Fire Services Review Special Committee - Minutes - 08/09/2022

>=9 PM DuOnw:-e6o-442-0583
wivw.waterlordetorg
FIFTEEN ROPE FERRY ROAD
WATERFORD; CT 06385-2886
Fire Services Review Special Committee
Minutes—Special Meeting August 9, 2022
Members Present: Robert Tuneski (BoF), Richard Muckle (RTM), Greg Attanasio (RTM), Susan Driscoll (RTM/PP&S), Michael
Howley (Fire Services), Steven Sinagra (Emergency Management), Mark Greczkowski (WAS), Todd Patton (Chief, Goshen FC)
Members Absent: Rob Brule (BoS), Tom Martin (Captain, WFS)
Also Present: Dave Welch (RTM), Chris Bonanno and John Mariano (COH), Rocco Bracciale (OSW)
1. Call to order: Chair Tuneski called the meeting to order at 5:39 p.m.
2. Public comment: None.
3. Approval of previous minutes: Motion by Attanasio, second by Muckle, to approve July 12, 2022, minutes as presented.
Voice vote: Unanimous.
4. Consideration of FSRSC’s charge from the RTM (6/7/21): Discussion focused on the following issues:
Deliverables from last meeting: Director of Fire Services Howley distributed and gave brief descriptions of the current
staffing plan, incident reports, OSW firehouse needs assessment, new and planned business and housing developments,
and town demographics data. He noted Covid impacts in incident reports and demographics, and predicted an increase in
incidents as a result of new and planned developments in town. He added that he has applied for a SAFER grant to offset
wages of new hires and used the development data in the application to highlight the challenges we’re facing to improve
our chances, noting that we are “playing catch-up” in regard to staffing. At the request of Attanasio, Howley will provide
members with data on incident response times (by location of incident, not responder) and mutual aid.
Volunteer recruitment/retention: Tuneski asked about the volunteer component of the staffing plan—what is our current
cadre and how many will we need in the next three or five years? Howley reported that we recently dropped from 15 paid
part-timers to just 9, with many moving on to full-time positions elsewhere as towns statewide are competing for staff. He
noted that volunteer Chiefs have been actively recruiting and we gained 7 more volunteers in the first week of August,
who face 5 months of weekend training before they can progress from grunt tasks such as packing trucks to actual
firefighting duties (due to liability concerns). He did offer one positive update: State education and fire agencies and OSHA
have finally agreed to allow high-schoolers (age 17-19) to take Firefighter 1 training, which can expand the pool of
potential volunteers. Howley intends to request more specific benchmarks, and reduce others, in the volunteer incentive
program that has just gone to review by the RTM’s Public Protection & Safety Committee. He will also be encouraging the
state legislature to exempt the town’s volunteer tax abatement amount from state income tax.
OSW firehouse: The structural engineering report requested at the last meeting has not been completed, but Howley
reported that the engineer has told the town the building is safe for now. Tuneski expressed his support for replacement
of the building and addressing any repairs deemed “emergency” immediately, but noted that we still need a vision for the
space, to be part of our strategic plan incorporating structures, paid and volunteer staffing, and communications.
5. New business: None.
6. Next meeting: Sept. 13 at 5:30 p.m. confirmed as next meeting date—in WPD training room, pending availability.
7. Adjournment: Motion by Muckle; second by Driscoll to adjourn at 7:12 p.m. Voice vote: Unanimous.
Submitted by
Susan Driscoll, FSRSC Secretary
encl: FFstaffing/Demographics/OSW
Incident reports 2017-20

Proposed Staffing Plan
for the
Waterford Fire Department

Office of the Director
Waterford Fire Department
Fire Fighter Staffing Plan
Firefighter Staffing Plan is information gathered and professional recommendations on the Town
of Waterford Fire Services. Volunteer, Part-time and Career firefighters. Waterford’s history of a
very strong volunteer fire service with five separate fire companies is struggling like many fire
departments here in Connecticut and across this Country. Fire services here in Waterford have
been under one agency since 2020, putting the five companies under one fire service while the
fire companies maintain their independence in the community. The challenge we have is to keep
ahead of a diminishing volunteer staff and hire full time career staff, and Part-time staff to offset
coverage 24 hours a day.
Combination Staffing
Combination & Volunteer departments that protect growing populations often struggle to meet
the demands made by their customers for emergency services. These services can include fite
suppression, emergency medical care, mitigation of hazardous material incidents, water related
emergencies, fire prevention, code enforcement, public education and the day-to-day
administration of the department. The demands have escalated exponentially. Types of incidents,
training demands and expectations. At the same time, the resources (Volunteers) have remained
static or, in some cases, declined”. One of those resources, the ability to provide trained qualified
volunteer firefighters to respond to meet these expectations, can become as significant a problem
to these growing departments as handling the alarms.
Reports that the recruitment of people who are available during weekday hours has become
increasingly more difficult. Retaining trained Volunteers or Part time firefighters can prove to be
just as significant a challenge to an administrator as recruiting. The most frequently cited reasons
for the decline was family responsibilities followed by training requirements. External training
requirements that do not differentiate between career, volunteer, or part-time members can cause
members to be unable or unwilling to commit the requisite amount of time to meet those
conditions and mandates, Firefighter 1, 160 hours, EMT 180 hours and many more and to the
commitment needed by a volunteer.
The addition of career firefighters and a community’s changing to a combination fire department
structure is often seen as an answer to such staffing problems. A situation of this type is probably
most evident in the rapidly growing suburban communities surrounding major metropolitan
areas. Originally, these outlying areas were composed of small communities that provided a
climate suitable for volunteer departments. As times changed, however, these communities
experienced rapid growth rates in population, housing and ancillary services. The original corps
of volunteers found themselves unable to meet the increased demands or recruit new members.

_ Therefore, many of these once volunteer fire departments have added the services of career and
part-time personnel. And continue to grow off of that base. :
Integrating Work Groups
Once the decision has been made to add career personnel the department will be faced with
determining how many positions will be needed. A combination department is designed to
ensure that there is adequate staff available to handle alarms during hours when the volunteer or
part time personnel are not available or eligible to work because of limitations in work hours.
Therefore, to reach an acceptable staffing level a balance, typically struck between the
fluctuating availability of part time or volunteer personnel and the relatively constant
presence of career employees in our stations 24/7/365.
An important factor in maintaining a healthy combination department is that, along with
effective, strong leadership and firm management. The department must be structured so that the
career, part-time and volunteer firefighters are held to the same standards for conduct, training or
discipline. As importantly, the three groups must be trained as a team. All this along with good
policies & procedures, good incident command structure will produce a safe environment for all.
A very large challenge. Due to time constraints with volunteers.
Cost
The per capita costs of operating a combination department are generally lower than those in
fully paid departments. Communities faced with increasing growth can look to a combination
department to manage labor costs. This would be a preferred alternative to the closing or
consolidation of stations in an effort to keep expenses in check. Rapid growth from an influx of
new residents and annexations of large tracts of land can create a delayed fiscal impact on local
governments who incur ensuing demand for services. This Waterford will see as we are having
an influx of residential apartment complexes.
Summary Statement
Determination of career staffing levels in a combination department is a critical decision-making
process. It considers the presence of volunteers, part-time firefighters, their abilities and training,
incident scene efficiency and safety, overall department services, functions, and cost.
Items considered in Waterford staffing plan:
Staffing at five Companies: what Companies staffed 24/7 and what Companies have certain 8-
hour shifts covered. As part-time firefighters.depart through natural attrition, or getting hired by
career departments full-time replacements are necessary to assure for enough resources for both
on-duty and off-duty response levels.
Mutual Aid: mutual given to other communities, more important what mutual aid can we
receive when needed from communities struggling with lack of volunteers.
Future growth: increase construction residential apartment buildings, commercial growth, and
industrial growth.
Call volume: to meet current needs with medical, fire, technical rescue, MVA incidents, mutual
aid given, Code enforcement, Inspections, and plan review.
C

Fire Fighter Staffing Plan
RECOMMENDATIONS
Little significant research has been done on the combination fire department, its structure,
culture, operational objectives, or ability to meet the demands of its customers, the taxpayers.
Much of the literature on staffing has been based on research involving fully career departments
that often have significantly higher call loads, specialized hazards or tactical situations, and
staffing levels that can vary greatly from those experienced by a combination department.
Waterford’s call load is increasing and will continue to increase with development. Both
commercial and residential. WFD has specialized hazards with a nuclear power generation
facility that we owe a due diligence to, to train with, respond with and assist as a partner in our
community. The ability to effectively manage personnel costs with volunteer firefighters does
not, however, come without another type of “cost.” That cost is one of establishing and
maintaining an organizational culture that strongly supports the career and part-time FF structure
through clear communication, clear expectations and fair application of procedures and policies.
Accomplishments
* Stabilized staffing schedule, with improved supervision
* Enhanced levels of service and performance to the community
* Balanced approach to supervision, administrative duties, and command
+ Establishing approach to succession planning
+ A cohesive team atmosphere with all levels of service
. * Town wide safety and risk management
. * Enhancing firefighter training
» Enhancement has been budget neutral with the exception of department inflationary increases
« Promotional opportunities for internal staff
» Community and RTM support for transition
On-Going Challenges
«Part-time staffing vacancies ;
' © Emergency callback staffing and future response considerations
. ° Community event and outreach staffing.
* Part-time training challenges and limited hours available.
* Part-time skill deterioration and department disassociation.
+ Assessing current and on-going part-time employee value.
* Increasing call volumes.
+ Full-time firefighter fatigue and burnout concerns.

Current Full-Time Status
¢ Director of Fire services
+ Assistant Chief (new later this F/Y 22-23)
+ A-Shift: Captain & three full-time firefighters
+ B-Shift: Captain & three full-time firefighters
+ C-Shift: Captain & three full-time firefighters
10 part time firefighters staffing Company 2-three days a week 8-hour shifts. Company 3- two
days a week 8-hour shift. Company 4-seven days a week. M-F 8 hours, Sat & Sun sixteen hours
FMO
1 Fire Marshal
1 Fire Inspector
* Recommendation to have total (3) inspectors
+ F/Y 21-22 10 Career Firefighters, added 2 FF with new contract Total 12
4 on duty 24/7 supplemented by part time FF’s day time only at three stations
+ NFPA 1710
¢ Transition to 1710 is a model of service based off of deployment, staffing, and services.
« Currently not compliant with NFPA 1710
* Requires between 15-17 within eight (8) minutes
. * Current deployment model:
+ 4-6 firefighters within eight (8) minutes.
+ 4-6 Volunteers on second alarm
+ 1-2 Volunteer Chiefs when available
+ 3-4 Mutual aid response (New London)
Staffing Projections needed for Waterford Fire
Three years out: F/Y 23-24 recommendations are to have (21) Career FF’s
Recommendation are to have (1) additional Inspector
Five years out: F/Y 26-27 recommendation are to have (27) Career FF’s
Recommendation are to have (1) additional Inspector
Ten years out: F/Y 31-32 recommendation are to have (30) Career FF’s

+ Community Risk Reduction Benefit of NFPA 1710 Compliance:
* More appropriately dispersed workload.
* Firefighter injury reduction.
* Rescue and suppression efforts and tactics improve.
* Compensate for ever reducing and turnover of part-time firefighters.
+ Improvement in overall Insurance Service Office (ISO) scoring with staffing increase.
* Enhanced model with additional staffing:
¢ 12-17 firefighters for a reported dwelling fire
* Improved Incident Command Structure
+ 3-4 automatic aid response firefighters
The domino effect with staffing limitations is the lack of hands to perform critical tasks that are
required. when arriving on scene, particularly when faced with life/rescue issues. The lack of
hands means choosing among interior fire attack, immediate rescues, pulling hand lines, etc.
Options are extremely limited, if not eliminated.
_ Fire departments that face staffing limitations must take a step back and reevaluate their
operational capabilities, working to identify what can be done to streamline operations.
Streamlining operations will make a department more effective and efficient with their actions,
like in this case of our example video, the time of arrival on scene.
There are tactics that can be adapted and revised to work in conjunction with the availability of
hands arriving on scene or when they arrive on scene. These tactics must be trained on, not just
once, but multiple times, as they will be the playbook for officers and firefighters arriving on
scene.
This is not the ideal solution for facing this type of situation, but it will allow the department do
something productive when they arrive on scene or once they have more hands arriving on scene,
The public will not understand the problems that we face with respect to staffing limitations, but
we still need to serve them in a way that puts their wellbeing at the ° top of the list, even if it
means that we are limited with what we can do!
Director,
Aidt
Michael J. Howley
C. C. file

2021 Town Profile . 472 Current Pepulation
Waterford, Connecticut 18,935
Demographics
AL NS
Land Area i? 33 Age Distribution
Population Density < 578 Under 10
Number of Households 7,716 10'to 19
Median Age 48,4 20 ‘s 2
Median Household Income $90,893 40 io 49
Poverty Rate 6% 50 to 59
60.to 69
70 to 79
8G-and over
Economy
Top Industries Race and Ethnicity
¢ rt Stabor 2014 3 Asian Non-Hispanic (443 | Ex
Black A+ hon
® Retail Trade 2,885 149 $27,943 Hispanic or Latino/a of any race + io
5 A White 9+
® Health Care & Sacial Assistance 1,665 64 $45,548 Other nH. inot American indian Alasia Native | 2%
©) Accommodation & Food Services 874 55 $25,905 Native Hawaiian or Pacific islander
® Local Government 794 13 $58,555
€ Transportation & Warehousing 464 410 $27,350 Language Spoken at Home | ) State
All Indusirias 10.804 Bed $55,146 English rah Yai
Spanish af lias
SOTS Business Registrations Educational Attainment | State
s the State, June 282) ; High Scheel Diptoma Only 27 ow
Total Active Businesses 1,745 Associate Degree rfos
v Business Registrations by Year Bachelor's Degree zara
} 124 2006 105 2017 90 2018 86 Master's Degree: or Higher s7fi9%
«v02 98 2007 121 2012 68 2017 105
2008 92 2013 87 2018 V7
2009 104 2014 143 2079 138 Housin
2010 85 2015 84 2029 137 ACS, 2613-2049 waterford State
Median Home Value $252,200 $275,400
kK f Median Rent $1,312 $1,180
ey Employers Housing Units 8,426 4,516,629
Data fam mu fibes 2524
@ Dominion Energy \
@ Sonaiysis ; § State
© Eugene O'Neill Theater Owner-Occupied est Jane
@ Seaconn Fabrication LLC yolached or SemiDetached ae) [osx
© Definder Industriés LLC acan afiton
Schools
OF Deparment of Education, 2620-21 Smarter Balanced Assessments
. . sta let of exceeaed expectations,
School Districts " Bratiment 7 Math BLA
Waterford School District PK-12 2,367 50 : Waterford School District ‘ 85% 70%
Statewide ~ 613,079 45,300
: ‘Statewide a 48% 56%
data
collaborative
ADVANCE © Connecticut
SOMMER TIOUT

2021. Town Profile. ; 212 Current Population
*
Waterford, Connecticut 18,935
~abor Force Fiscal Indicators C
CT Ge sent of Labor 2020 % ail Mas 3 hd
Employed 1,724,621 Municipal Revenue
Unemployed 148,010 Total Revenue $104 808,299
Property Tax Revenue $87,828,103
Unemployment Rate . afew per capita $4,636
Seif Employment Rate off tox per capita, as % of state av. 153%
, _ intergavernmental Revenue $11,121,482
Reverie to Expenditure Ratio 108%
Catchment Areas of 15mi, 30mi, and 60mi Boston®
os Municipal. Expenditure
Springtietd Tatal: Expenditure $96,016,401
: Educational $57,514,171
Other $38,502,230
Grand List
«Poughkeepsie Equalized Net Grand List $4,842,942 667
per capita $256,447
per capita, as % of state av. 167%
Comm./indust. Share of Net Grand List 27%
Actual Mill Rate 27.03
Equalized Mill Rate 18.08
Municipal Debt ¢ .
Moody's Rating Aa2 ese
Total Indebtness: $74,485,000
oNew York per capita $3,944
per capita, as % of state av. 153%
as percent of expenditures 78%
Annual Debt Service $7,428,542
as % of expenditures 8%
Access | iNatertora i State
ACS 2018-2018
Mean Commute Time Fre 20 min 26 min Search AdvancaCT’s SiteFinder, Connecticut's most
No Access .to a. Car 4] jo comprehensive online database of available commercial properties.
No Internet Access 108 12% ctdata.org/sitefinder
Commute Mode : About Town Profiles
Public Transport ° ! “ a ‘The Connecticut Town Profiles are two-page. reports. of demographic and econamic
Walking or Cycling af} sx Information for each of Connecticut's 169 municipalities. Reports for 2016-2049 are
Driving eo} ] 93% avaifable from profites.ctdata.org.
Working From Home 2e-cove afs% Feedback is welcome, and should be directed to info@ctdata.org.
. + These Profiles cari.be used free of charge by extemal organizations, as long as
Public Transit AdvancéCT and CTData Collaborative-are:citad. No representation or warranties,
CThansit Service . expreased of implied, are. given regarding the: accuracy of this information.
Other Public Bus Operations
Train Service
ADVANCE =";
SONNKECTCOT
Southeast Area Transit District (SEAT)
Connecticut
: data
collabarative

Our People
The foundation, the focus, and the reason we serve: people. The following
visualizations provide information about the people currently living in the Town
of Waterford and highlight changes over time in population.
18,911
current Population
Waterford Town County
Subdivision, New London County,
CT
19,517
©. 2010 Population
_ Waterford Town County
Subdivision, New London County,
CT
Sources; US Census Bureau 2010, US Census Bureau ACS &-year 2016-2020
Population Change Over Time
25,600
26.000
15,00G
10,000
5.006,
People
+]
1390
2000
2010
@ svacerfors Town County Jubdivision, New Londan County, CT
2010 to 2020 Census Count Comparison
Mature >70
Baby Boomer (50-69)
Gen X (35-49)
Millennials (19-34)
Gen Z <=18
2020
2010 2020 Change 2010 - 2020
% of Total Count % of Total Count % change Count
11.60% 2,264 10.80% 2,048 -1.11% -216
26.10% 5,094 27.10% 5,127 0.17% 33
20.40% 3,982 19.60% 3,699 -1.45% -283
23.50% 4,586 25.00% 4,727 0.72% 141
18.40% 3,591 17.50% 3,310 -1.44% -281
100.00% 19,517 100,00% 18,911 -3.10% -606

Town of Waterford Age Dependency Ratios
Dependents, residents who are either children or the elderly, may be at greater risk for and during
an emergency. By understanding. the vulnerability of our residents, we can both plan for services
and engage partners already providing direct assistance programs.
Population Under 18 Population 65 and Over
18% 22%
' Waterford Town County Waterford Town County
Subdivision, New London County, ; Subdivision, New London County,
CT CT
21% 17%
Connecticut ; + Connecticut
Sources: US Census Bureau ACS 5-year 2016-2020
Dependency Ratios
Waterford Tawn County Age Dependency Ratica
Subdivision, New London _
County, CF : | 5593 -G2%
Sources: US Census Bureau ACS S-year 2016-2020

Multi-family Housing
Catering to 65+ and disabled
Nursing Facilities: 337 beds (combined)
Bayview —
New London Rehab-
Greentree Manor
Assisted Living Facilities: 113 units, 2 dementia units 40 combined beds
Atria at Cross Roads
Independent Living / catering to 65+ and disabled — 209 combined units
AHEPA
Victoria Gardens
Twin Havens
Jordan Brook Terrace
State Run Group Homes: (that meet inspection threshold)
Savy Avenue
Hamast Avenue
High Ridge Drive
Quarry Road
Pepper Box Road
George Street

Waterford has
less housing
diversity than
surrounding
communities ...
About 88% of
all housing
units in
Waterford are
single-family
detached
homes...
Percent 1-Unit Detached
Waterford 88%
Ledyard 83%
East Lyme 82%
Montville 82%
NL County 66%
Connecticut 59%
Groton 46%
New London 31%
CERC Town Profiles, 2019
2.1 Housing Mix
The American Community Survey (ACS) estimates that about 88 percent of all
housing units in Waterford are detached one-family structures. This is higher
than New London County and the state and higher than nearby communities. in
comparison to the state-wide housing mix, Waterford has. more 1-unit detached
units and less of other types of housing.
Waterford Campared Ta State-Wide Mix
Co Waterford = sana County
150%
125% 4
100% fom
78% N
50%
25%
f11-unit, detached Wi 1-unit, attached [ |
ox C]
O2 units 3 or4 units 2 B2 8 $$ 28
| @ 86 #§ § § 5 8
M5 to 9 units 10 to 19 units sg € © £ @ @ ¢£
3 o@ o ww 9 8
20 or more units Other 2 ¢ -
3 3
a oa
American Community Survay, 5-Vear Estimate (2018}
, detached 7,352 86% 65% 59%
L-unit, attached 232 3% 4% 5%
2 units 186 2% 8% 8%
3 or 4uriits 98 1% 7% 9%
5 to 9 units 267 3% 5% 6%
10 to 19 units 114 1% 3% 4%
20 or more units 153 2% 6% 9%
Other 110 1% 3% 0%
“American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2018) / Table 628024

Overall,
Waterford has
485 housing units
that meet State
criteria for
“affordable
housing” ...
State statutes only consider
housing which is
encumbered in some: way to
sell or rent at affordable
price levels:
* Governmentally assisted
housing developments,
*® Rental units occupied by
households receiving
tenant rental assistance,
* = Ownership units
financed by government
mortgages for
fow/maderate income
persons and families,
* — Housing units subject to
deed restrictions
limiting the price to
where persons or
families earning eighty
percent or less of the
area median income pay
thirty per cent or less.of
their income for
housing.
2.5 State-Defined Affordable Housing
Overall, there are about 485 housing units in Waterford which are assisted or
restricted to remain affordable for some time:
Government-Assisted 213 2.5% 7.5%. 6.1%
Tenant Rental Assistance 33 0.4% 1.3% 3.0%
CHFA/ USDA Mortgages 239 2.8% 2.4% 19%
Deed-Restricted Units a 0.0% 0.1% 0.4%
Total 485 5.6% 11.4% 11.3%
DOH Affordable Housing Appeals List (2022}
Government-Assisted Units (213 units) - Waterford has 213 government-
assisted units. Since government assisted units have been funded by
government programs related to housing, Waterford can be fairly comfortable
that these units will continue to be affordable for the foreseeable future.
AHEPA Waterford 54 95 Clark Lane
Jordan Brook Terrace 26 55 Yorkshire Drive
Twin Haven Waterford 40 36 Mary Street
105 Boston Post Road
Victoria Gardens 90
Group Home 1 Hamast Avenue
Group Home 1 High Ridge Drive.
Group Home 1 Quarry Road
DOH Affordable Housing Database (2019)
Tenant Rental Assistance Units (33 units) — The locations of tenants receiving
rental assistance are not disclosed. The number and location of tenant rental
assistance units can change over time since the assistance is provided to eligible
people. Over the past decade, Waterford has had between 13. and 35 units.
CHFA/USDA Mortgages (239 units) — The locations of the units financed by
CHFA/USDA mortgages are not disclosed. The number and location of these
units can change over time since the assistance is provided to eligible people.
Over the past decade or so, Waterford has had between 136 and 266 units.
Deed-Restricted Units (0) units) -Waterford has zero deed-restricted units.
14

Most of the
The following chart compares the number of State-defined affordable housing “affordable
units in Waterford to some other Connecticut communities.
housing” units in
Percent Affordable Compared To Number of Housing Units Waterford that
1% —_ are counted by
10% | : : ae the State have
35% {P- | sod : J
Waterford . been created by
30% amy” ; others ...
25% eens
e-
20%15% ea
*
10%
5%
0% it] 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
Number of Housing Units
* Simsbury 9,123 4.7%
Watertown 9,096 5.0%
Southbury 9,091 1.5%
Bloomfield 9,019 11.1%
Rocky Hill 843 5.4%
Fast Lyme 8,458 6.2%
Ansonia 8,148 15.3%
Berlin 8,140 9.3%
Plainville 8,063 7.2%
Madison 8,049 1.7%
Planimetrics Based On DOH Affordabia Housing Appeals List (2029)
Elderly / Disabled Housing
Jordan Brook Terrace Twin Haven Waterford
ie paw
Victoria Gardens
15

New and Planned Projects
171 Rope Ferry Road: 53 units (completed)
22 Miner Lane — Waterford Parc: 72 units (completed)
Willets Ave — Waterford Woods: 300 units (currently under
construction and planned)
908 Hartford Turnpike: 40 units permitted
48 Dayton Road - Cohanzie School: 32 units planned
109R Clark Lane: use still in planning stage
# Great Neck Rd — 40 units (single family & duplex proposed)
# Great Neck Rd — behind Henny Penny: Commercial/Industrial
51 Daniels Ave — Southwest School - use still in planning stage
Parkway South — Waterford Airport Property — potential
residential/industrial use
Hartford Turnpike — Crystal Mall — Mix use potential

Office of the Director
Waterford Fire Department
RE: Oswegatchie needs assessment
The new structure needs to house the following equipment and spaces. Recommendation
minimum 4 bays front to rear. 4 bays would handle future growth of Waterford.
2 Engines
1 Aerial 100’
i Brush truck
1 Service PU truck
1 bay for Antique truck or have out building
1 Ambulance (rent) bay
Equipment and tool rooms
Compressor room
Other rooms as needed by OSHA
Office, meeting, space needs
1Meeting/training room (50) plus people
1 Kitchen commercial grade
1 sleeping quarters (10) firefighters & EMS
2 Bath/Shower, male/female facilities locker rooms
1 reports room
1 communications room
1 Day room
1 Gym workout room
1 Clean/transition room
Every Fi ite Department provides unique but: critical Services for their iiunicipalities. and tregions.
While every fire’ station should be built to best support their community’ and: their services, some
common trends, should be kept in mind when building a new ‘station: 2 i
One of the first and. most important considerations i is that a Fire ‘Station is more than aoe
Unlike other municipal or government buildings, these stations accommodate firefighters for 24-
hour shifts, both career and part-time firefighters, making these stations act asia. living Space and:

a L workspace, A place for: volunteers io mest an ang out s something that iis missing hele days.
Outside. sound mitigation, temperature control : privacy space; while necessary in, any facility,. has
an oversized value in a ‘constantly occupied build? New. stations inust. be: built'as if this will be
a ‘home away from home ‘for first esponders. ‘This in uides ensuring living spares are secured.
and separated front public and ‘entry spaces, - os
Another thing that must. be accounted fori is potentially con i ol; uniforms, and
equipment: Firefighters have a 9% higher chance of developing canicer that: the average
population aand: are twice as likely to develop mesothelioma compared tothe :average person,
Much: of that inetease can be tied toc C cinogen, exposure while on the job, Fire Depart nits oe
must do everything possible t oreduce contact and exposure to. carcinogens and: toxic: “thaterial: by :
as much: ‘as possible, Stations should have transition zones where any “contaminated material can
be removed and. cleaned before compromising the station ot other publi¢ s pace. :
Another consideration i is response. ime, Regardless of what. service a station provides. when the
emergency call goes through, every: moment counts fo ensuite that Fist Responders can, reach - é
‘need tobe uit: to reduec 2. res|
emergencies on time, these static ‘ nse: time t6.the: secorid Ways b
to minimize response. time include reducing circulation: spe € nunmuzing: th impact office: and
lobby space have. on. the, footprint of the building. in addition, having every hallway ane
walkway. lead: directly to the apparatus bays. and every oot opening to these balivay can
dramatically cut down tumout and response time... :
Our. Fitst Responders continue to: provide: some of the mos' tal work ot kes eping Ws safe. We
owe thera. to make sure their facilities provide |thera with everything they need and. keep thetn
safe oo"
C




(
ini & ie
par roon FED] pe

WATERFORD
Incident Type Report (Summary)
Alarm Date Between {7/1/2017} And {6/30/2018}
Pet of Total Bet of
Ineidant. Type Count Incidents Est. loss Losses
1 Fixe
lll Buildifig fire 17 0.40% $119,740 48 00%
113 Cooking fire, confined to container 1 0.02% $10,000 4.00%
114 Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney 3 0.078 $0 0.00%
122 Fire in motor homé, campér, recréational 1 0.02% $13,000 5.24%
131 Passenger vehicle fire 7 0.16% $35,484 14.22%
132 Read freight or transport vehicle fire 2 0.04% $70,000 28.06%
134 Water vehicle fire 1 0.02% $1,100 0.44%
141. Forest, woods or wildland fire 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
142 Brush or brush-and=grass mixture fire 1? 0.40% $0 0..00%
143 Grass fire 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
151 Outside rubbish, brash or waste fire 1 0.02% $0 0.008
152 Garbage dump or sanitary landfill fire L 0.02% $0 0.00%
154 Dumpster of other outside trash receptacle 4 0.09% $0 9.00%
160 Spécial outside fire, Other 1 0.02% $0. 9.00%
162 Outside. equiprient fire 2 0.04% $0 0.00%
60 1.43% $249,324 99.95%
Overpressure Rupture, Explosion, Overheat(no fire)
240 Explosion (Ho fire), Other 4 0.02% $0 0.00%
251 Excessivé heat, scorch burns with no 2 0.04% $0 0.00%
3 0.07% 80 0,00%
3 Rescue & Emergency Medical Service Incident.
321 EMS Gall, exeluding vehicle accident with 2,918: 70.02% $6 0.60%
322 Motor vehicle accident with injuries 188 4,518 $0 6.00%
323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident (MV Ped) 7 0.16% so 0.00%
324 Motor Vehicle Accident with no injuries 12 0.288 50 Q.00%
342 Search for person in water 3 0.07% $0 0.00%
350 Extrication, rescue, Other 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
355 Confined space rescue 1 0.02% $0 9.00%
361 Swimming/recreational water areas rescue. 2. 0.04% $0 0.00%
365 Watercraft. rescue 5 0.12% $0. 6.60%
3,137 75.28% $0. 0.00%
4 Hazardous Condition (No Fira}
400 Hazardous cordition, Other 4 0.09% $0 0.00%
411 Gasoline oz other flammable liquid spill é 0.14% $0 0.00%
412 Gas leak (natural. gas or LPG) 12 0.283 $0 0.00%
113 Oil or other dombustible liquid spill 3 0.07% $0 0.00%
08/08/2022 10:32 Page 1

WATERFORD:
Incident. Type Report.. (Summary)
Alarm Date Between {7/1/2017} And {6/30/2018}
Pat of Total Ret of
Incident. Type Count Ineidents Est. Loss Lésses
4 Hazardous Condition (No Fire)
420 Toxic eéndition, Other L 0.02% $0 0.00%
424 Carbon mofioxide. incident 9 O.213% $0 0.00%
440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem, Other 30 O.71% $0 0.00%
441 Heat fren short circuit (wititig), 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
443 Breakdown of light. ballast 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
444 Powet line déwn 59 1.41% $0 0.00%
445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 9 Q.21% $0 0.00%
463 Vehicle accident, general cleanup 16 0.38% $0 0.00%
: 15a 3.62% 80 6.00%
§ Service Call
500 Service Call, other 1 0.02% $0 0.003
520 Water problem, Other 4 0.09% $0 0.00%
$21 Water evacuation 5 0.12% $0 0.00%
522 Water or steam leak 12 0.284% SO 0.00%
531 Smoke or odor ‘removal 2 0.04% $0 0.008,
950 Public service assistance, Other L 0.02% $0 0.00%
51 Assist police or other governmental agency 2 0.04% $0 0.00%
552 Poliee matter 6 0.14% so 0.008
553 Public service 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
554 Assist invalid 125 2.99% 8.0. 0.00%
561 Unauthorized burning 25 0.60% $0. 0.00%
571. Cover assignmént, standby, théveup 8 0.19% $0 6.00%
192 A. 60%: $0 0.00%
6 Good Intent Call
600 Good intent call, Other 90. 2.15% 80 0.00%
Gll Dispatched & cancelled en route 85 2.03% $6 0.00%
621 Wrong location 1 0.02% 80 0.00%
622 No Incident found on arrival at dispatch 103 2.47% $0 0.90%
631 Authorized controlled burning 5 0.12% $0 6.00%
651 Smoke scare, odor of smoke 34 0.81% $10cg 0.04%
652 Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to be 2 6.048 10) 0.004%
661 EMS call, patty transported by non-fitre 1 0.02% 50 0.00%
671. HazMat réleasé investigation w/no RazMat 16 0.38% $0 0.00%
337 #,08% $100 0.04%
7 Falsé Alarm & False Call
100 False alarm or falsé ¢all, Other 5 0.12% $0 0, 00%
08/08/2022 10:32
Page

WATERFORD:
Incident. Type Report. (Summary)
Alarm Date Between {7/1/2017} And {6/30/2018}
Pet of Total Pet of
Incident. Type Count Incidents Est. Less Losses
7 Palse Alarm & Palse Call
714 Central station, malicious false alarm z 0.04% $0 0.00%
7i§ Local alarm system, malicious false alarm 3 0.07% $0 0.00%
730 System malfunction, Othér 2 0.04% $0 0.00%
731 Sprinkler activation due to malfunction 6 0.14% $0 0.00%
733 Sttioke detector activation due to 11 0.26% $6. 0.00%
735. Alarm. systein soundéd due té malfunction 15 0.36% $0 0.00%
736 CQ detector activation due to malfunction io 0: 24% $0 0.00%
740 Unintentional transmission of alarm, Other 21 0.50% $0 0.00%
741 Sprinkler activation, no fire - 2 0.04% $0 0.00%
743 Smoke detector activation, no fire - 64 1.53% $0 0.00%
744 Detector activation, no fixe = 13 0,313 $0 0.008
745 Alarm system activation; no fire = 128 3.07% $0. 9.00%
746 Carbon. monoxide detector activation, no Co 4 0.09% $0. 0.00%
286 6,86% $0 0.00%
8 Severe Weather & Natural Disaster
813 Wind storm, tornado/hurricane assessment 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
1 0.02% $0 0.00%
Total Incident Count: 4167 Total Est Loss: $249,424
08/08/2022 10:32 ; Page 3


WATERFORD
Incident Type Report (Summary)
EY Year”
Alarm Date Between {7/1/2018} And {6/30/2019}
Pat of Total Pet of
Incident Type Count Incidents Est Loss Losses
1 Fire
100 Fire, Other 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
111 Building fire 14 0.35% $200,500 97.37%
114 Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney 4 0.10% $0 0.00%
130 Mobile property (vehicle) fire, Other 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
131 Passenger vehicle fire 2 0.05% $5,400 2.62%
132 Road freight or transport vehicle fire 2 0.05% $0 0.00%
142 Brush or brush-and-grass mixture fire 15 0.38% $0 0.00%
150 Outside rubbish fire, Other 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
151 Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
154 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle 3 0.07% $0 0.00%
162 Outside equipment fire 3 0.07% $0 0.00%
a7 1.19% $205,900 100.00%
2 Overpressure Rupture, Explosion, Overheat(no fire)
200 Overpressure rupture, explosion, overheat 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
231 Chemical reaction rupture of process vessel 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
“51 Excessive heat, scorch burns with no 4 0.10% $0 0.00%
6 0.15% $0 0.00%
3 Rascue & Emergency Medical Servica Incident
320 Emergency medical service, other 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with 2,821 71.78% $0 0.00%
322 Motor vehicle accident with injuries 195 4.96% $0 0.00%
323 Motor vehicle/pédestrian accident (MV Ped) 2 0.05% 50 0.00%
324 Motor Vehicle Accident with ne injuries 20 0.50% $0 0.00%
342 Search for person in water 3 0.07% $0 0.00%
353 Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 4 0.10% $0 0.00%
360 Water & ice-related rescue, other 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
361 Swimming/recreational water areas rescue 2 0.05% $0 0.00%
365 Watercraft rescue 3 0.07% $0 0.00%
3,052 77.65% $0 0.00%
4 Hazardous Condition (No Fire)
400 Hazardous condition, Other 3 0.07% $0 0.00%
410 Combustible/flammable gas/liquid condition, 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
411 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 8 0.20% $0 0.00%
412 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 11 0.27% 80 0.00%
“13 Oil or other combustible liquid spill 6 0.15% $0 0.00%
12 Chemical spill or leak 3 0.07% . 80 0.00%
07/16/2022 09:37
Page
1

WATERFORD
Incident Type Report (Summary)
Alarm Date Between {7/1/2018} And {6/30/2019}
07/16/2022 09:37
Page
: Pot of Total Pot of
Incident Type Count Incidents Est Loss Losses
4 Hazardous Condition (No Fire)
424 Carbon monoxide incident 5 0.12% $0 0.00%
440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem, Other 6 0.15% $0 0.00%
444 Power line down 25 0.63% $0 0.00%
445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment . 8 0.20% $0 0,00%
451 Blological hazard, confirmed or suspected 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
461 Building or structure weakened or collapsed 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
463 Vehicle accident, general cleanup 15 0.38% $0 0.00%
93 2.36% $0 0.00%
5 Service Call
500 Service Call, other 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
511 Lock-out 4 0.10% $0 0.00%
520 Water problem, Other 2 0.05% $0 0.00%
521 Water evacuation 7 0.17% $0 0.00%
522 Water or steam leak 15 0.38% $0 0.00%
. 531 Smoke ox odor removal. 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
“51 Assist police or other governmental agency 2 0.05% $0 0.00%
33 Public service 5 0.12% $0 0.00%
554 Assist invalid 112 2.84% $0 0.00%
561 Unauthorized burning 24 0.61% $0 0.00%
571 Cover assignment, standby, moveup 3 0.07% $0 0.00%
176 4.47% $0 0.00%
6 Good Intent Cali
600 Good intent call, Other 47 1.19% $0 0.00%
611 Dispatched & cancelled en route 67 1.70% $0 0.00%
621 Wrong location 1 0.02% “$0 0.00%
622 No Incident found on arrival at dispatch 97 2.46% $0 0.00%
631 Authorized controlled burning 8 0.20% $0 0.00%
641 Vicinity alarm (incident in other location) 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
651 Smoke scare, odor of smoke : 28 0.71% $0 0.00%
652 Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to be 7 0.17% $0 0.00%
671 HazMat release investigation w/no HazMat 7 0.17% $0 0.00%
263 6.69% $0 0.00%
7 False Alarm & False Call
700 False alarm or false call, Other 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
"11 Municipal alarm system, malicious false 2 0.05% $0 0.00%
5 Local alarm system, malicious false alarm 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
2

WATERFORD
Incident Type Report (Summary)
Alarm Date Between {7/1/2018} And {6/30/2019}
: Pet of Total Pot of
Incident Type Count Incidents Est Loss Losses
7 False Alarm & False Call
731 Sprinkler activation due to malfunction 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
732 Extinguishing system activation due to 1 0.02% $0 0.00%
733 Smoke detector activation due to 28 0.71% $0 0.00%
735 Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 22 0.55% $0 0.00%
736 CO detector activation due to malfunction 18 0.45% $0 0.00%
740 Unintentional transmission of alarm, Other 12 0.30% $0 0.00%
741 Sprinkler activation, no fire - 3 0.07% $0 0.00%
743 Smoke detector activation, no fire ~ 72 1.83% $0 0.00%
744 Detector activation, no fire - 14 0.35% $o 0.00%
745 Alarm system activation, no fire - 111 2.82% $0 0.00%
746 Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO 7 0.17% $0 0.00%
: 293 7.45% $0 0.00%
Total Incident Count: 3930 Total Est Loss: $205 ,900
07/16/2022 09:37
Page
3


WATERFORD
Incident Type Report (Summary)
Alarm Date Between {7/1/2019} And {6/30/2020}
Pet of Total Pot of
Incident Type Count Incidents Est Loss Losses
i Fire
100 Fire, Other 1 0.03% $0 0.00%
111 Building fire : 30 1.03% $1,124,241 98.79%
112 Fires in structure other than in a building 1 0.03% $0 0.00%
113 Cooking fire, confined to container 4 0.13% $0 0.00%
114 Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney 2 0.06% $0 0.00%
116 Fuel burner/boiler malfunction, fire 1 0.03% $500 0.04%
118 Trash or rubbish fire, contained 1 0.03% $0 0.00%
130 Mobile property (vehicle) fire, Other 1 0.03% $0 0.00%
131 Passenger vehicle fire 9 0.31% $13,158 1.15%
140 Natural vegetation fire, Other 1 0.03% $0 0.00%
142 Brush or brush~and-grass ‘mixture fire 20 0.69% $0 0.00%
151 Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 6 0.20% $0 0.00%
154 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle 1 0.03% $0 0.00%
160 Special outside fire, Other 1 0.03% $0 0.00%
162 Outside equipment fire 2 0.06% $100 0.00%
81 2.79% $1,137,999 99.99%
Overpressure Rupture, Explosion, Overheat(no fira)
251 Excessive heat, scorch burns with no 1 0.03% $0 0.00%
1 0,03% $0 0.00%
3 Rescue & Emergency Medical Service Incident
321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with 1,883 65.08% $0 0.00%
322 Motor vehicle accident with injuries 147 5.08% $0 0.00%
323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident (MV Ped) 7 0.24% $0 0.00%
324 Motor Vehicle Accident with no injuries 28 0.96% $0 0.00%
342 Search for person in water 2 0.06% $0 0.00%
350 Extrication, rescue, Other 1 0.03% $0 0.00%
352 Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 4 0.13% $0 0.00%
353 Removal of victim(s} from stalled elevator 3 0.10% $0 0.00%
361 Swimming/recreational water areas rescue 5 0.17% $0 0.00%
365 Watercraft rescue 8 0.27% $0 0.00%
2,088 72.17% $0 0.00%
4 Hazardous Condition (No Fire)
400 Hazardous condition, Other . 3 0.10% $0 0.00%
410 Combustible/flammable gas/liquid condition, 2 0.06% $0 0.00%
‘11 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 12 0.41% $0 0.00%
12 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 10 0.34% $0 0.00%
07/16/2022 09:38 Page 1

WATERFORD
Incident Type Report (Summary)
Alarm Date Between {7/1/2019} And {6/30/2020}
Pot of Total Pot of
Incident Type Count Incidents Est Loss Losses
4 Hazardous Condition (No Fire)
413 O11 or other combustible liquid spiil 3 0.10% $0 0.00%
422 Chemical spill or leak 1 0,03% $0 0.00%
424 Carbon monoxide incident 7 0.24% $0 0.00%
440 Blectrical wiring/equipment problem, Other 4 0.13% $0 0.00%
441 Heat from short circuit (wiring), 1 0.03% $0 0.00%
444 Power line down 37 1.27% $0 0.00%
445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 6 0.20% $0 0,008
461 Building or structure weakened or collapsed 1 0.03% $0 0.00%
463 Vehicle accident, general cleanup 7 0.24% $0 0.00%
94 3.24% $0 0.00%
5 Service Call
500 Service Call, other 2 0.06% $0 0.00%
510 Person in distress, Other 1 0.03% $0 0.00%
520 Water problem, Other 2 0.06% $0 0.00%
521 Water evacuation 22 0.76% $0 0.00%
22 Water or steam leak 2 0.06% $0 0.00%
31 Smoke or odor removal 3 0.108 $0 0.00%
542 Animal rescue 2 0.06% $0 0.00%
550 Public service assistance, Other 1 0.03% $0 0.00%
551 Assist police or other governmental agency 3 0.10% $0 0,00%
552 Police matter 1 0.03% $0 0.00%
553 Public service . 7 0.24% $0 0.00%
554 Assist invalid 95 3.28% $0 0.00%
§61 Unauthorized burning 12 0.41% $0 0.00%
571 Cover assignment, standby, moveup 8 0.27% $0 0.00%
161 5.56% $0 0.00%
6 Good Intent Call
600 Good intent call, Other 48 1.65% $0 0.00%
621 Wrong location 2 0.06% $0 0.00%
622 No Incident found on arrival at dispatch 70 2.41% $0 0.00%
631 Authorized controlled burning 15 0.51% $0 0.00%
651 Smoke scare, odor of smoke 30 1.03% $0 0.00%
652 Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to be 4 0.13% $0 0.00%
653 Smoke from barbecue, tar kettle 1 0.03% $0 0.00%
671 HazMat release investigation w/no HazMat 11 0.38% $0 0.00%
161 6.25% $0 0.00%
07/16/2022 09:38 Page 2

WATERFORD
Incident Type Report (Summary)
Alarm Date Between {7/1/2019} And {6/30/2020}
Pot of Total Pet of
Incident Type Count Incidents Est Loss Lesses
7 False Alarm & False Call
715 Local alarm system, malicious false alarm 1 0.03% $0 0.00%
730 System malfunction, Other ii 0.38% $0 0.00%
731 Sprinkler activation due to malfunction 4 0.13% $0 0.00%
732 Extinguishing system activation due to 1 0.03% 80 0.00%
733 Smoke detector activation due to 15 0.51% $0 0.00%
735 Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 19 0.65% $0 0.00%
736 CO detector activation due to malfunction 22 0.72% $0 0.00%
740 Unintentional transmission of alarm, Other 67 2.31% $0 0.00%
743 Smoke detector activation, no fire <- 47 1.62% $0 0.00%
744 Detector activation, no fire - 18 0.62% $0 0.00%
745 Alarm system activation, no fire - 73 2,52% $0 0.00%
746 Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO 4 0.13% $0 0.00%
281 9.71% $0 0.00%
8 Savere Weather & Natural Disaster
812 Flood assessment 2 0.06% $0 0.00%
“13 Wind storm, tornado/hurricane assessment 3 0.10% $0 0.00%
5 0.17% $0 0.00%
9 Special Incident Typa
911 Citizen complaint 1 0.03% $0 0.00%
1 0.03% $0 0.00%
Total Incident Count: 2893 Total Est Loss: $1,137,999
07/16/2022 09:38
Page


WATERFORD
Incident Type Report (Summary)
Alarm Date Between {7/1/2020} And {6/30/2021}
- Pot of Total Pot of
Incident Type Count Incidents Est Loss Losses
1 Fire
100 Fire, Other 1 0.04% $0 6.00%
111 Building fire 33 1.47% $525,230 69.21%
112 Fires in structure other than in a building 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
113 Cooking fire, confined to container 5 0.22% $0 0.00%
114 Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney 3 0.13% $0 0.00%
121 Fire in mobile home used as fixed residence 1 0.04% $4,500 0.76%
131 Passenger vehicle fire 8 0.35% $12,723 2.16%
132 Road freight or transport vehicle fire 2 0.08% $33,000 5.60%
140 Natural vegetation fire, Other 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
141 Forest, woods or wildiand fire 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
142 Brush or brush<and~grass mixture fire 22 0.98% $1,750 0.29%
143 Grass fire 3 0.13% $0 0.00%
151 Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
154 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle 2 0.08% $4,500 0.76%
160 Special outside fire, Other 2 0.08% $0 0.00%
162 Outside equipment fize 1 0.04% $7,000 1.18%
87 3.88% $588,703 100,00%
2 Overpressure Rupture, Explosion, Overheat(no fire)
251 Excessive heat, scorch burns with no 2 0.08% $0 0.00%
2 0.08% $o 0.00%
3 Rescue & Emergency Medical Service Incident
321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with 1,334 59.52% $0 0.00%
322 Motor vehicle accident with injuries 116 5.17% $0 0.00%
323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident (MV Ped) 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
324 Motor Vehicle Accident with no injuries 32 1.42% $0 0.00%
342 Search for person in water 2 0.08% $0 0.00%
350 Extrication, rescue, Other 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
352 Extrication of victim(s} from vehicle 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
356 High~angle rescue 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
361 Swimming/recreational water areas rescue 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
363 Swift water rescue 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
364 Surf rescue 2 0.08% $0 0.00%
365 Watercraft rescue 7 0.31% $0 0.00%
1,499 66.88% $0 0.00%
‘ Hazardous Condition (No Fire)
JO Hazardous condition, Other i 0.04% $0 0.00%
07/16/2022 09:38 Page 1

WATERFORD
Incident Type Report (Summary)
Alarm Date Between {7/1/2020} And {6/30/2021}
Pet of Total Pet of
Incident Type Count Incidents Est Loss Losses
4 Hazardous Condition (No Fire) ;
410 Combustible/flammable gas/liquid condition, 2 0.06% $0 0.00%
411 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 11 0.49% $0 0.00%
412 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 8 0.35% $0 0.00%
413 O41 or other combustible liquid spill 13 0.58% $0 0.00%
424 Carbon monoxide incident 3 0.13% $0 0.00%
440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem, Other 17 0.75% $0 0.00%
441 Heat from short circuit (wiring), 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
443 Breakdown of light ballast 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
444 Power line down 38 1.69% $o° 0.00%
445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 4 0.17% $0 0.00%
451 Biological hazard, confirmed or suspected i 0.04% $0 0.00%
461 Building or structure weakened or collapsed 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
463 Vehicle accident, general cleanup 1 0.04% 30 0.00%
102 4.55% $0 0.00%
5 Servica Call
90 Service Call, other 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
40 Person in distress, Other 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
520 Water problem, Other 3 0.13% $0 0.00%
521 Water evacuation 3 0.13% $0 0.00%
522 Water or steam leak 3 0.13% $0 0.00%
531 Smoke or odor removal 2 0.08% $0 0.00%
550 Public service assistance, Other 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
551 Assist police or other governmental agency 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
552 Police matter 4 0.17% $0 0.00%
553 Public service 8 0.35% $0 0.00%
554 Assist invalid 69 3.07% $0 0.00%
561 Unauthorized burning 25 1.11% $0 0.00%
571 Cover assignment, standby, moveup 2 0.08% $0 0.00%
123 5.48% $0 0.00%
6 Good Intent Call
600 Good intent call, Other 64 2.85% $0 0.008
621 Wrong location 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
622 No Incident found on arrival at dispatch 74 3.30% $0 0.00%
631 Authorized controlled burning 9 0.40% $0 0.00%
651 Smoke scare, odor of smoke 30 1.33% $0 0.00%
652 Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to be 2 0.08% $0 0.00%
S61 EMS cali, party transported by non-fire 1 0,04% $0 0.00%
‘1 HazMat release investigation w/no HazMat 13 0.58% $0 0.00%
07/16/2022 09:38
Page

WATERFORD
Incident Type Report (Summary)
Alarm Date Between {7/1/2020} And {6/30/2021}
Pot of Total Pot of
Incident Type Count Incidents Est Loss Losses
6 Good Intent Call
194 8.65% $0 0.00%
7 False Alarm & False Call
710 Malicious, mischievous false call, Other 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
715 Local alarm system, malicious false alarm 2 0.08% $0 0.00%
721 Bomb scare - no bomb 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
730 System malfunction, Other 4 0.17% $0 0.00%
732 Extinguishing system activation due to 1 0.04% $0 0.00%
733 Smoke detector activation due to 20 0.89% $0 0.00%
735 Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 4 0.17% $0 0.00%
736 CO detector activation due to malfunction 19 0.84% $0 0.00%
740 Unintentional transmission of alarm, Other 43 1.91% $0 0.00%
741 Sprinkler activation, no fire - 2 0.08% $0- 0.00%
743 Smoke detector activation, no fire - 46 2.05% $0 0.00%
744 Detector activation, no fire ~ 12 0.53% $0 0.00%
745 Alarm system activation, no fire - 68 3.03% $0 0.00%
“46 Carbon monoxide detector ac