FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Issued: July 28, 2017

RELEASE OF CITY OF ROSSLANDS FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES REVIEW TASK FORCES
FINAL REPORT

As the current costs of fire protection and emergency services continue to rise, Council for the
City of Rossland wanted to explore new alternatives and/or offer suggestions to the Regional
District of Kootenay Boundary (RDKB) for potential improvements for the provision of these
services, the City struck the Fire Service and Emergency Services Review Task Force in March
2016.

The intent of this task force was to review the existing fire and emergency services delivered to
the City by the RDKB through the Kootenay Boundary Regional Fire Rescue (KBRFR) and to
research other possible alternative service delivery models of providing a similarly-scaled
service while ensuring the future safety of our community was sustained. The final report
created by the Task Force was reviewed extensively by Council and forwarded on to the RDKB
for discussion at the East End Services Committee.

A copy of the Report completed by the Fire Service and Emergency Services Review Task Force
is available here.

If you would like more information about this topic, please contact City Hall.
 City of Rossland
Fire and Emergency Services Review
Final Report
Abrasax Institute, July 31, 2016
!
Considered one of the major controllable variables within municipal budgets, the cost of
Emergency Management Systems (EMS) continue to increase throughout Canadian
Municipalities (Lammam 2015) as a result of the complex socio-political system underpinning
their development and operation (Waugh and Streib, 2006).
!
Reviewing cost, quality, or efficiency in the protection services Rossland is receiving from the
Kootenay Boundary Regional Fire Rescue Service (KBRFR) requires observations to be made in
light of the considerable challenges faced by EMS organizations in general. Three (3) vantage
points were utilized to enable the establishment of an informed perspective:

1. Service Delivery (relationship b/w value of coverage and allocation of funds)

!
a) Results indicate 54% of all responses are related to Medical First Responder calls
b) Manpower for Company 4, represents 63% of the services total annual costs.
c) Coverage, including response times, are not adequate for Life critical FMR or
Suppression actions within Rosslands commercial and resort development zones
!
2. System Foundations (standards and requirements)
!
a) Deficiencies in the system suggest elements of Rosslands commercial and Resort
Development Areas could lose preferential insurance rates during a Fire
Underwriter Survey review (Mitchell 2013)
b) 2013 KBRFR service review found: Two Critical and One High Priority items for
the Rossland Department that currently remain unaddressed.
!
3. Risk Management (Independent model development)
!
Concerns raised by (1) and (2) resulted in FESRTF's development of an independent
service delivery model operated by the City of Rossland (CoR). The model suggests:
!
a) Improved response capacity to high density areas and life critical FMR calls
b) Annual savings of approximately $ 86, 000
c) Service and costs comparable to communities such as Grand Forks and Castlegar.
!
Respecting the collaborative nature of service provision in EM services, this report concludes
with a discussion on various pathways forward.
!
FESRTF Page 1 of 23
The Fire and Emergency Services Response Task Force (herein referred to as FESRTF) was
struck by Rossland council March 2016 to:

[review the existing structure of fire and emergency services delivered by the KBRFR in
Rossland; while researching other modes of delivering affordable, sustainable service,
alongside maintained community safety.]
! 1
FESRTF was comprised of:
!
Industry Expertise: Bill Profeili (BC Ambulance Service - retired)
Larry Simms (KBRFR - Chief Company 1: Rossland - current)
Gerry Woodhouse (KBRFR Chief Company 1: Rossland - retired)
!
Council Representation: Lloyd McClellan
Kathy Moore (alt)
!
City of Rossland (CoR): Alison Worsfold
Steve Ash
Bryan Teasdale
!
Chair: Fletcher Quince
!
!
Monthly meetings were held between March and July, 2016. The Chatham House Rule was
adopted following the second meeting.
!
Alongside the recommendations and findings of the TF, the provision of a more sustainable and
affordable model for emergency management within the community of Rossland, this report
constitutes the fulfillment of the Task Forces purpose, and its duties to the City of Rossland.

1 Vince Whiteside, Superintendent of Tecks Health and Safety program resigned shortly after
the committee was struck citing concerns pertaining to the Task Forces ability to execute its
objectives.

FESRTF Page 2 of 23
Table of Contents
!
Fire and Emergency Services Review! 1!
Table of Contents! 3!
1. Service Delivery! 4!
Emergency Management! 4!
Preparedness and Response ! 5!
Figure 1 - Relationship between number of Fire Fighters and Number of Fires! 5!
Figure 2 - Spending in relation to Number of Fires! 6!
Figure 3 - Fire Propagation curve ! 6!
Overview of the Current System! 7!
Response! 7!
Figure 4 - Average Total Turnout Time by Company - From Mitchell 2013)! 8!
Figure 5: Response Distribution by Call Type for the KBRFR in 2015 (derived from Mitchell
2013).! 8!
Cost of Current Service! 9!
Table 1 - Breakdown of Costs for KBRFR! 9!
Budget Accuracy over Time! 9!
Figure 6: Anticipated and Actual Costs for Provision of Fire Service (2011-Present)! 10!
Figure 7: 8 km response polygons for Fire Underwriters Survey Residential coverage
assessments (Mitchell 2013)! 10!
2. System Foundations! 11!
Service Reviews! 11!
KBRFR Sustainability Meeting (April 2016)! 11!
KBRFR East End Services review (2013) ! 12!
3. Alternative Model ! 13!
Valuation of the Existing System ! 13!
Providing Coverage! 13!
Cost! 14!
Conclusion ! 14!
Table 2: Initial Start-up Costs for Independent Rossland Hall! 15!
Table 3: Annual Costs of Operating an Independent Rossland Hall! 16!
Looking Forward ! 17!
References! 18

FESRTF Page 3 of 23
1. Service Delivery
!
Emergency Management
!
Emergency Management Organizations (EMO) are required to undertake complex response
actions within increasingly varied situations (Verbeek, 2013). While disaster, and fear of
disaster generate a strong desire for [the] hierarchy (Waugh and Streib, 2006) often associated
with traditional command and control structures, and the perceived need for specialized
resources; response resilience is increasingly being shown to derive from increased flexibility
(Webb 2013), innovation, and the utilization of spontaneous volunteer capacity (Fernandez
2007).
!
Compounded by an inherent need to prepare for extreme events, the randomly determined, or
stochastic nature, of when, where, and what a response will entail offers little possibility for
centralized responders to reach sufficient capacity to handle incidences of (a) rapidly escalating,
(b) multiple-onset, or (c) extreme events (Quince 2009). In light of these challenges, EMOs are
increasingly adopting models that balance the need for structure, and the demand for flexibility
(Webb and Chevreau 2006). In essence, continuing to Centralize the Planning, and decentralize
the execution (Mendonca et al. 2001) as organizations establish integrated response capacity.
!
Organizations such as Cal-Fire, in California, and FEMA in the broader United States offer
identifiable examples of frameworks that can provide integrated responses during the 4 phases of
Emergency Management.
!
(1) Mitigation, (2) Preparedness, (3) Response, and (4) Recovery.
!
In rural environments, an additional difficulty resides in efficiently delivering a departments core
service, while providing assistance to the other, equally challenged organization in what can be
considered an All Hazards Focused response network (Drabek 1987). Due to the complexity of
addressing mitigation and recovery this review focuses on the relationship between (2) and (3) as
a function of the following variables (Churchman 1984):
!
A. Total System Objectives
B. System Components
C. System operating environment and associated constraints
D. Resource availability
E. System Management
!
!
!
!
!
!
FESRTF Page 4 of 23
Preparedness and Response
!
Communities become vulnerable when their internal capacity is permitted to atrophy and
outside resources are unavailable - Waugh and Streib, 2006
!
Identifying the relationship between the upfront burden of planning/ preparing/ staffing and the
subsequent costs of suppression action and property loss, has a long history in fire management,
and is commonly refereed to as either Presuppression, or Suppression Economics (Sparhawk
1925). What suppression economics attempts to achieve is the optimal relationship between the
systems capacity and its workload; modelled in Industrial Engineering through the application
of queuing theory. Resource Citing, or locating, in Urban Fire Management Organizations finds
its roots within the Seminal research of RANDs New York fire service review (Rand 1979).
!
The general argument to support this engineered approach is that once these systems are built,
the costs for service delivery will become stable. However, while these approaches work well for
defining the resource requirements of departments that aim to achieve single, static objectives
(i.e., fire suppression on a house), systems that utilize this approach are inefficient at managing
variety, and remain susceptible to the occurrence of extreme events. The resultant impact is
reflected in continual cost overruns due to the deployment of over built capacity (i.e., Fire
Engines to medical calls) on the vast majority of response calls and research by Lamman and
MacIntyre (2014) found that in the 21 communities comprising metro Vancouver, protective
services totalled over 30% of municipal budgets in 2012.
!
While the objectives of the system (i.e., fire suppression) have not changed, the requirements of
the response environment have, and fire suppression requirements have consistently declined
over the past 20 years. In Toronto, fire calls dropped 15.3% between 2000-2012 such only 9.9%
of its annual call volume are fires; compared to an average 44% for medical emergencies. In
Municipal
Calgary, Firebuildings
where Services are
in Canada:
typicallyAofPreliminary Analysis
newer construction fires reflect only 3.1% of calls and
EMS, 50.1 %. (Figure 1 - Lammam 2015).
!
Figure 6: Ontario
FIGURE Fires and Number of
1 - RELATIONSHIP Firefighters, 1997
BETWEEN to 2012 OF FIRE FIGHTERS AND NUMBER OF FIRES!
NUMBER
25,000 16,000

14,000
20,000
12,000
Number of firefighters

Number of firefighters 10,000

15,000
Number of fires

8,000
Total number of fires
10,000
6,000

4,000
5,000
2,000

0 0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Sources: Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners [CCFM/FC], various years; Ontario, Ministry of Commu-

! nity Safety and Correctional Services, 2013; Statistics Canada, 2014a.

-
FESRTF Page 5 of 23
-
Alongside the decline in suppression requirements are, however, an increase in the perceived
need for specialized personnel and apparatus who's training costs continue to rise. This situation
is amplified by the overtime paid to qualified personnel as workloads for these resources increase
under tighter regulations, and standards. The resultant effect, between 1997-2013 wages for
firefighter across the province of Ontario increased 36.3% while the volume of fire calls during
the same time dropped by 41.4%. And wages for Firefighters are also rising considerably faster
Municipal Fire Services in Canada: A Preliminary Analysis
than wages for employees in other Municipal departments, increases on average of 37.9% higher
that other municipal departments during the same period (Lammam et al. 2015)
!Figure 5:2Firefighting Spending versus Number of Fires, Canada, 1988 to 2008
FIGURE - SPENDING IN RELATION TO NUMBER OF FIRES!
4,500 80,000

4,000 70,000
Number of fires
3,500
60,000
Spending ($ millions)

3,000
50,000

Number of fires
2,500
40,000
2,000
30,000
1,500
Spending
20,000
1,000

500 10,000

0 0

! Sources: Statistics Canada, 2009; Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners [CCFM/FC], various years.

!
Prepared for one thing but experiencing another, the decision of large fire departments such as
the City of Toronto to not unconditionally dispatch resources to FMR calls, is a sign of things to
come. In conjunction with the raising costs, increased medical response workloads are even
harder on thefunctions
The different morale of
andvolunteer
activities personnel who are neither trained, nor interested in providing
this
for response.
fire services
!
The importance of time cannot be-overlooked in any review of Fire Service Delivery, though the
objective measure of any response should be a response to a fire within 7-9 minutes (Fire
Propagation Curve - NFPA 1710) ITEM ATTACHMENT #

! spread beyond the room of origin. This likely spread of the fire can be expected to occur at or
FIGURE 3 -theFIRE PROPAGATION CURVE !
about 8 minutes from point of ignition.

fraserinstitute.org FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN 8

! Figure 2: Fire Propagation Curve, Modeled from NFPA 1710

From this graph it can be seen that in the range of time from 7 to 9 minutes after ignition, a fire
is expected to rapidly accelerate and the percentage of property destruction (shown on the Y
axis) increases from approximately 30% to nearly 70%. At some point in this short period of
time, the assumption is that the fire will spread beyond the room of origin.
FESRTF
The significant point is that each of the steps in the fire departments response sequence,
Page 6 of 23
including 9-1-1 call processing, call assessment, dispatch, turnout and travel time should all
occur prior to the time when a fire will extend beyond the room of origin, thereby creating a
much higher risk to life and property. In this regard, the NFPA notes:

In Figure A.5.2.2.2.1, [Figure 2 above] the line represents a rate of fire propagation in
an unsprinklered room, which combines temperature rise and time. It roughly
Overview of the Current System
!
KBRFR provides response for fire and rescue incidents, First Medical Responder (FMR),
Motor Vehicle Incidents (MVI) and will assist the local search and rescue team (SAR) on
request. In addition the Department responds to Public assist calls as required (Mitchell, 2013).
!
The KBRFR is a Composite service consisting of both Career, and Paid on Call Officers.
Each fire hall is under the day-to-day command of a District Fire Chief with the exception of
Trail (Company 4) which is under the immediate command of the Regional Fire Chief and the
Deputy Regional Fire Chief. The District Fire Chiefs (the DFC) report to the Regional Fire
Chief. For a complete review of the service, see Mitchells 2013 KBRFR review.
!
With a population of 19,223, and a density of 16.1, the KBRFR reflects a huge area with a
centralized Staff (17 full time staff at Company 4, and approximately 100 volunteers throughout
the other halls). Its operating Budget is on Par with Oak Bay, WhiteRock and Esquimant, and
over triple that of Fernie, Revelstoke, Nelson and Squamish.
!
By providing arrangements that enable the right, power and authority of a department to operate
outside its ordinary jurisdiction, Mutual Aid agreements offer distinct jurisdictions a means of
assisting one another when their resources are insufficient to address the emergency at hand. The
RDKB currently has two Mutual Aid Agreements in place (1) within the Lower Columbia with
Teck-Comico and (2) a Contracted Service Agreement with the City of Castlegar (Mitchell and
Associates 2013).
!
Response!
!
In Rossland the average number of responders over the period 2009 - 2013 declined from 4 to 3
firefighters. The response time from Rosslands volunteer hall is approximately 6 minutes longer
that it is from the staffed hall in Trail, with an average response time for departing the hall of
9:28 (Figure 4). Compared with Figure 3, a departure time of greater than 9 minutes suggests
significant potential for fire spread beyond structure of origin.
!
Similarly to most Fire Departments the majority of dispatches are associated with Medical
emergencies. Within the KBRFR service area 54% of all dispatches are associated with FMR,
while MVI (12%) and Alarm (11%) calls fill out the top 3 (Figure 5). Other Calls account for 9
percent. Fire related calls including burn-complaints, Vehicle and Wildland fires, are reflective of
the ~10% of fire related calls observed in Large Urban centres.
!
!
!
!
!
!
FESRTF Page 7 of 23
 What this does mean is that a response to the scene from a volunteer hall is between 3 and 8

ITEM ATTACHMENT #
!
Figure 16 illustrates that there is continuous coverage for the areas in Rossland, Warfield and the majority of Trail for response to
minutes longer
commercial thanAt for
properties. Company
the extreme right of4,
thedepending on the
figure it is apparent hall.is an area uncovered near the east boundary of Trail
that there
Page 88 of 192
!
and that some but not all of this is covered by Hall 5 from Montrose.

Average Total Turnout Time by

FIGURE 4 - AVERAGE TOTAL TURNOUT TIME BY COMPANY - FROM MITCHELL 2013)!
Company !
00:12:00
00:10:32
00:11:25
!
00:10:30 00:09:28 !
00:09:00 !
00:07:47
!
00:07:30 00:06:21
!
00:06:00
!
00:04:30 00:03:16 !
00:03:00 !
00:01:30 !
00:00:00 !
KBRFR KBRFR KBRFR KBRFR KBRFR KBRFR !
TRAIL MONTROSE FRUITVALE ROSSLAND WARFIELD GENELLE !
!
!
Figure 8: Average Turnout Time by Company
FIGURE 5: RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION BY CALL TYPE FOR THE KBRFR IN 2015 (DERIVED FROM
TheMITCHELL 2013).! time for the 5 volunteer halls can be aggregated as shown in Table 4.
average turnout
!
Company Average of Turnout Time
12%
KBRFR Company 4 00:03:16

KBRFR Companies 1, 2, 3, 5 00:09:06

11%
and 6

Table 4: Average Turnout 5%Call Companies

54% time by Career and Paid on
3%
The response data was also examined to determine the level of response by the volunteer-
3% of response is declining, at stasis, or increasing.
based fire halls to understand whether the level
3% per incident from Companies 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 is
The average number of fire fighters responding
shown in Figure 9 and is declining. 9%

First Responder MVI Alarm Burn Complaint

! Hazardous Materials Wildland Fires Vehicle Fires Other Calls

!
!
!
KBRD Fire Services Review 2013 Page 78 of 190

FESRTF Page 8 of Page

23 80 of 192
Cost of Current Service!
!
In 2016, the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary anticipates spending $ 4,098,614 within the
Lower Columbia region on the provision of Fire and Emergency services. Table 1 provides the
allocation of costs in conjunction with the percentage of the total budget each item is allocated.
!
Compensation for career firefighters and administration represents 63% of the total budget, while
Volunteer Wages account for ~ 1%, and the operational cost of a Firehall without manpower is
roughly 27% of its total.
!
TABLE 1 - BREAKDOWN OF COSTS FOR KBRFR!

Percentage of
KBRFR Costs
Total

Compensation (w/o Volunteers) 2,569,469 63%

Vehicles 435,670 11%

Equipment, Repairs and Maintenance 373,704 9%

Training 186,565 5%

Misc. Costs 185,403 5%

Board Fee 109,658 3%

Utilities 95,823 2%

Insurance 89,322 2%

Volunteer Wages 53,000 1%

Total Cost 4,098,614

!
Budget Accuracy over Time!
!
Utilizing data from the 2013 and 2015 fire services Budget reviews. Figure 6 shows the actual
and anticipated costs of Fire Services as predicted in these two documents. Cost analysis shows
an increase of ~17% in 2017, while the Percentage error between projected and incurred costs
general falls around + 5%. Error that can be attributed to unanticipated costs associated with
changes in legislation and suppression requirements, and anticipated budget accuracy remains a
consideration in light of Rosslands need for an aerial apparatus.

!
!

FESRTF Page 9 of 23
 FIGURE 6: ANTICIPATED AND ACTUAL COSTS FOR PROVISION OF FIRE SERVICE (2011-
PRESENT)!

00 2013 Actuals Predicted in 2013

,0
00

2015 Actuals Predicted in 2015

,8
Cost of Fire Service ($)
$4

00
,5
12
,4
$4

00
,0
25
,0
$4

00
,5
37
,6
$3

00

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

,0
50
,2

! Year
$3

!
!
FIGURE 7: 8 KM RESPONSE POLYGONS FOR FIRE UNDERWRITERS SURVEY RESIDENTIAL
COVERAGE ASSESSMENTS (MITCHELL 2013)!
!

! Figure 19: 8 Km from Hall 1 (Red), Hall 2 (Blue), Hall 4 (Green)

! Figure 19 illustrates the eight kilometer travel polygons for Halls 1, 2 and 4. In this case, there is very good supporting coverage for
!
Page 91 of 192

Rossland, Warfield and Trail from the adjacent halls. This illustrates that each of the three areas benefits from a joint response.

!
FESRTF Page 10 of 23
2. System Foundations
!
Service Reviews
!
KBRFR Sustainability Meeting (April 2016)
!
The stated purpose of the KBRFR Sustainability group is to be Proactive in Funding the
Service. The most recent recommendations of the group included:
!
1. The establishment of a centralized Tool Crib at Company 4 (Rec 2) to place
non-standard tools from District Halls in.
2. Limiting the availability of non-standardized equipment to outlying halls (Rec
3) through
a. Removing the Budget for Extra Equipment
b. Removing the extra equipment itself
c. improving Standardization.
!
3. Work with the Justice Institute to reduce training costs2
4. Reduce District Hall wish lists to a $ 7,500 maximum from the current range
of $8,720 - $35,000.
5. Remove District Fire Chief and Assistant District Fire Chief from District
halls. Costs for these autonomous positions is estimated at $18,100 for the 2
positions in 5 halls (Honorariums $2500 and $1000 with $30 and $20 travel
allowances respectively). New Station officers would receive an Honorarium
of $2700 including travel (total RDKB cost of $13,500) for a total savings of
$46003.
6. Further recommendations include the consolidation of Warfield with Trail and
Montrose with Fruitvale. Offering minor savings to the RDKB ($18,500 in
Montrose and $15,329 in Warfield) this shift will result in increased operating
costs to the municipalities while protective services themselves are extracted
from subject communities.
!
The conclusion that an increase in manpower from closing the Warfield hall will require
expansion of the existing Co 4 facility, rather than consideration for the allocation of
staff and apparatus to Rossland is indicative of the current, centralizing nature of the
KBFRF.
!
2Could also evaluate the potential to partner with Selkirk to offer Emergency Management training in the
BC Interior
3 Cost of a consultant report to justify the Training officer position was budgeted at $5000. Any savings
from this approach will likely be consumed by the administrative burden of establishing the new structure
over the first and second year

FESRTF Page 11 of 23
KBRFR East End Services review (2013)
!
In contrast to the KBRFR Sustainability meeting, an independent review conducted by Mitchell
and Associates in 2013 offered increased emphasis on:
!
a. strengthening and clearly defining Mutual Aid agreements and protection areas (Rec.
4, 33, 34),
b. Minimum standards of Training (10, 11) and the need for improved training records
(12) to ensure response personnel are adequately trained
c. Limiting operations of specific companies to the response capacity of the members
responding (13)
d. Duplication and decentralization of dispatch and communication functions (31)
e. Visibility of Training Fund for the direction of District Chiefs (20) and an increase in
Emergency Management Training (17).
f. Offering increased opportunities for District Chiefs to Collaborate, and provide
feedback on the operations of their Halls.
!
The Report concludes by suggesting Two Critical improvements are necessary for addressing
Rosslands current response capacity: (1) Improve Staffing levels in Rossland, and (2) providing
improved Aerial Suppression capacity for the community. While the specific provision of an
aerial apparatus for CoR was rated as High. (Figure 8, Appendix A - Coverage Polygons).
!
Suppression Capacity
!
A Fire Underwriters Survey for Rossland was conducted in November 2006, and released July
2007, outlining insurance rates for Rosslands residential and commercial properties in relation
to its response capacity. As a Hydrant Protected Area (HPA), in 2006 Rossland was considered
fully covered and currently enjoys preferable residential 3A, and commercial 7, ratings. These
ratings, which are based on industry standard Response Polygons (Figure 8) determine the
coverage areas of responses apparatus for Commercial (5 km) and Residential (8 km) assets
within the community. Based on proximity to coverage, Trail enjoys a Commercial rating of 6,
and Fruitvale, at the edge of the District, is rated 8.
!
Of concern, is that while coverage for general suppression action is maintained by being
considered an HPA, Red Mountain Resort, the Nickleplate apartments and all of Rosslands
Commercial core fall outside the response polygons for coverage from the Districts aerial
apparatus, located at Company 4 in Trail. As a result, a response from Trail to Red Mountain,
regardless of weather or traffic conditions, exceeds the estimated time for fire to consume 100 %
of a structure following ignition (16 min) and is considered unprotected by the apparatus. As a
result, planned and future development within the Upper Rossland/ Red Mountain area may
incur appreciable increases in Insurance Rates if adequate coverage cannot be achieved.
Subsequent requirements to outfit the Rossland Hall with adequate apparatus may partially
reflect the predictive error of 5% in KBRFRs annual budget.

FESRTF Page 12 of 23
3. Alternative Model
!
Valuation of the Existing System !
!
Estimated cost of replacing the Rossland Hall, as is, at the current time, is approximately
$2,055,500 (Appendix B - Table 3). Adjusting the apparatus costs to reflect the requirement for
aerial apparatus, increased the value of E-1 ($500,000) by $500,000, to yield a full coverage hall
with a value of $ 2, 555, 000. For an overview, See Appendix B.
!
Building the system from scratch yielded a FESRTF estimate for upfront costs associated with
setting up an independent hall of $ 3,048, 500 (Table 2). Additional examination of costs for a 30
and 40 Member department demonstrate the marginal costs for outfitting additional manpower in
the service.
!
Estimated ownership of Regional Apparatus reflects one of the areas of error within the reports
calculations. In all cases (Land, Equipment, and apparatus) a requisition value of 16.5% was
applied (10 yr prior rate), though in the absence of specifics, the lowest value available for
apparatus ($ 5.12 M) was utilized. This reflected the summed portion of apparatus ownership
based on time to replacement, and was considered more accurate than total apparatus cost (~
$8.75 M). Obvious differences in Rosslands portion of Regional district assets are reflected
depending on the value utilized, and range from: $1,442,925 - $844, 231. This difference of
roughly $600, 000 has considerable potential to decrease the start-up costs of the hall through its
influence on financing the debt of upfront capital costs, and should be independently verified by
CoR prior to proceeding with any future model development.
!
Providing Coverage!
!
In determining the resources required to operate an independent hall, a general principle of better
than existing was applied to decisions surround apparatus, and staffing.
!
The current Basic Flow requirements are 3300 IGPM (~15,000 litres/ minute) and satisfying
basic flow requirements results in a savings of ~ 50 - 60% in insurance.
!
Rosslands current pumping capacity is between 1890 - 2340 IGPM. Additional values are
attributed to the mutual aid coverage provided through the Regional Service. The model system
as designed has a system capacity totalling 2640 IGPM, as well as an additional Tender for
Wildfire and sustained action fires.
!
The response analysis suggests the Highest Volume of incidents occur between noon and late
afternoon, which suggest One (1) full time officer employed between 8 - 8 would be capable of
providing coverage for the majority of calls. Alternating this position between two employees
offers continual coverage with a 4 on/ 4 off schedule. The relatively light call volume from

FESRTF Page 13 of 23
midnight to 0600 h, paired with an increased availability of volunteer members during non-work
hours means a stand-by roaster would adequately cover response requirements during this time.
!
Cost!
!
Total Stat-up cost for an independent Fire Service operated by CoR are estimated at $3.05
Million. Considering a KBRFR asset value of ($5.12 M) would result in a $1.2 Million reduction
in this cost, resulting in a start-up cost of approximately $1.80 Million (Table 2). Annual Costs
for operating this independent Service, including an aerial apparatus, were estimated at
approximately $ 503, 000, a savings of approximately $ 86, 000/ year when compared with
KBRFRs 2017 budget.
!
Conclusion !
!
The city of Rossland stands to operate a fire service that offers better coverage within its 5 km
and 8 km response polygons, improved response capacity (through decreased response times and
the provision of adequate apparatus), while producing two new positions (~$200,000) within the
communities employment base. The subsequent change in requisition cost would reflect a
decrease in total cost of $343 to $300. Or ~$ 40/ household in taxpayer costs with the benefits of
increased property assessments having the potential to be reinvested by CoR rather than
expended on covering anticipated increases in KDRFR Budget.
!
The examination of other Departments such as those operated by the cities of Grand Forks and
Castlegar suggest that the model as presented is both realistic, and operationally sound.
!

FESRTF Page 14 of 23
TABLE 2: INITIAL START-UP COSTS FOR INDEPENDENT ROSSLAND HALL!
Asset Description Anticipated Cost*! 30 Members 40 Members
($)

E-12 840 gpm Pump/ 500 gal water 550,000

L-1 75 Ladder c/w 1500 gpm pump, 1000 1,000,000

gal water

E-1 Light rescue c/w cafs system, 200,000

extraction tools, 300 gal water

T-1 1500 gal water, portable pump 300,000

C-1 Crew Cab - Response 100,000

Total 2,150,000

Land and Building 478,500

SCBA Filling Station 150,000 150,000 150,000

Turnout Gear 3 @ $5250 (2016 Requisition), value 100,000 52,500 70,000

set at 30 pairs

Boots ($200), Gloves (2@$120), 25,500 34,000

Helmets ($200), Visors ($60),
Flashlights ($100), Balaclavas ($50)

Station Ware 10,000 10,000 12,500

110,000 88,000 116,500

Hose 50,000 50,000 50,000

Nozzles Nozzle ($600) 20,000 20,000 20,000

Pagers Pager ($700), Battery ($40) 25,000 22,200 29,600

Radios Radio ($800) 10,000 24,000 32,000

Misc Tools 5,000 5,000 5,000

Training 50,000 50,000 62,500

270,000 259,200 295,600

Total 3,048,500 3,037,700 3,074,100

Rossland Portion of RDKB Assets -1,260,815 As per Appendix B - Table 3

Residual Costs of Starting Hall 1,787,685

!
!
!
!
FESRTF Page 15 of 23
TABLE 3: ANNUAL COSTS OF OPERATING AN INDEPENDENT ROSSLAND HALL!
Expenditures Salaries (Chief/ Assistant/ Dispatch) 110,000

Salaries (Career) 96,000

Wages Volunteer (Double Current) 30,000

Training: RDKB budget value (not including allocation for start-up in Table 1) 29,850

Uniforms/ Clothing 3,680

Office/Shop Supplies/ Subscriptions 3,891

Insurance 2,256

Volunteer Benefits and Insurance 4,130

Insurance Building 1,911

Insurance Vehicles

Unit C-1 (Command Vehicle) 1,300

Ladder Truck 4,000

Tender 1,800

Engine 12 1,800

Total Vehicle Insurance 8,900

Total Insurance 17,197

Board Fee 0

Telephone 6,729

Utilites 7,296

Equipment 35,000

Building Maintenance 30,000

Other Repairs and Maintenance 9,600

Maintenance 10,400

Debt Financing ($1,787,685 @ 4% for 25 yrs) 114,000

Capital Cost ($3,048,500) - District Asset Ownership ($1,260,815) = $1,787,685

Total Expenditures $503,643

Anticipated Difference in 2017 $86,357

FESRTF Page 16 of 23
Looking Forward
!
Emergency Management is constantly faced with the challenge of improving efficiency, while
maintaining community safety. As such, the ongoing decline in traditional suppression roles
observed in Urban Fire Departments over the preceding decade has been met with a
corresponding shift towards Wildland Urban Interface, First Medical Responder, and
environmental protection roles. Inherent in this shift is the need to readdress system redundancies
(i.e., double dispatch to non-life threatening medical calls) while improving the flexibility of the
response, however, due to the jurisdictional nature of the field, often these situations can only be
addressed at a higher level through engagement with BCAS, Emergency Management BC and
other authorities across the province.
!
A review of the current KBRFR model in relation to forthcoming need suggests it will be unable
to prevent ongoing price increases, while maintaining adequate service delivery to outlying
municipalities such as Rossland. While the multi-faceted nature of the emergency response
environment requires that organization to create a school of fish, not maintain a whale, the
approach of standardize, centralize, and specialize, that has been taken by the KBRFR reflects
continuously increasing costs as the service plays catch-up with evolving system requirements;
meanwhile the service itself remains over burdening with response costs for minor incidences,
day to day staffing, and overtime associated with deploying specialized resources.
!
Addressing Rosslands relationship within the KBRFR therefore should focus on Three (3)
avenues moving forward:
!
(1) With an eye towards improving coverage levels and the provision of an aerial apparatus
to Rossland, remain within the existing KBRFR service. As a means of addressing
coverage and response times a System Analysis, including the need to decentralize staff
resources should be pursued.
!
Possible changes to the requisition formula, including more equitable distribution of
costs per dwelling may address some of the concerns surrounding costs.
!
(2) Contract Service Delivery with KBRFR at a set cost over a fixed period. Given the
disparity between increasing assessment values in Rossland, and declining values in
other Lower Columbia Communities, in order to average out future service increases,
while addressing the currently unsustainable costs of the service, CoR should pursue a
contract for service delivery over a fixed period (i.e., 5 years) that reflects the anticipated
cost of operating an independent hall (~ $ 500, 000).
!
(3) Failing a resolution with regional partners, pursue the creation of an independent hall to
provide service to the community. Consideration should be given to Mutual Aid
agreements that would see Rossland offer response to portions of Electoral Area B,
including, Patterson and Paulson.

FESRTF Page 17 of 23
References
!
Churchman, C. W. (1984) "Systems Approach " Dell Pub Co; Revised & Updated edition.
!
Drabek, T. E. (1987) The Professional Emergency Manager: Structures and Strategies for
Success. Boulder, Colorado: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.
!
Dynes, R. R. (2003). Finding Order in Disorder: Continuities in the 9-11 Response.
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 21 (3): 9-23.
!
Fernandez, L. S. (2007). Volunteer management system design and analysis for disaster response
and recovery. ProQuest..
!
Kendra, J. M. and Wachtendorf, T.. (2006). Community Innovation and Disasters. Pp. 316-334
in Rodriguez, Havidan, Enrico L. Quarantelli and Russell R. Dynes (eds.) Handbook of
Disaster Research. Springer, New York.
!
Lammam, C., Palacios, M., and Feixue Ren. (May 2015) Municipal Fire Services in Canada: A
Preliminary Analysis. Fraser Institute Research Bulletin
!
Lamman, C., MacIntyre, H. (2014) The State of Municipal Finances in Metro Vancouver.
Fraser Institute.
!
McEntire, D. A. (2005). Revolutionary and Evolutionary Change in Emergency Management:
Assessing the Need for a Paradigm Shift and the Possibility of Progress in the
Profession. Paper presented at the FEMA Higher Education Conference, June 8th. See
http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/educonference05.asp.
!
Mendona, D., Beroggi, G.E.G. and Wallace, W.A. (2001) Decision support for improvisation
during emergency response operations, Int. J. Emergency Management, Vol. 1, No. 1,
pp.3038

Mitchell, D. and Associates. (2013) Kootenay Boundary Regional District Fire Service review.
!
Neal, D. M. and Phillips, B.D. (1995). Effective Emergency Management: Reconsidering the
Bureaucratic Approach. Disasters. 19 (4): 327-337.
!
FESRTF Page 18 of 23
Quince, A. F. (2009) Performance measures for forest fire management organizations:
Evaluating and enhancing initial attack operations in the province of Albertas Boreal
Natural Region. M.Sc. Graduate Thesis, University of Toronto.
!
RAND. "Fire Department Deployment Analysis." (1979).
!
Schneider, S. K. (1992). Governmental Response to Disasters: The Conflict Between
Bureaucratic Procedures and Emergent Norms. Public Administration Review. 52 (2):
135-145.
!
Turner, B. A. (2004). Flexibility and Improvisation in Emergency Response. Disaster
Management. 6 (2): 84-89.
!
Verbeek, M. (2013) The Evolving Role of Emergency Managers. Royal Roads M.Sc.
Dissertation.
!
Waugh, W. L., and Streib, G. Collaboration and Leadership for Effective Emergency
Management. Public Administration Review. Special Issue (2006): 131 - 139.
!
Webb, G. R. (2014) Flexibility in Response to Disasters: Past Findings and Future Need
!
Webb, G.R. and Chevreau, F.R. (2006) Planning to improvise: the importance of creativity and
flexibility in crisis response. International Journal of Emergency Management 3 (1),
66-72

FESRTF Page 19 of 23
 0
0.5
0 1 3 5 7 9 11 1 3 5 7 9 11 1 3 5 7 9 11 1 3 5 7 9 11 1 3 5
1 3 5 7 9 11 1 3 5 7 9 11 1 3 2009
5 7 9 11 1 3 52010
7 9 11 1 3 5 2011 2012 2013
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Figure 9: Average Turnout of Firefighters for Paid on Call Companies
Figure 9: Average Turnout of Firefighters for Paid on Call Companies
The average response was then further broken down by fire company to clarify whether there
The average response was thenwere
further
anybroken down by
differences fire company
between them. to clarify whether there
Appendix A - Response Analysis (All Graphs from Mitchell 2013)
were any differences between them.
Figure 10 shows the response for Company 1 (Rossland) and the average number of fire
Figure 10 shows the response for Company
fighters 1 (Rossland)
responding, and the over
is declining average
the number of fireapproximately 4 to 3.
period from

!
fighters responding, is declining over the period from approximately 4 to 3.

Average FF's per

1 Incident: Company 1
!
!
! ! Incident:
Average FF's per Company
! !
8
! ! 8
7!
7!
! 6!
!
6!
5! 5!
! 4!
!
4!
! !
3
! 3
!
2! 2!
1!
! 1!
!
0! 0!
ITEM ATTACHMENT # ITEM ATTACHMENT #
!1 3 5 7 9 11 1 3 5 7 9 !111 13 3 5 5 7 7 9 91111 11 33 55 77 99 11
! ! 11 1
1 33 55 7 9 11 1 3 5 7 9 11 1 3 5
! 2010 !
! 2009
! 2011
2009 2012
2010 2013 2011 2012 2013
! ! ITEM ATTACHME
Figure 10: Average Turnout of Firefighters for Company 1
Figure 10: Average Turnout of Firefighters for Company 1
Incidents by Day of the Incidents
Week by Day of the Week
900
900
KBRD Fire
850 Services Review 2013 Page 79 of 190Total Incidents by Hour
KBRD Fire
850 Services Review 2013 Page 79 of 190
800 400
800 350
750
750 300 Page 81 of 192
700 Page 81 of 192
250
700
650 200
650 150
600
600 100
550
50
500 550
0
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
500
! Sun Mon Tue ! Wed Thu Fri Sat
! Figure 6: Incidents by Day of the Week
! ! Figure 7 : Incidents by Hour of the Day
! !
! The response data can also be analyzed byIncidents
Figure 6: hour of the
! dayof
by Day and
thethis
Weekis shownThe
in Figure 7. This
! response data also can be examined to determine the response time to the public. Table 3
! The response !
response curve is very standard for fire departments in BC whether they are career,
data can also be analyzed by
composite
shows the
hour
total time taken from page-out until the fire company leaves the fire hall for each of
of the day and this is shown in Figure 7. This
!
or volunteer. Fire departments typically have very few incidents between midnight
the sixand 6:00 am The time shown in this case is the sum of the time for the dispatcher to
Companies.
!
response curve is very standard for fire departments in BC whether they are career, composite
and are busiest from noon to late afternoon. receive the call from the public and format it in the computer aided dispatch system, the time
or volunteer. Fire departments typically required
have very few incidents between midnight and 6:00 am
to page the fire company and the time for the fire fighters to assemble, start the
and are busiest from noon to late afternoon. apparatus and drive away from the fire hall.

Company Average of
Turnout Time
KBRFR TRAIL (Company 4) 00:03:16

! KBRFR MONTROSE (Company 5) 00:06:21

! KBRFR FRUITVALE (Company 6) 00:07:47
!
! KBRFR ROSSLAND (Company 1) 00:09:28
!
! KBRFR WARFIELD (Company 2) 00:10:32
!
! KBRFR GENELLE (Company 3) 00:11:25
!
! Table 3: Average Turnout Time by Company
!
! This shows that the career crew in Company 4, as might be expected, has a much faster turnout
! time than the volunteer companies which require the volunteers to leave their place of residence
! or employment and drive to the fire hall and assemble in sufficient numbers prior to leaving.
This situation is not at all unusual.
KBRD Fire Services Review 2013 Page 76 of 190

KBRD Fire Services Review 2013 Page 76 of 190

Page 78
KBRD Fire Services of 192
Review 2013 Page 77 of 190
Figure 16: 5 Km Travel Limit for Hall 1 (Red), Hall 2 (Mauve), Hall 4 (Green), Hall 5 (Blue)
ITEM ATTACHMENT #

Figure 16 illustrates that there is continuous coverage for the areas in Rossland, Warfield and the majority of Trail for response to
commercial properties. At the extreme right of the figure it is apparent that there is an area uncovered near the east boundary ofPage
Trail 78 of 192
Page 79 o
and that some but not all of this is covered by Hall 5 from Montrose.
Page 88 of 192

FESRTF Page 20 of 23
Appendix B - KBRFR ASSET Calculations

Table 1: Kootenay Boundary Regional Fire Rescue Assets by Company!

Company Asset Value Regional District Assets

Rossland Land 81,700 Land Total 363,850

Additional Parcels (2 @ $26,900) 53,800 Building Total 1,060,900

Building 352,000 Infrastructure Total $1,424,750

Apparatus 1,348,000

Total 1,835,500 Apparatus Total $8,735,000

Alternate Apparatus Total* $5,116,550

Warfield Leased Property -

Apparatus 600,000 Total RDKB Assets (Alt $6,541,300

Apparatus Cost)**

Total 600,000 Rossland Portion*** $1,079,315

*As calculated in Table 2

Genelle Land 75,200

Building 242,000

Apparatus 900,000 **Utilized lower Apparatus value

Total 1,217,200

Trail Land (@ 33% of $195,000) 64,350

Building (@ 15% of $2,248,000) 337,200 *** Rossland Portion based on requisition

rate of 16.5% over the preceding 10 years.
Apparatus 4,037,000

Total 4,438,550

Montrose Leased Property - For Ongoing Calculations the value of

$1,260, 815 from Appendix B - Table 3
Apparatus 925,000 was used for calculations to include a
value for equipment.
Total 925,000

Fruitvale Land 88,800

Building 75,900

Apparatus 925,000

Total 1,089,700

FESRTF Page 21 of 23
Appendix B - KBRFR ASSET Calculations

Table 2: Apparatus Calculations based on Portion of Ownership

Apparatus Replacement Total Value Ownership Ownership Rossland Rossland

Year of all Percentage Value Portion Portion of
Apparatus (16.5%) Total

E1 2027 500000 0.45 225000 37125 82500

T1 2026 425000 0.5 212500 35062.5 70125

E12 2036 423000 0 0 0 69795

Q1 10000 100 1000000 165000 1650

E2 2029 500000 0.35 175000 28875 82500

W2 2026 100000 0.5 50000 8250 16500

E3 2020 500000 0.8 400000 66000 82500

T3 2026 400000 0.5 200000 33000 66000

E4 2017 714000 0.95 678300 111919.5 117810

L4 2024 1600000 0.6 960000 158400 264000

R4 2033 525000 0.15 78750 12993.75 86625

T4 2032 400000 0.2 80000 13200 66000

ESU4 2034 410000 0.1 41000 6765 67650

C1 2019 90000 0.85 76500 12622.5 14850

C2 2026 73000 0.5 36500 6022.5 12045

ST1 2019 90000 0.85 76500 12622.5 14850

Boat 2028 135000 0.4 54000 8910 22275

E5 2029 500000 0.35 175000 28875 82500

T5 2026 425000 0.5 212500 35062.5 70125

E6 2024 500000 0.6 300000 49500 82500

T6 2032 425000 0.2 85000 14025 70125

$8,745,000 $5,116,550 $844,231 $1,442,925

!
!
Value of Rosslands portion of KBRFR apparatus is between $ 844, 231 and $1, 442, 925. !
!
!

FESRTF Page 22 of 23
Appendix B - KBRFR ASSET Calculations

Table 3: Buy out schenario for Rossland Hall

District Assets Value of Rosslands Value of Ownership Residual Owing

Assets Rosslands Percentage of to KBRFR
Portion of Total Current
KBRFR Holdings Rossland Hall

Infrastructure 487,500 235,084 48.22% 252,416

Apparatus 1,348,000 844,231 62.63% 503,769

Equipment* 220,000 181,500 82.50% 38,500

Total 2,055,500 1,260,815 61.34% 794,686

Upgrade Engine 500,000

to Ladder Truck

Total $1,294,686

* Company 1 total equipment multiplied by 5 to generate a regional value x 16.5%

!
!

FESRTF Page 23 of 23