.
79TH
78TH ST.
71 S
ST. T
98TH
79TH PL.
ST.
147
55TH ST.
ST.
25TH ST.
37TH ST.
45TH PL.
Med-4
53RD ST.
Med-4
65TH
ST.
PLAC E
65TH
67TH ST.
ST.
77TH
77TH PL.
66TH STREET
67TH ST.
AV
E.
STREET
33RD
24TH ST.
29TH ST.
29TH ST.
34TH
RD
AVE.
78 TH
3T
11
C.
90TH ST.
92ND ST.
ST
.
ST.
53RD ST.
60TH STREET
.
ST
64TH
145
(52ND ST.)
S T.
T
61S
62ND ST.
65TH
50TH ST.
27TH ST.
28TH ST.
32ND
ST.
23RD ST.
26TH ST.
FO
14TH
77TH ST.
77TH PL.
83RD ST.
88TH STREET
. "C"
C.T.H
74TH
ST,
63RD ST.
ST.
ST.
28TH
PL.
(A
L
21ST ST.
45TH ST.
46TH ST.
17TH ST.
18TH PL.
22ND ST.
23RD
ST.
24TH ST.
25TH
45TH ST.
47TH ST.
ST.
AVE .
.
ST
77TH STREET
HI
CI
RC
LE
91ST ST.
ST.
60TH PL.
62ND PL.
50 TH
D
22 N
PL.
41ST ST.
44TH ST.
46TH ST.
ST.
50TH
43RD ST.
16TH ST.
16TH PL.
17 TH
17 TH
.
PL
TH
78
84TH STREET
TH
77
H
82ND PLACE
70TH
65TH
67
T
ST H
.
H
S.T.H. "50" (75TH STREET)
S T.
68TH ST.
69TH
ST.
ST.
42ND ST.
16 TH
ST.
16TH PL .
AVE .
AV
E.
66TH ST.
67TH ST.
ST.
63RD ST.
65TH
49TH ST.
C.T.H. "K" (60TH STREET)
62ND PL.
ST.
42ND ST.
TH
48 .
CT
11
8T
69 T
H
64TH ST.
ST.
ST.
15TH PL.
20TH PL.
ST.
WASHINGTON RD.
40TH
41ST ST.
42ND
20TH PL.
21ST
STREET
40TH ST.
ST.
PL.
58TH PL.
62ND ST.
46TH
46TH
58TH
ST.
61ST ST.
25TH ST.
STREET
30TH
TH .
49 CT
H
1T .
11
CT
PL.
.
STREET
67TH
67TH PL.
Med-7
63RD ST.
ST.
.
PL.
16TH
66TH ST.
PLACE
ST.
24TH ST.
STREET
29TH
G
STREET
63RD
ST.
56TH ST.
24TH ST.
23RD
ST.
27TH STREET
N
HI
RS
PE
64TH
68TH PL.
E.
AV
79
PL TH
ST.
RD
S
62ND
114
TH
11 AVE
5T
.
AV H
65TH
E.
T
118
79 TH
ST.
AM
PL.
.
ST
AD
S.T.H. "50" (75TH STREET)
T
61S
.
PL
TH
98
D
72N
.
ST
TH
39
61ST
STREET
43RD
48TH
E.
AV
61ST
61ST
S.T.H. "158"
TH
95
ST.
AVE.
ST RE
ET
74TH
ST.
80TH ST.
Map Last Revised: Sept 2014
PL.
58TH
29TH ST.
30TH
51ST ST.
54TH ST.
TH
99
71
PL ST
AC
E
71ST
78 TH
82ND STREET
60TH
50TH STREET
STREET
174
C.T.H. "K" (60TH STREET)
.
ST
AVE .
72
ND
STREET
45TH ST.
46TH STREET
53RD ST.
55TH
PLACE
78 TH
81ST STRE ET
RD
53
.
PL
ST.
34TH ST.
STREET
28TH
Med-5
33RD ST.
44TH ST.
FireRescue
!
(
S.T.H. "158" (52ND STREET)
.
AVE
E.
AV
69TH
ST.
35 TH
25TH ST.
154
ST.
23RD
C.T.H. "S" (WASHINGTON RD.)
43RD
165
Med-5
ST.
22ND ST.
STREET
25TH ST.
ST.
TH
29 L.
P
TH
50
32ND ST.
24TH STREET
27 TH
STREET
15TH
19TH ST.
22
ND
ST.
15TH
16TH PL.
16TH PL.
14TH PL.
18TH STREET
PL.
20TH
C.T.H. "S" (38TH STREET)
7
ST.
25TH ST.
28TH
PL. 53R
D
AV
E.
31 ST
.
VD
BL
274
64 TH
PLACE
STREET
28TH
.)
Med-7
ST.
26TH
31ST STREET
C.T.H. "N" (38TH STREET)
67TH
25
TH
PL
.
PL .
Fire
PLACE
³
13TH PL.
RO
RD
17TH ST.
16TH
21ST
23RD PLACE
ST.
12TH PL.
13TH ST.
ST.
13TH PL.
SHERID AN
TO
N
15TH
16TH ST.
16TH ST.
6
!
(
19TH ST.
TH
44 T.
C
R LI
NG
15TH ST.
14TH PL.
21ST ST.
"
(BU
14TH LN.
PL.
22ND STREET
24
TH
13TH
13TH
14TH ST.
14TH PL.
17TH
PL.
C.T.H. "L" (18TH STREET)
19TH
H
9T
10
E.
AV
H
4T
15
E.
AV
H
5T
15
ST.
ST.
13TH ST.
13TH PL.
16TH PL.
16TH
PL.
17TH
C.T.H. "L" (18TH STREET)
.
AVE
. "S
PL.
14TH ST.
17TH ST.
18TH STREET
111TH
ST.
STREET
C.T.H. "H" (8
TOWN OF SOMERS
KENOSHA COUNTY OFFICE OF LAND INFORMATION
September 2014
16TH STREET
H
47T
.
CT
C.T
.H
CITY OF
KENOSHA
66TH
RD
73
16TH PL.
TON
R OA D
)
VILLAGE OF BRISTOL
CITY OF KENOSHA
70TH ST.
15TH STREET
TH
55
168TH AVENUE
LING
TOWN OF PARIS
VILLAGE OF BRISTOL
68TH
ST.
Feet
13TH
12TH PL.
VE)
DRI
(BUR
13TH PL.
13TH ST.
35 TH
.
AVE
2"
E.
AV
(12TH ST.)
C.T.H. "E"
K
"14
AV
E
13 TH ST.
11TH PL.
T.
L.
R
PA
H.
42
ND
6,000
Map Prepared By:
D"
EET
67TH
13TH ST.
CITY OF KENOSHA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Engine 7
C.T.H. "N" (38TH STREET)
C.T.H. "K" (60TH STREET)
CT.
11TH
11T H
S
11T H
P
ET
RE
ST
PL .
.
RD
S.T
.
31ST ST.
C.T.H. "E" (12TH STREET)
Source:
Engine 6
Engine 4
Private Road
Civil Division Line
Truck Response Boundary
ST.
1 INCH = 15TH
2000 FEET
Engine 5
Engine 3
FireRescue - Station Type
4,000
TH
27 .
CT
10TH PLACE
N
Location - !
(
2,000
H
14 T
10 TH
DRIVE
.
RD
TOStation
N RO
AD)
TH
14
.
PL
10TH ST.
O
IS
AD
M
LING
1,000
12TH PL.
S
YING SPRING RO AD)
H
RC
BI
(BUR
3 - Station Number
0
ST.
PL.
9TH PL.
ST.
PL .
8TH PL.
9TH ST.
D
32N
E.
AV
2"
14TH
12TH
PL.
13TH
ST.
Truck 3
PLACE
BLVD.
36 TH
AVE .
S.T.H.
"14
- Medical Response Unit Number
12TH
(PETRIF
10T
H
10 TH
11TH PL.
R"
PARKSIDE
TH
37 T.
C
Med-4
Engine 2
11TH ST.
C.T.H. "E" (12TH STREET)
City of Kenosha
- Response District Number
11TH STREET
. "J
8T
H
TH
38 VE.
A
135
TOWN OF PARIS
C.T.H. "MB" (136TH AVENUE)
138TH AVENUE
C.T.H. "E" (12TH STREET)
C.T.H. "E" (12TH STREET)
Truck 4
Truck 7
10TH PL.
C.T
.H
E
UNIVERSITY
¤n
s EMERGENCY
s 8 RESPONSE DISTRICTS
n
8TH ST.
DR
IV
Page 21
24x42City_Composite_Map_2014.mxd
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
Appendix C
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 22
Page 23
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
Appendix D
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 24
EMS INCIDENTS ‐ RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR FIRST ARRIVING VEHICLES
Data Range Parameters: All Data Analysis Only Includes Call Times Between X:XX and X:XX minutes
(as shown below)
Alarm Processing Time
0:00:00
0:04:00
Turnout time
0:00:00
0:04:00
Travel Time
0:00:00
0:20:00
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards have been cited as benchmarking comparison data. These are industry accepted guidelines for fire and EMS departments in evaluating their service metrics and general performance. Specifically, NFPA Standard 1710 and 1221 were used as they relate to alarm processing time, turnout time, and travel time.
EMS Incident Alarm Data for First Arriving Vehicles: Alarm Count and Average Times by Alarm Segment for Dates: All Arriving Alarms
103
5,063
3,325
4,303
1,174
55
33
1,851
2,411
1,642
1,918
1,360
571
373
447
Total Alarms
(each)
70
3,395
1,946
2,614
727
29
14
1,373
1,004
566
816
979
199
100
162
Avg Alarm Processing Time
(min)
0:01:18
0:01:10
0:01:12
0:01:11
0:01:18
0:01:29
0:01:27
0:01:20
0:01:21
0:01:19
0:01:19
0:01:20
0:01:29
0:01:36
0:01:25
Meds 3,4,5,7
All Med & Rescue
13,865
14,056
8,682
8,795
8,623
8,736
0:01:11
0:01:11
8,588
8,701
Engines
Engines & Trucks
9,182
10,573
4,738
5,199
4,689
5,140
0:01:20
0:01:21
All Vehicles
24,629
13,994
13,876
0:01:15
Med 2
Med 3
Med 4
Med 5
Med 7
Rescue 33
Rescue 44
Engine 2
Engine 3
Engine 4
Engine 5
Engine 6
Truck 3
Truck 4
Truck 7
to
11/1/2014
First Arriving Alarms ONLY
Alarm Processing Time Alarms
(each)
70
3,374
1,932
2,603
714
29
14
1,356
995
564
807
967
196
96
159
Total Alarms
(each)
6/1/2013
Turnout Time Avg Turnout Alarms
Time
(each)
(min)
70
0:01:26
3,373
0:01:18
1,922
0:01:22
2,580
0:01:28
713
0:01:27
29
0:01:31
14
0:01:33
1,361
0:01:26
996
0:01:23
562
0:01:24
804
0:01:29
966
0:01:38
188
0:01:32
98
0:01:32
158
0:01:33
Avg APT+TT+Travel ATP+TT+Travel Alarms
Time
(each)
(min)
66
0:05:37
3,199
0:04:46
1,777
0:05:21
2,436
0:05:29
625
0:06:52
9
0:05:53
6
0:05:55
1,325
0:05:12
937
0:04:46
506
0:05:15
744
0:05:18
932
0:05:38
163
0:05:55
77
0:05:59
143
0:06:53
Travel Time Alarms
(each)
66
3,224
1,796
2,464
641
9
6
1,346
949
512
759
943
175
81
148
Avg Travel Time
(min)
0:02:54
0:02:19
0:02:48
0:02:49
0:04:06
0:02:43
0:03:10
0:02:26
0:02:03
0:02:29
0:02:30
0:02:39
0:02:51
0:02:46
0:03:54
0:01:23
0:01:23
8,125
8,206
0:02:43
0:02:43
8,037
8,118
0:05:17
0:05:17
4,689
5,133
0:01:28
0:01:28
4,509
4,913
0:02:25
0:02:29
4,444
4,827
0:05:13
0:05:18
13,834
0:01:25
13,119
0:02:38
12,945
0:05:17
Notes: "Total Alarms" in the table above represents the total number of incidents that a particular vehicle responsed to, with no data range parameters applied. Data for "ATP + TT + Travel" (Alarms and Avg Time for alarm processing time + turnout time + travel time) will not equal the sum of each of the components in the previous columns. This is because data was only included if all 3 time segments for a specific incident number fell within the defined time parameters given to each individual segment, as shown in the "Data Range" table above. Requiring that parameters are met for each time segment will reduce the sample size, however it will ensure that total response time only represents complete data for each component of each incident.
Page 25
Percent of Alarms that are Less Than X:XX Minutes for Turnout Time
Percent of Alarms that are Less Than X:XX Minutes for Alarm Processing Time
Med 2
Med 3
Med 4
Med 5
Med 7
Rescue 33
Rescue 44
Engine 2
Engine 3
Engine 4
Engine 5
Engine 6
Truck 3
Truck 4
Truck 7
% < 0:01:00
32.9%
39.1%
35.7%
37.0%
30.0%
24.1%
21.4%
24.5%
28.7%
30.7%
32.2%
25.4%
21.9%
14.6%
22.0%
% < 0:01:30
74.3%
79.0%
77.6%
77.3%
70.4%
55.2%
50.0%
72.3%
68.7%
72.5%
72.6%
70.9%
56.1%
50.0%
59.1%
% < 0:02:00
87.1%
94.4%
94.6%
93.7%
90.6%
79.3%
92.9%
91.7%
89.0%
89.2%
90.3%
91.2%
80.6%
79.2%
88.1%
All Vehicles
NFPA Standard
33.2%
80.0%
74.6%
92.3%
Percent of Alarms that are Less Than X:XX Minutes for Travel Time
Med 2
Med 3
Med 4
Med 5
Med 7
Rescue 33
Rescue 44
Engine 2
Engine 3
Engine 4
Engine 5
Engine 6
Truck 3
Truck 4
Truck 7
All Vehicles
NFPA Standard
Med 2
Med 3
Med 4
Med 5
Med 7
Rescue 33
Rescue 44
Engine 2
Engine 3
Engine 4
Engine 5
Engine 6
Truck 3
Truck 4
Truck 7
% <
0:01:00
27.1%
28.7%
27.2%
21.7%
20.5%
17.2%
14.3%
18.8%
20.5%
23.3%
19.2%
9.6%
16.5%
18.4%
16.5%
% <
0:01:30
58.6%
68.3%
66.7%
58.2%
58.9%
41.4%
42.9%
63.1%
64.4%
62.3%
56.6%
49.6%
43.1%
50.0%
54.4%
% < 0:02:00
81.4%
88.5%
84.8%
79.6%
81.3%
69.0%
78.6%
83.5%
87.0%
83.8%
81.2%
76.0%
77.7%
77.6%
81.6%
All Vehicles
NFPA Standard
22.7%
90.0%
61.9%
83.5%
Percent of Alarms that are Less Than X:XX Minutes for Total Response Time (Alarm Time Processing + Turnout Time + Travel Time)
% <
0:04:00
75.8%
91.9%
84.5%
86.1%
54.0%
88.9%
50.0%
93.7%
92.6%
90.8%
89.1%
91.0%
82.3%
86.4%
59.5%
% < 0:05:00
93.9%
96.3%
92.0%
94.8%
79.6%
88.9%
83.3%
97.6%
97.4%
95.9%
95.9%
97.9%
85.7%
88.9%
81.8%
% < 0:06:00
98.5%
98.2%
96.1%
97.2%
89.4%
88.9%
100.0%
99.0%
98.8%
97.5%
98.3%
99.5%
90.9%
95.1%
90.5%
87.3%
90.0%
94.5%
97.3%
Med 2
Med 3
Med 4
Med 5
Med 7
Rescue 33
Rescue 44
Engine 2
Engine 3
Engine 4
Engine 5
Engine 6
Truck 3
Truck 4
Truck 7
All Vehicles
NFPA Standard
% <
0:06:00
60.6%
83.7%
72.8%
68.6%
32.2%
55.6%
33.3%
77.2%
81.6%
76.9%
74.7%
65.5%
62.0%
58.4%
32.9%
72.8%
90.0%
% < 0:07:00
85%
93%
86%
86%
59%
78%
50%
92%
91%
89%
89%
90%
79%
74%
63%
87%
% < 0:08:00
90.9%
97.0%
93.4%
93.5%
78.7%
88.9%
66.7%
97.0%
97.0%
95.1%
94.9%
96.5%
85.3%
84.4%
79.0%
% < 0:10:00
98.5%
98.9%
98.0%
98.5%
95.5%
100.0%
100.0%
99.4%
99.7%
97.8%
98.9%
99.5%
92.6%
94.8%
93.0%
94.3%
98.5%
Page 26
EMS Incident Data by Call Segment and First Arriving Vehicle (6/1/2013 to 11/1/2014)
0:07:00
0:06:00
0:05:00
0:04:00
0:03:00
0:02:00
0:01:00
0:00:00
Med 2 Med 3
Med 4 Med 5
Med 7 Rescue
Rescue Engine
33
Engine Engine
44
2
Engine
3
4
5
Avg Alarm Processing Time
(min)
Avg Turnout Time
(min)
Avg Travel Time
(min)
Engine Truck 3
Truck 4
6
Truck 7
Avg ATP+TT+Travel Time
(min)
Page 27
FIRE INCIDENTS ‐ RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR FIRST ARRIVING VEHICLES
Data Range Parameters: All Data Analysis Only Includes Call Times Between X:XX and X:XX minutes
(as shown below)
Alarm Processing Time
0:00:00
0:04:00
Turnout time
0:00:00
0:04:00
Travel Time
0:00:00
0:20:00
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards have been cited as benchmarking comparison data. These are industry accepted guidelines for fire and EMS departments in evaluating their service metrics and general performance. Specifically, NFPA Standard 1710 and 1221 were used as they relate to alarm processing time, turnout time, and travel time.
6/1/2013
Fire Incident Alarm Data for First Arriving Vehicles: Alarm Count and Average Times by Alarm Segment for Dates: All Arriving Alarms
11/1/2014
First Arriving Alarms ONLY
Alarm Processing Time Alarms
(each)
Med 2
Med 3
Med 4
Med 5
Med 7
Rescue 33
Rescue 44
Engine 2
Engine 3
Engine 4
Engine 5
Engine 6
Truck 3
Truck 4
Truck 7
9
345
210
269
77
2
0
337
632
388
470
221
548
452
157
5
142
58
92
33
2
0
201
308
180
226
147
198
114
80
5
142
57
91
30
2
0
199
305
174
220
143
192
111
76
Avg Alarm Processing Time
(min)
0:01:10
0:01:18
0:01:12
0:01:18
0:01:17
0:02:27
‐
0:01:30
0:01:35
0:01:29
0:01:28
0:01:36
0:01:38
0:01:32
0:01:46
Meds 3,4,5,7
All Med & Rescue
901
912
325
332
320
327
Engines
Engines & Trucks
2,048
3,205
1,062
1,454
All Vehicles
4,117
1,786
Total Alarms
(each)
to
Total Alarms
(each)
Turnout Time Alarms
(each)
5
137
53
87
28
0
0
190
289
167
217
142
192
106
74
Avg Travel Time
(min)
0:03:02
0:01:57
0:02:22
0:02:21
0:03:42
‐
‐
0:02:48
0:02:15
0:03:00
0:02:48
0:02:55
0:05:00
0:04:17
0:04:50
APT+TT+Travel Alarms
(each)
5
136
52
85
27
0
0
184
277
161
208
138
184
101
70
Avg APT+TT+Travel Time
(min)
0:05:44
0:04:35
0:04:49
0:05:11
0:06:25
‐
‐
0:05:45
0:05:29
0:06:00
0:05:50
0:06:06
0:08:34
0:07:58
0:08:24
5
141
56
91
32
2
0
195
296
173
219
143
196
112
75
Avg Turnout Time
(min)
0:01:32
0:01:21
0:01:21
0:01:33
0:01:38
0:01:09
‐
0:01:31
0:01:37
0:01:37
0:01:37
0:01:39
0:01:52
0:02:06
0:01:53
0:01:17
0:01:17
320
327
0:01:26
0:01:26
305
310
0:02:18
0:02:18
300
305
0:04:58
0:04:58
1,041
1,420
0:01:32
0:01:33
1,026
1,409
0:01:36
0:01:42
1,005
1,377
0:02:41
0:03:15
968
1,323
0:05:47
0:06:29
1,747
0:01:30
1,736
0:01:39
1,687
0:03:05
1,628
0:06:12
Travel Time Alarms
(each)
Notes: "Total Alarms" in the table above represents the total number of incidents that a particular vehicle responsed to, with no data range parameters applied. Data for "ATP + TT + Travel" (Alarms and Avg Time for alarm processing time + turnout time + travel time) will not equal the sum of each of the components in the previous columns. This is because data was only included if all 3 time segments for a specific incident number fell within the defined time parameters given to each individual segment, as shown in the "Data Range" table above. Requiring that parameters are met for each time segment will reduce the sample size, however it will ensure that total response time only represents complete data for each component of each incident.
Page 28
Percent of Alarms that are Less Than X:XX Minutes for Turnout Time
Percent of Alarms that are Less Than X:XX Minutes for Alarm Processing Time
Med 2
Med 3
Med 4
Med 5
Med 7
Rescue 33
Rescue 44
Engine 2
Engine 3
Engine 4
Engine 5
Engine 6
Truck 3
Truck 4
Truck 7
% < 0:01:00
20.0%
39.4%
54.4%
33.0%
36.7%
0.0%
‐
22.6%
18.4%
25.9%
23.2%
19.6%
9.9%
19.8%
9.2%
% < 0:01:30
100.0%
72.5%
80.7%
70.3%
70.0%
50.0%
‐
58.3%
51.8%
55.2%
59.1%
47.6%
43.8%
56.8%
38.2%
% < 0:02:00
100.0%
85.2%
87.7%
89.0%
90.0%
50.0%
‐
78.9%
77.7%
79.3%
82.7%
74.1%
79.7%
79.3%
68.4%
All Vehicles
NFPA Standard
23.0%
80.0%
56.3%
80.0%
Percent of Alarms that are Less Than X:XX Minutes for Travel Time
Med 2
Med 3
Med 4
Med 5
Med 7
Rescue 33
Rescue 44
Engine 2
Engine 3
Engine 4
Engine 5
Engine 6
Truck 3
Truck 4
Truck 7
All Vehicles
NFPA Standard
% <
0:01:00
0.0%
24.8%
21.4%
24.2%
18.8%
50.0%
‐
12.8%
11.5%
11.6%
13.2%
7.0%
6.6%
2.7%
5.3%
% <
0:01:20
60.0%
53.2%
55.4%
42.9%
31.3%
100.0%
‐
35.4%
26.0%
29.5%
29.2%
23.1%
14.3%
12.5%
10.7%
% < 0:02:00
60.0%
87.9%
87.5%
72.5%
75.0%
100.0%
‐
83.6%
78.0%
75.7%
74.9%
75.5%
62.8%
52.7%
69.3%
12.3%
29.0%
90.0%
74.8%
Percent of Alarms that are Less Than X:XX Minutes for Total Response Time (Alarm Time Processing + Turnout Time + Travel Time)
Med 2
Med 3
Med 4
Med 5
Med 7
Rescue 33
Rescue 44
Engine 2
Engine 3
Engine 4
Engine 5
Engine 6
Truck 3
Truck 4
Truck 7
% <
0:04:00
100.0%
97.8%
92.5%
90.8%
57.1%
‐
‐
84.2%
90.0%
79.6%
83.4%
81.0%
49.0%
53.8%
36.5%
% < 0:05:00
100.0%
98.5%
96.2%
98.9%
85.7%
‐
‐
91.6%
95.8%
89.8%
93.5%
93.7%
58.9%
66.0%
62.2%
% < 0:06:00
100.0%
100.0%
98.1%
100.0%
89.3%
‐
‐
95.3%
98.3%
94.0%
98.2%
97.2%
67.7%
79.2%
79.7%
All Vehicles
NFPA Standard
77.7%
90.0%
87.0%
92.0%
Med 2
Med 3
Med 4
Med 5
Med 7
Rescue 33
Rescue 44
Engine 2
Engine 3
Engine 4
Engine 5
Engine 6
Truck 3
Truck 4
Truck 7
All Vehicles
NFPA Standard
% <
0:06:20
80.0%
91.9%
88.5%
78.8%
48.1%
‐
‐
70.1%
72.6%
62.7%
58.7%
65.2%
33.2%
34.7%
11.4%
61.5%
90.0%
% < 0:07:00
100.0%
97.1%
92.3%
90.6%
70.4%
‐
‐
81.0%
80.5%
75.8%
77.9%
72.5%
41.3%
45.5%
24.3%
0.0%
72.2%
% < 0:08:00
100.0%
99.3%
92.3%
98.8%
88.9%
‐
‐
89.7%
93.9%
88.8%
90.9%
86.2%
54.3%
58.4%
45.7%
% < 0:10:00
100.0%
100.0%
98.1%
98.8%
96.3%
‐
‐
97.3%
97.8%
96.3%
99.0%
97.8%
69.0%
79.2%
80.0%
83.7%
92.8%
Page 29
Fire Incident Data by Call Segment and First Arriving Vehicle (6/1/2013 to 11/1/2014)
0:09:00
0:08:00
0:07:00
0:06:00
0:05:00
0:04:00
0:03:00
0:02:00
0:01:00
0:00:00
Med 2 Med 3
Med 4 Med 5
Med 7 Rescue
Rescue Engine
33
Engine Engine
44
2
Engine
3
4
5
Avg Alarm Processing Time
(min)
Avg Turnout Time
(min)
Avg Travel Time
(min)
Engine Truck 3
Truck 4
6
Truck 7
Avg APT+TT+Travel Time
(min)
Page 30
City of Kenosha Fire and EMS Study
Final Report
Appendix E
Preliminary Findings Documents Released
Prior to the completion of the Draft Report for this study, working documents were produced to share
preliminary findings with the City’s project work team. These documents included a summary of findings,
alarm data analysis, and maps showing station locations with 2 mile radius circles centered on the station
locations. The documents were intended for facilitating discussions with the work team and did not
include any recommendations. It is expected that analysis and findings change throughout the project
study process.
The information within these preliminary working documents has been revised and is different from what
is represented in this final report based on additional analysis, updated alarm data, and more detailed
review of project material. Specifically, the preliminary alarm analysis included ALL responding units on
alarms rather than isolating “first-arriving” units. This methodology overstated alarm response times as
they relate to NFPA standards. This final report is based on revised analysis that isolates “first-arriving”
units to alarms. Additionally, 2 mile circles centered on station location maps were not included as
appendices of this final report. These maps do not provide precise analysis of response time coverage
due to the many factors affecting a unit’s speed in reaching an alarm location. These factors include, but
are not limited to, speed limits, traffic control, traffic volumes, street layout and available routes, and
roadway conditions. Without consideration for these factors, the coverage maps may be misinterpreted.
Other variations in information between the preliminary working documents and this final report may exist.
Prepared by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP
December 4, 2014
Page 31