The Impact of Improved Public Protection Classification Ratings on

The Impact of Improved Public Protection Classification Ratings on Homeowners’ Insurance

Rates in Richland County

The Impact of Improved Public Protection

Classification Ratings on Homeowners’ Insurance Rates in Richland County

January 2007

Prepared by:

Anna Berger Senior Research Associate

Bill Tomes

Senior Research Associate

Mark Bondo Research Associate

University of South Carolina

Institute for Public Service and Policy Research

The authors wish to acknowledge the following parties for contributing information and assistance for this analysis:

Columbia-Richland Unified Fire Service

Richland County’s Department of Information Technology City of Columbia’s Department of Information Technology

Insurance Agents and Actuaries The South Carolina Department of Insurance

Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Emergency Training Center Christine Eggers, IPSPR Graduate Assistant

Table of Contents

Purpose of Study ........................................................................................................................... 1

Background ................................................................................................................................... 1

Factors Considered for PPC Ratings .......................................................................................... 2

Insurance Industry Considerations............................................................................................. 2

Historical Perspective ................................................................................................................... 2

Factors Contributing to Improved PPC Rates........................................................................... 4

PPC Rate Changes in Richland County...................................................................................... 5

Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 6

Impact Analysis of PPC Rates Changes ..................................................................................... 7

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 12

Appendices................................................................................................................................... 13

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE AND POLICY RESEARCH 1

Purpose of Study The Institute for Public Service and Policy Research (IPSPR) at the University of South Carolina was asked to assist the Columbia-Richland Fire Service (CRFS) and Richland County in evaluating the effects of changes in Public Protection Classification (PPC) ratings on property and casualty insurance rates. The evaluation of old PPC ratings and insurance costs, and an estimate of insurance savings resulting from new PPC ratings have been included in this analysis for residential and non-residential properties. Background A community’s PPC rating is a key factor that affects the cost of homeowner’s insurance and the cost of operating fire departments, particularly those trying to accomplish lower PPC ratings. PPC ratings are issued by the Insurance Services Office, Incorporated (ISO). The company provides services pertaining to risk analysis. Many different entities use ISO’s products to help mitigate and assess risk, including the insurance industry. One of the services that ISO provides is the PPC, which measures community fire protection. Communities or fire districts receive a rating from one to ten based on this system, with one representing the highest quality fire protection and ten representing a system that does not meet ISO’s minimum criteria. It is a common misconception to refer to an area’s “ISO Rating” when talking about fire protection. In actuality, the area receives a PPC rating performed by ISO. Also, a PPC rating does not reflect the risk of property owners having fires; rather, it indicates the quality of fire protection in an area. The following chart summarizes PPC ratings across the country and throughout South Carolina, prior to Richland County receiving its new ratings. There are relatively few departments that have achieved a rating lower than four.

Percentage Distribution of Communities by PPC Class

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8B 9 10

PPC Class

SCUS

Source: Insurance Services Office, Incorporated website

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE AND POLICY RESEARCH

2

On what factors are PPC Ratings Based? PPC ratings are based primarily on three areas: receiving and handling alarms, fire department personnel and equipment, and water supply. These factors comprise the ISO’s Fire Suppression Rating Schedule. Different weights are applied to each area. The effectiveness of alarm response comprises 10% of a community’s rating. The personnel and equipment of the fire department contribute to 50% of a community’s rating, while the community’s water supply system comprises 40% of a rating. Within each of these areas, different sub-categories are weighted as well1. (See Appendix A). The overall PPC rating reflects the total capability of the department to respond to, and meet, the fire protection demands of the community. When conducting a PPC rating study, ISO inspectors have site visits in the community being rated. Once ISO inspectors complete their field surveys and grading, the results are reviewed and formally approved by ISO’s home office staff in New Jersey. Once the PPC rates are official, communities are notified of the results approximately 30 days before publication. Publication refers to the release of ISO’s updated PPC rating to the public and insurance community. Individual insurers have the option to accept the ISO classification2. Insurance Industry Considerations PPC ratings are one of the many factors that affect insurance premiums. Age of the structure, construction material, and loss history in a particular area also affect the base rate. Factors such as property value, deductible amount, multiple policies, security systems, and credit ratings affect an individual’s rates. Although some companies in some states have elected not to use PPC ratings as part of their premium calculations, in South Carolina it is still a major factor in setting property and casualty insurance rates. Historical Perspective of Fire Protection in Richland County Prior to 1989, Richland County provided the City of Columbia with funds to operate three stations in the unincorporated area(s) of Richland County: Sandhill, Lower Richland and Ballentine. The remainder of the County was serviced by independent volunteer fire departments and a special purpose district. Since 1990, Richland County has made a major commitment to improve the fire service it provides to the citizens. The County has developed and employed a continuing strategy so that a better public protection classification rating may be achieved. In 1990, Richland County Council established a countywide fire district creating a specific funding source for fire service in the County to improve fire service and accountability for expenditure of funds. Richland County Council also established the Richland County Fire Marshal’s office to plan and oversee fire service in Richland County. The Richland County Fire Marshal’s Office manages strategic planning and budgeting, capital improvements, code enforcement, cause and origin investigations, hazardous material site inspections and permitting. 1 Fire Suppression Rating Schedule. Jersey City, NJ: ISO Properties, Inc. (2003). 5-40 2 “Insurance Services Office.” Virginia Department of Fire Programs Quarterly. (July – September 2001) 20


3

The County Council entered into a fire service agreement with the City of Columbia Fire Department (CFD), creating the Columbia-Richland Fire Service (CRFS) to provide fire suppression services throughout the County with a seamless response system. Over the sixteen years of the contract period, there has been a significant population growth in Richland County, resulting in a subsequent growth in the fire service. Both the County and the City of Columbia have made considerable investments in stations, equipment, and personnel during this time to address the increase in service demand throughout the County. The City of Columbia has relocated four city stations. The County has invested over twenty million dollars to improve resources. This includes adding new stations, more than 130 career firefighters, and improving water points and equipment. Please see Appendix B for a detailed list of stations and other operational improvements made by Richland County. These additions have increased total resources to approximately 400 career and 100 volunteer personnel operating from 29 fire stations throughout the County. The CRFS now serves a population of approximately 325,000 in 660 square miles. The previous year’s budget was $29 million, with $17 million in City funding and $12 million in funding from the County. As a result of these investments, the CRFS believed the citizens were receiving a higher level of fire protection service than the PPC ratings reflected. In 2005, the CRFS requested that ISO conduct a new rating study of the fire service in the County. The areas included in the ISO study included the municipalities of Arcadia Lakes, Blythewood, Eastover, Forest Acres and the unincorporated areas of Richland County. The City of Columbia, Fort Jackson, and McEntire Air National Guard Base were not included in the study. The original PPC ratings for Richland County were based on eleven fire district areas. (See Appendix C). Within each of these districts, the ratings were heavily influenced by a structure’s distance from a fire station and a fire hydrant. This caused split ratings in several of the areas. Split class ratings generally occur when there are various amounts of water availability in the area3. The following image depicts the County’s PPC ratings prior to the recent ISO study. 3 Charles Ganglugg. Report of Rural Fire Protection. Roland, AR: Rural Fire Protection Program (August 2000). 3


4

Contributing Factors for Improved PPC Ratings The traditional sources of water for fire departments are fire hydrants and pumper trucks. Prior to the recent ISO study, one of the reasons for the higher ratings in parts of Richland County was many structures were located beyond 1,000 feet from a hydrant. Realizing the limitations of the water infrastructure in some of the rural areas, the CRFS decided to focus on other methods to meet ISO’s water supply requirements. ISO considers the ability of the water supply system to deliver the needed fire flow at sample locations throughout the area as part of the water supply


5

system requirements4. The CRFS chose to employ a water shuttle system similar to ones being used in other communities to meet these requirements. A water shuttle uses predetermined water points such as dry hydrants. A dry hydrant is a static water source that is pre-piped to draw water from locations such as ponds and lakes to fill tanker trucks. Richland County’s Public Works Department and Emergency Services Department worked with the CRFS in identifying and constructing dry hydrant locations. The CRFS personnel went through six to eight hours of formal training on this system. Additionally, the CRFS did the following:

• Conducted a central inventory of equipment and apparatus and redistributed resources to ensure all stations maximized points ISO assigns for equipment requirements.

• Typically ISO looks at the staffing levels at each fire station to determine personnel strength. The CRFS, however, uses a consolidated approach to fighting fires where personnel from various stations respond to calls. The CRFS provided information to ISO documenting their approach, which ISO accepted.

• Entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Fort Motte Fire Department in Calhoun County to serve a remote area of southeastern Richland County.

All the actions described above took place during 2006. However, County and City of Columbia resources have enabled the CRFS to operate from new stations, hire additional personnel, and purchase additional equipment to meet the growth and increasing service demands since 1990. See Appendix A for the overall results of the ISO study. PPC Rate Changes in Richland County The efforts of the CRFS and Richland County were successful in achieving improved PPC ratings. The new ratings are no longer based on county fire districts, but now are based on jurisdictional areas. A rule change within ISO dictated separate evaluations of the incorporated areas. The areas included in the ISO study were: Arcadia Lakes, Blythewood, Eastover, Forest Acres, and the unincorporated area of the County. Due to the efforts to provide greater water supply, all of the unincorporated areas of the County have received a single PPC rating of four, with the exception of the two remote areas that are not within five road-miles of a fire station. These two areas will maintain a rating of ten. The St. Andrews area of Richland County has retained a PPC rating of four, and therefore is not included in this analysis. The new PPC ratings for the municipalities of Arcadia Lakes, Blythewood, Eastover, and Forest Acres are as follows:

• Arcadia Lakes - 1 • Blythewood – 4 • Eastover – 4 • Forest Acres – 2

4 Fire 32-37


6

The unincorporated PPC ratings were effective on December 1, 2006. The ratings for the municipalities are effective on April 1, 2007. The following image displays the new PPC ratings for the County.

Methodology Prior to designing a methodology for this analysis, the IPSPR conducted research to determine if any studies had been conducted on the effects of PPC rate changes on insurance rates in other states. The research effort uncovered related studies in Arkansas, Minnesota and several other states. The


7

Arkansas study focused on the effect of PPC rate changes for the average rural home value across the state5. The League of Minnesota Cities’ report provided an overview of PPC ratings and gave examples of how insurance premiums could be affected when PPC ratings change6. A Fire-Rescue Magazine article from January 1998 reported general insurance savings as a result of a rating reclassification in Churchill/Fallon, Nevada7. The following month’s issue of Fire-Rescue Magazine noted insurance savings in a rural department in Colorado and the City of Atlanta8. Although these studies offered some information on insurance savings as a result of PPC rate changes, none presented the detailed analysis requested by the CRFS. In many of these reports, only one home value and one construction type were used to illustrate insurance savings. One of the challenges in this analysis in calculating the savings homeowners realize as a result of improved PPC ratings is the complexity of the variables present in Richland County. There were multiple jurisdictions within the County, split ratings within these areas, and a wide range of home values. In order to address these variables and to provide citizens in all areas of the County a valid estimate of any insurance premium savings they may realize, the IPSPR developed a methodology using Richland County’s and the City of Columbia’s GIS technology to identify all of the residential properties in each of the PPC rating areas. Once these properties were identified, original PPC ratings were assigned to the properties in order to calculate baseline insurance rates for a sample of residential properties within each rating area. Please see Appendix D for a detailed explanation of the GIS application used in this methodology. This GIS application of the property assessment data, fire district data, and fire hydrant data enabled IPSPR to assign the old PPC rating for every residential property in the County. Once the PPC ratings were assigned, IPSPR determined the 25th percentile, median, and 75th percentile of recorded residential building values in each of the jurisdictional areas.

IPSPR staff worked with the South Carolina Department of Insurance to identify the insurance companies writing most of the residential and commercial property and casualty insurance policies in Richland County. IPSPR staff contacted representatives from each of these companies to identify a point person to assist in providing premium information for each of the residential values using the original and new PPC ratings9. To ensure comparable insurance rates, IPSPR staff asked the insurance companies to make the following assumptions:

• No discounts for multiple policies or security alarms. • A deductible of $500. This is the typical deductible found in residential policies.

Using a random sample of residential properties in each jurisdictional area, IPSPR identified the two most common construction types in the County, brick veneer and vinyl siding, and asked the companies to provide rates for each. Since insurance premiums also are dependent upon the age 5 Ganglugg, Report of Rural Fire Protection 4 6 League of Minnesota Cities. LMCIT Risk Management Information. The ISO Fire Protection Rating System. St. Paul (undated) 3 7 Larry Stevens. “A Tale of Two Ratings, Part One.” Fire-Rescue Magazine. (January 1998) 60 8 Larry Stevens. “A Tale of Two Ratings, Part Two.” Fire-Rescue Magazine. (February 1998) 59 9 The following insurance companies provided information for this study: Allstate, Auto-Owners, Farm Bureau, Nationwide, and State Farm. Nationwide and State Farm did not submit data on unincorporated areas of Richland County. Those rates were estimated using Richland County municipality rates they did submit.


8

of the home, IPSPR calculated the average age of structures around the 25th percentile, median, and 75th percentile of recorded residential building values from the random sample. Impact Analysis of PPC Rate Changes in Richland County The following data are displayed in separate tables for each of the original rating areas of the County. These areas have been defined by the original PPC ratings that were based on fire districts. The home values represented are for the 25th, median, and 75th percentile. The results presented below are projected savings based on the average insurance premiums of the companies that provided information for this study. An individual homeowner’s premium may vary significantly from the averages reported below. The insurance company writing the policy, choice of deductible, claims history, credit rating, discounts applied to the policy, home construction material, age of the home, and optional coverage riders all affect cost of the policy. Since the PPC ratings have less effect on property and casualty insurance rates for manufactured or mobile homes, the results of this analysis do not apply to those structures. The PPC ratings will have an effect on policy holders who have renter’s insurance or own condominiums, but those rates were not analyzed in this study. Unincorporated Areas Area with Original PPC Rating 9: Northern areas of the County including Cedar Creek, Killian, Bear Creek, Ballentine, and the unincorporated areas around Blythewood; southern areas of the County including Gadsden, Hopkins, Lower Richland, and the unincorporated areas around Eastover

Average Premium – Brick Veneer Average Premium – Vinyl Siding % Change- Brick Veneer

% Change- Vinyl Siding

Home Value

Old Rating - 9 New Rating - 4 Old Rating - 9 New Rating - 4 $38,975* $647 $414 $768 $471 36% 39% $85,600 $898 $564 $1,075 $645 37% 40% $139,600 $1,215 $727 $1,448 $828 40% 43%

*Note – Several insurance companies base their rates on a minimum property value of $50,000.

The reductions in insurance premiums in the areas with an original PPC rating of nine range from 8% to 49% for brick homes and 11% to 53% for homes with vinyl siding, depending on the insurance company. Some of the districts in this area had 6/9 PPC ratings. The reason for the large variance in the reductions above is that two insurance companies have been using a PPC rating of six for all residential properties in these areas, regardless of a property’s distance from a fire hydrant. This has lessened the potential impact of the change in PPC ratings. Insurance savings to homeowners in these areas will vary greatly, depending on the insurance company.


9

Area with Original PPC Rating 7: Areas adjacent to McEntire Airbase and those west of Hopkins, south of Leesburg Road, west of Eastover, and north of Gadsden that are within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant



Home Value

Old Rating - 7 New Rating - 4 Old Rating - 7 New Rating - 4 $69,200 $576 $502 $663 $573 13% 13% $101,800 $709 $603 $798 $688 15% 14% $135,300 $833 $710 $942 $812 15% 14%

Area with Original PPC Rating 6: Northern areas of the County including Killian, Bear Creek, Ballentine, and the unincorporated areas around Blythewood; southern areas of the County including Lower Richland, and the unincorporated areas around Eastover that are within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant



Home Value


Area with Original PPC Rating 5: Areas adjacent to the Columbia city limits, including Olympia, Industrial Park, Atlas Road, Capitol View, Two Notch Road Corridor, and the area south of Fort Jackson



Home Value

Old Rating - 5 New Rating - 4 Old Rating - 5 New Rating - 4 $47,300* $442 $431 $500 $492 2% 2% $66,800 $483 $472 $544 $533 2% 2% $94,000 $563 $550 $637 $627 2% 2%

*Note – Several insurance companies base their rates on a minimum property value of $50,000. Municipalities Arcadia Lakes



Home Value

Old Rating - 5 New Rating - 1 Old Rating - 5 New Rating - 1 $98,600 $575 $547 $650 $623 5% 4% $143,200 $757 $718 $853 $821 5% 4% $197,300 $1,004 $954 $1,138 $1,090 5% 4%


10

Blythewood – Original PPC Rating 6



Home Value

Old Rating - 6 New Rating - 4 Old Rating - 6 New Rating - 4 $151,900 $741 $661 $842 $754 11% 11% $210,500 $970 $865 $1,103 $988 11% 11% $256,200 $1,150 $1,025 $1,308 $1,171 11% 11%

Blythewood – Original PPC Rating 9



Home Value

Old Rating - 9 New Rating - 4 Old Rating - 9 New Rating - 4 $96,600 $798 $540 $953 $615 32% 35% $134,400 $997 $673 $1,191 $767 32% 36% $191,100 $1,380 $929 $1,648 $1,059 33% 36%

The Town of Blythewood had 6/9 PPC rating. The reason for the large variance in the reductions above is that two insurance companies have been using a PPC rating of six for all residential properties in these areas, regardless of a property’s distance from a fire hydrant. This has lessened the potential impact of the change in PPC ratings.

Eastover



Home Value

Old Rating - 9 New Rating - 4 Old Rating - 9 New Rating - 4 $36,300* $491 $264 $612 $298 46% 51% $46,100* $603 $324 $754 $368 46% 51%

*Note – Several insurance companies base their rates on a minimum property value of $50,000. Only the median and 75th percentile properties are used in the Eastover analysis since properties at the 25th percentile value would most likely be uninsurable. Forest Acres



Home Value


The reduction in insurance premiums in the areas with an original PPC rating of five ranges from 0% to 5%. Some insurance companies’ rates are not affected by improvements in PPC ratings below a five, so changes in PPC ratings may not result in savings for all customers. This practice of “banding” ratings was reported in several of the studies cited earlier in this report.


11

Financial Impact on Residential Properties There are over 65,000 single-family or duplex properties in Richland County outside the city limits of Columbia that are impacted by the changes in PPC ratings10. In order to estimate the total financial impact on residential property insurance rates for these properties, IPSPR staff took the average savings for each of the three sample properties in each PPC rating area (25th, median, and 75th percentile values) and multiplied those amounts by one-third the number of residential properties in that area to estimate the total savings in that area. The totals for all eight areas were summed to estimate the impact on residential premiums for the entire county. The estimate for the total financial impact on residential property insurance rates in Richland County will be $5.5 million, once all of the PPC ratings become effective on April 1, 2007. Non-Residential Properties Initially, IPSPR proposed including non-residential properties in this analysis. After discovering that Richland County’s data for commercial and other non-residential properties did not provide the level of detail needed for this analysis, IPSPR staff decided to report general information on insurance rates for non-residential properties. In addition to construction type and age of the structure, there are several factors that impact a commercial property’s insurance rate.

One issue in commercial insurance lies in ownership. Unfortunately, most of the property data available were at a building level, not at a business level. For example, information was available on a strip mall, but not for the businesses within that mall. It is easy to assume that there may be multiple types of businesses present within such a structure.

A general problem surrounding commercial property lies in property use. Regardless of building material, age, and other characteristics, residential property is generally used for one purpose: living quarters. Commercial buildings can vary widely in terms of usage. In fact, during this study IPSPR staff found that even when a commercial building is classified as a restaurant, variations in that usage class presented problems in the analysis.

The contents of commercial property may also create wide variations among similar types of commercial enterprises.

Another factor affecting commercial property insurance rates is whether the building has a sprinkler system. A commercial building with a sprinkler system has lower insurance premiums, and the PPC rating has little effect on those insurance premiums.

Commercial and Government Properties There are close to 10,000 commercial structures in Richland County outside the city limits of Columbia. Commercial property owners will save from 2% to 36% on property insurance, depending on their insurance company, the type of business, and their location in Richland County. As is the practice with residential property insurance, some insurance companies band the PPC ratings when setting commercial property insurance rates. One company bands PPC ratings of one through four in one band, and five and six in another. South Carolina state government, along with Richland County School Districts One and Two, have a number of buildings in Richland County outside the city limits of Columbia. State 10 Residential properties include single-family or duplex structures. Multi-family dwellings, such as apartment complexes, are considered commercial by the insurance industry.


12

agencies are self-insured through the Insurance Reserve Fund. School districts insure school properties through commercial underwriters. Although the impact of PPC rating changes will not be as great as it is on residential insurance rates, governmental entities may see reductions in their property insurance rates. Churches Churches in Richland County vary in size from small, rural churches to multi-million dollar churches with dining halls, gymnasiums and other activity buildings. With varying sizes and construction types, it is difficult to calculate an estimate of property insurance premium savings for churches. One of the state’s leading insurers of church properties estimates that churches in areas with old PPC ratings of five and six will save an average of 16% on premiums and those in areas previously rated nine will save an average of 25% on premiums. Conclusion Richland County and the City of Columbia have made significant investments in the CRFS in order to improve fire service to the County’s residents and businesses. Although saving lives and property is the ultimate goal of the CRFS, Richland County citizens have realized the financial benefit of reduced insurance premiums as a result of CRFS’ efforts. As Richland County continues to grow, the City and County will have to make further investments in the CRFS to maintain the improved PPC ratings. Many other communities across the nation are undergoing PPC rating studies conducted by ISO. The methodology used in this analysis can assist these communities, particularly those with split ratings, in determining the financial impact of improved PPC ratings and can give property owners a better estimate of savings on insurance premiums.


13

APPENDIX A

Factors Considered in Determining the PPC Rating and Results for Each Jurisdiction

*Divergence is a reduction in credit to reflect a difference in the relative credits for Fire Department and Water Supply. Source: ISO Mitigation Online www.isomitigation.com/ppc/2000/ppc2007.html

Maximum Credit

Richland County

Arcadia Lakes

Blythewood

Eastover

Forest Acres

Receiving and Handling of Fire Alarms

10.00

8.30

8.15

8.15

8.15

8.20

Telephone Service 2.00 2.00 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 Operators on Duty 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Alarm Dispatch Circuits 5.00 3.30 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.30 Relative Classification for Handling of Alarms

1 2 2 2 2 2

Fire Department 50.00 30.13 44.97 28.19 29.13 41.79

Pumpers 10.00 7.02 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Reserve Pumpers 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pump Capacity 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Ladder/Service Truck 5.00 2.62 5.00 0.69 0.96 4.97 Reserve Ladder/Service Truck

1.00 0.43 1.00 0.61 0.53 1.00

Distribution of Stations 4.00 1.24 1.99 1.46 3.01 1.81 Company Personnel 15.00 7.45 13.33 3.67 2.87 10.00 Training 9.00 5.67 7.65 5.76 5.76 8.01 Relative Classification for Fire Department

1 4 2 5 5 2

Water Supply 40.00 36.10 39.55 37.22 32.96 32.07

Adequacy of Water Supply 35.00 31.55 35.00 32.67 28.41 27.52 Hydrants: Size, Type, and Installation

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Hydrants: Inspection and Condition

3.00 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55

Relative Classification for Water Supply

1 1 1 1 2 2

Divergence* 0 -6.00 -1.79 -7.33 -4.83 -0.68

Total 100.00 68.53 90.88 66.23 65.41 81.38


14

APPENDIX B

Detailed List of Stations and Other Operational Improvements Made by Richland County

1990-1991 Eight new stations were constructed within 18 months: Crane Creek, Gadsden, Hopkins, Bear Creek, Blythewood, Killian, Eastover and Congaree Run. The Capital View Fire Station Special Purpose District became part of the Richland County system. The City’s Dentsville station also became part of the countywide system. 1992 Two additional stations were funded and constructed by Richland County: Cedar Creek and Spring Hill. Also, Richland County began installing dry hydrants in rural areas of the county. 1998 The Leesburg Road Station was added. 1999 Richland County added tactical manpower teams. 2003 The Gills Creek Station was opened. 2005 Richland County broke ground for the Jackson Creek Station on Two Notch Road. The County purchased property for the Elders Pond Station just off of Hardscrabble Road.


15

APPENDIX C

Columbia/Richland County PPC Ratings District PPC Rating Areas in district Columbia 2 Properties that are inside the Columbia city limits.

Richland County Fire District 1 6/9 Richland County north of the City of Columbia and north of the Station 14 Dentsville District to Lexington and Newberry Counties. Fairfield County and to Kershaw County. This area includes the fire districts oldly designated Station 15-Cedar Creek, Station 17-Upper Richland, Station 18-Crane Church, Station 20-Dutch Fork-Ballentine, Station 21-Dutch Fork-Spring Hill, Station 24-Sandhills, Station 25-Bear Creek, Station 26- Blythewood, and Station 27-Killian.

Southeast Metro 5 Areas on the southeast side of Columbia, outside the City limits. Included are Olympia, Industrial Park and the Atlas Road area.

Station 6-Saint Andrews 4 Saint Andrews area outside Columbia city limits from Lexington County to the Broad River, south of Harbison.

Station 14-Dentsville 5 Forest Acres, Arcadia Lakes and the Two Notch Road corridor outside the Columbia city limits.

Station 19-Gadsden 9 Gadsden community area west of Hopkins, south of Leesburg Road, west of Eastover.

Station 22-Lower Richland 6/9 Areas near Lower Richland High School east of Capital View, south of Fort Jackson, west of Congaree Run, north of Hopkins.

Station 23-Hopkins 9 Hopkins community area west of Southeast Metro District, south of Lower Richland, west of Congaree Run.

Station 28-Eastover 6/9 Town of Eastover and surrounding area east of Gadsden, south of Garner’s Ferry Road to the Sumter County and Calhoun County lines.

Station 29-Congaree Run 7/9 Areas adjacent to McEntire Air Base and those west of Hopkins, south of Leesburg Road, west of Eastover, north of Gadsden.

Station 30-Capital View 5 Properties outside the Columbia City limits, south of Fort Jackson, west of Lower Richland.

Station 31-Leesburg Road 9 Areas east of Lower Richland, south and east of Fort Jackson, north of Eastover to the Sumter County line and the Kershaw County line.

Source: Columbia Fire Department


16

APPENDIX D

Methodology of GIS Application

Step One: Using a map of fire districts, Richland County GIS and CFD staff assigned the original PPC rating to each fire district. The rating was based on what the majority of the property was rated. Those districts with split ratings were determined later. Step Two: The fire station point data layer was added to the map, and a buffer extending five road miles from each station was added as a polygon layer. Step Three: The fire hydrant data layer provided by the City of Columbia GIS was added to the analysis. Dry hydrants were excluded from the analysis, as they did not count toward the original PPC ratings. A buffer of 1,000 feet around each fire hydrant was created and was added as a polygon layer. Step Four: Land parcel information from the Richland County Assessor’s Office was added to the analysis and was converted from a polygon to a centroid (center point of each polygon) point layer. Each point was given the attributes of the assessor polygon layer and, through a spatial join operation, the attributes of the fire district data. Unfortunately, footprint information for each building was not available. In order to calculate building distance to a fire hydrant, the centroid was used as a proxy for building location. Step Five: The City of Columbia, Fort Jackson, McEntire Air Base, and Congaree National Park were excluded from the analysis. Step Six: Fire districts with split ratings were selected. The first districts selected had a split 6/9 rating. Centroids located within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant were selected and given a PPC rating of 6. Those centroids outside of 1,000 feet kept the 9 ratings. The lone 7/9 split district was selected, and the 1,000 feet analysis was repeated with those centroids within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant assigned a 7 rating. Step Seven: All centroids beyond five road-miles of a fire station were selected and given a rating of 10. Step Eight: For future analysis, the boundaries of the incorporated areas (Arcadia Lakes, Blythewood, Eastover, and Forest Acres) were added to the analysis. An attribute for political jurisdiction was added to the centroids to indicate if they were within an incorporated area.

Documents

The Impact of Improved Public Protection Classification Ratings on