Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Recommendations for Future Analysis <br />The Sage Group report was analyzed to determine what aspects of the county's original request <br />for proposals (RFP) and scope of service were not addressed. The following list is of items were <br />not addressed and may be critical to the fire/EMS site plan. <br />Items for Future Anal <br />1. Methods of financing recommended improvements (performance analysis) <br />2. Effectiveness, appropriateness, demand, and response capabilities <br />3. Service demand (call volume, etc.) and current level of service <br />4. Long-term plan, both needs and financing sources <br />5. Countywide public education programs on public safety <br />The Sage Group report provides a significant amount of information regarding various fire and <br />emergency medical services (EMS) needs. Specifically, the report details equipment, capital, <br />infrastructure, and personnel needs. In some instances, details are given, such as cost estimates. <br />The report recommends that the county not approve a revenue neutral tax rate, but instead <br />maintain the current tax rate to finance the fire/EMS needs. However, there is no pay structure or <br />long-term financial plan for the projects mentioned in the report. Additional budgetary analysis <br />should be conducted to determine how the county will finance these projects, and any <br />alternatives to the revenue neutral tax rate, such as bonds. These alternative financing sources <br />may be more practice and popular with the citizens for fire/EMS service than changes in the tax <br />rate. <br />One of the foremost issues for the county for the fire/EMS site plan includes the effectiveness, <br />appropriateness, demand, and response capability of each fireBMS station. While The Sage <br />Group report makes conclusions as to if stations can properly handle demand, no evidence of <br />data analysis exists. Specifically, response times are not addressed. Instead, The Sage Group <br />reviewed maps and made conclusions based on distances from fire stations. The Sage Group <br />report reviewed issues with location and determined why response time would be lower in some <br />areas, but did not show data to support these conclusions. While using location as a base may be <br />the accepted standard for fire service ratings, the county sought to address response time and <br />effectiveness in its original request. If neither The Sage Group nor the county has ever conducted <br />this type of analytical research, further analysis should be conducted before the county continues <br />with afire/EMS site plan. <br />In addition to response time, service demand and call volume were rarely addressed. The report <br />describes the number of calls and responses per fire district, but does not make any conclusions <br />about the service demand. The report does not detail important data such as if the service <br />demand is high, how many personnel typically respond to each call, etc. Also, future <br />~ , ~ <br />