ecsi feasibility study on cooperative fire services
Post on 03-Jun-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
1/195
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
2/195
Baseline
Evaluation
Collaborative
Opportunities
Recommen
and
Implemen
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
3/195
Assesscurrent
fiscal,
service
level,
and
infrastruc
conditionsofeachagency;recommend
improvementstoexistingprocesses;forecasteac
agencysfiscalfutureforthenextfiveyears.
Identifyfullorganizationalcollaborationoptions
wellas
partnership
alternatives
available
to
the
agencies.
Analyzethemostfeasibleoftheseoptionsand
alternatives,recommendingthosewiththegreat
opportunityforsuccess.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
4/195
BaselineAgency
Evaluations
for
each
agency
(inc
financialanalyses)
FutureOpportunitiesforCooperativeEfforts
Findings
Recommendations
Implementation
Conclusions
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
5/195
Finding#1: ThecurrentIGAsthatareinplacefosharingdutyofficer,battalionchiefresponseand
servicesareworkingwell.
Finding#2:Thetimingofconsideringadditionalintegrationoptionsisfavorable,giventhat
complementary
vacancies
exist
in
both
fire
departments.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
6/195
Finding#3:Eachagencydependsupontheothermutualaidandautomaticaidassistanceduring
emergencyincidents.Asstandaloneagencies,e
departmentishardpressedtoeffectivelycomba
significant,multiplealarmfireorothermajorinc
withoutassistance.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
7/195
Finding#4:Organizationalculturesaredifferentbetweentheagencies.InESCIsexperience,ane
culturewillemergewithintegration,andno
individualagencyscultureshouldsurviveto
dominatetheother.
Finding#5:MRFPD2
provides
over
half
the
emergencyresponsefleetandothercriticalcapit
equipmenttoMFR.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
8/195
Finding#6:MFRdoesnothaveasufficientapparreplacementplan,leavingthemvulnerableifa
contractwithMRFPD2isnotrenewed. Thiswou
havetobeaddressedbyJCFD#3andMFRinthat
event.
Finding#7:MFRs
staffing
levels
(per
1,000
populationserved)arebelowtheregionalmedia
butwhencombinedwithJCFD#3,staffinglevelsf
withinthemedianrangeregionally.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
9/195
Finding#8: Firestationlocationsinthecombineserviceareaarecomplementary,withnoinefficie
overlapofexistingstations.
Finding#9: Thereexistsadequateadministrativemanagementpersonneltooverseeboth
organizations.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
10/195
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
11/195
Finding#11:BothagenciesvaluecustomerserviDuringtheworkleadingtothisreport,eachfire
agencyconsistentlydemonstratedafocustowar
servingthosewholive,work,andplayintheare
Eachagencyisproudofitscommunityandwork
hardtocareforit.
Finding#12:Eachagencystrivestomeettheexpectationsofitscustomers.Thefiredepartme
bothmakeconsiderableefforttoassurethatthe
provideacceptablelevelsofservicetotheir
communities.
Finding#13:Eachagencyneedsinfrastructureimprovements.Althoughtheneedvaries,import
gapswereidentifiedineachorganization.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
12/195
Finding#14:Agencypolicymakersshouldconvenconsiderstudyrecommendations.Thetwopolicy
boardsandtheiradministrationshavecreateda
foundationforpartnershipsthroughtheexisting
andbyconductingthisstudy.Policymakersshoul
adoptaplan,similartotheoneoutlinedinthis
report,to
evaluate
each
of
the
recommendation
containedherein,aligningtheprocesses,service
andoperationsoftheagencieswhereverpossibl
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
13/195
Finding#15:Acontractforservicesandannexatiarebothfeasible.Despiteclosecollaborationon
numerousoperationalandadministrativeissues
containedintheIGAs,combiningJCFD#3andMF
feasible. Thestrategiesmoveacrossthespectrum
partnershipoptionsfrommaintainingorenhanc
thecurrent
IGAs
short
term,
to
contract
for
servi
inthemidterm,tofullintegrationviaannexatio
considerationlongterm.Themostefficientand
effectivecollaborationisthestrategywhichprov
thehighestlevelsofservicetobothjurisdictions
reasonable
cost.
Policymakers
will
need
to
deterthelevelofcooperationthattheyarecomfortab
withsupporting.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
14/195
StrategyA:StatusQuo StrategyB:ExpansionofExistingIGAs Function
Unification
StrategyC:ContractforServices StrategyD:LegalIntegration Annexation
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
15/195
Assumesnochangefromthecurrentcircumstanceagreements
Currentsharedactivitiescontinue
SharedDutyOfficerandBattalionChiefRes
FleetMaintenance,Repair,FuelPurchasesa
EquipmentRental
and
Use
Mutualandautomaticaidagreements,etc.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
16/195
ThisstrategycombinesnumerousorganizationalfuthroughthedevelopmentandapprovalofIGAs.
Sharedadministrativeandsupportservices
Jointoperationsoversight
Sharedcodeenforcement&preventionprog
Sharedpurchasing
and
logistics
JointTrainingProgram
Difficultytoexecute:moderatewithlimitedrisk. Ag
alreadyhaveexperiencewitheachotherincrafting
Estimatedsavings: $2.3millionduringfirstthreeyea
$11.5million
over
10
years.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
17/195
ContractforfireservicesthroughanIGAagreemen Combinesbothagenciesviaacontract,treatingt
agencyasoneentityforfireandemergencyserv
Recommendanintergovernmentalcouncil(IGC)
Composedofsixrepresentatives twoelect
City,two
electeds from
the
District,
the
city
m
designee,andtheJCFD#3firechief
Policydirectionandactionsneededtoovers
Difficultytoexecute:moderatewithmanageableris
agreementwillminimalizerisk). Timeandexperien
IGAs
prior
to
execution
is
critical.Estimatedsavings:Equaltoorgreaterthansavingsa
underStrategyB.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
18/195
FullIntegrationoftheagenciesisaccomplishedvia InthecaseofJCFD#3andMFR,completeanne
onlyoccurinonedirection;JCFD#3annexingth
Medfordintothefiredistrict.
Inaddition,MRFPD2wouldneedtobeanactiv
this
strategy. Thispermanentlyintegratesthetwoagencie
Difficultytoexecute:highwithincreasedrisk(thiso
requireanelectionandapprovalbytheresidentsof
MedfordandJCFD#3). Timeandexperiencewitha
fireservicespriortoexecutionisrecommended.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
19/195
The
City
of
Medford
would
be
taxed
as
part
of
th TheCityofMedfordcouldreducetheirgeneralf
requirementstoreflecttheeliminationofthefir
JCFD#3couldvoluntarilyreducetheirtaxrate.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
20/195
Recommendation#1:ImplementStrategyB(FunctiUnification)
beginning
with
an
Administrative
IGA.
StageOne conferauthoritytomanagebothfire
departmentstotheJCFD#3firechief.
Firechiefassemblesabalancedexecutivete
establishparametersbywhichtaskforcesar
perform.
StageTwo formationofthetaskforcesandcom
theirworktodevelopandprepareforapproval o
IGAs. Include:
Constraints,performancemetrics,preferred
divisionalstructure,andtimelinesidentified
Taskforcesshouldbecommissionedforsixtoeig
monthstoallowthemampletimetoreportback
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
21/195
Recommendation#2:Midtermconsiderimplemen(Contract
for
Fire
Services).
Allfiredepartmentelementsarecombinedinto
acontract,withJCFD#3providingtheservicetoM
AnysupportactivitiesprovidedbyMedfordm
agreeduponinthecontractforservices.
Thelifespan
of
the
contract
should
be
for
three
t
Consideranamechangetoreflectaregionalflav
Note:Implementationofthisstrategyisastandalo
thatwouldbeconsideredaftertheagencieshaveam
monitorandevaluatethesuccessofthefunctional
place.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
22/195
Recommendation#3:Longtermconsiderimpleme(AnnexationoftheCityofMedfordintoJCFD#3).
Ifpursued,MRFPD2mustbeengagedinthedisc
cannotbeannexed.TheycouldcontractwithJCF
receivingservicesorcouldpursuemergerwithJC
Requiresvoter
approval
by both
agencys
elector
JCFD#3staxratewouldapplyunlessvolunta
(Recommended)
Medfordsgeneralfundcouldbereducedto
Districttax.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
23/195
Recommendation #3:Long term consider impleme(Annexation of the City of Medford into JCFD#3). Co
Should commence prior to contract for services e
interruption of service
Note: Implementation of this strategy is a standalo
would be considered after the agencies have hadmonitor and evaluate the success of the contra
Typically this strategy would be considered three to
the contract would be put in place.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
24/195
Initiative 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2
FunctionalIGA
Administrative
Contractfor
Fire
Service
Annexation
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
25/195
Receive and file the report
Medford has a stakeholder feedback plan i
City Manager by July 6
Independent review of report by each agency
Internal discussion of strategies and options by e
Joint study session held to discuss strategies and Medford timeline late July
Direction given to staff
Staff to develop a plan to implement (if that is di
Staff to report back to policy makers for approva
Implement plan of action Periodic reporting to policy makers
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
26/195
DonBivins|JackSnook
ESCI
don.bivins@esci.us|jack.snook@es
503.570.7778
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
27/195
Jackson County Fire District 3
City of Medford
Oregon
Cooperave Services Feasibility Study
25030 SW Parkway Ave. Suite 330 | Wilsonville, Oregon | 97070 | www.esci.us | 800-757-3724 | info@esci.us
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
28/195
Jackson County Fire
District 3
City of Medford
Oregon
Cooperative Services Feasibility Study
Spring 2014
Prepared By:
Don Bivins, Lead Consultant
Kent Greene
Rob Strong
Lane Wintermute
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
29/195
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
30/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
i
Acknowledgements
Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI) would like to thank the following individuals and
groups for their candid conversations and honest opinions throughout this process. Without their
assistance, this project would not have been possible.
Jackson County Fire District 3
Jim Gillin, President
Colin Fagan, Vice President
Cindy Hauser, Secretary/Treasurer
John Dimick, Board Member
Harvey Tonn, Board Member
Dan Petersen, Fire Chief
IAFF Local 1817
Stacy Maxwell, Chief Finance Officer
John Patterson, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal
Dave Blakely, Division Chief Training & Safety
Brandon Mitchell, Interim Operations Chief
Tamara Nunez, Administrative Assistant
City of Medford
Daniel Bunn, Council President
Eli Matthews, Council Vice-President
Karen Blair, Councilmember
Chris Corcoran, Councilmember
Dick Gordon, Councilmember
Tim Jackle, Councilmember
John Michaels, Councilmember
Bob Strosser, Councilmember
Gary Wheeler, Mayor
Eric Swanson, City Manager
Bill Hoke, Interim Fire Chief
Gordon Sletmoe, Deputy Chief
Justin Bates, Deputy Chief
Tom McGowan, Training Chief
Greg Kleinberg, Fire Marshal
IAFF Local 1431
Pam Webber, Executive Assistant
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
31/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
ii
Medford Rural Fire Protection District 2
Bill Riggert, President
Dan Marcisz, Vice President
Jack Tait, Director
Bob Sheets, Director
Duane Vanekamp, Secretary/Treasurer
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
32/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................ i
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. iii
Table of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................1
Baseline Agency Evaluations ..............................................................................................................5
Organization Overview.............................................................................................................................. 5
Jackson County Fire District 3 ............................................................................................................... 5
Medford Fire/Rescue ............................................................................................................................ 5
Governance and Lines of Authority ...................................................................................................... 8
Jackson County FD3 .............................................................................................................................. 8
Medford Fire/Rescue ............................................................................................................................ 8
Foundational Policy Documents ......................................................................................................... 10
Organizational Design ......................................................................................................................... 10
Financial Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 15
Review of Key Economic Indicators .................................................................................................... 15
Sources of Revenue ............................................................................................................................ 21
Oregon Property Tax System .............................................................................................................. 23
Measure 5 and 50 Impacts (Compression) ......................................................................................... 24
Revenue Projections ........................................................................................................................... 31
Debt Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 34
Costs of Service Delivery (Current and Projected) .............................................................................. 36
Indirect Costs, Cost Allocations, and Contractual Obligations ........................................................... 41
Contractual Services Provided ............................................................................................................ 42
Management Components ..................................................................................................................... 44Strategic Planning ............................................................................................................................... 44
Internal and External Communications Processes ............................................................................. 45
Reporting and Recordkeeping ............................................................................................................ 46
Information Technology Systems ....................................................................................................... 47
Capital Assets and Capital Improvement Programs ................................................................................ 48
Facilities .............................................................................................................................................. 48
Apparatus ............................................................................................................................................ 55
Capital Improvement Planning ........................................................................................................... 59
Staffing and Personnel Management ..................................................................................................... 60
Administration and Support Staff ....................................................................................................... 60Operations Staff .................................................................................................................................. 61
Staff Allocation .................................................................................................................................... 66
Staff Scheduling .................................................................................................................................. 67
Historical Staffing Performance .......................................................................................................... 68
Emergency Call-Back Procedures ........................................................................................................ 70
Human Resources Policies and Manuals ............................................................................................ 71
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
33/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
iv
Compensation Systems ....................................................................................................................... 72
Disciplinary Processes ......................................................................................................................... 73
Testing, Measurement and Promotion Processes .............................................................................. 73
Health, Wellness, and Counseling Programs ...................................................................................... 74
Service Delivery and Performance .......................................................................................................... 75
Service Demand .................................................................................................................................. 75
Distribution Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 82
Concentration Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 84
Reliability Analysis............................................................................................................................... 87
Response Performance ....................................................................................................................... 87
Incident Control and Management..................................................................................................... 92
Communications and Dispatch Services ............................................................................................. 94
Specialty Teams .................................................................................................................................. 95
Fire Prevention and Life Safety Services ................................................................................................. 97
Code Enforcement Activities .............................................................................................................. 97
New Construction Inspection and Involvement ................................................................................. 98
General Inspection Program ............................................................................................................. 100
Fire and Life Safety Public Education Program ................................................................................. 102
Fire Investigation Programs .............................................................................................................. 104
Training and Education ......................................................................................................................... 106
General Training Competencies ........................................................................................................ 106
Training Administration .................................................................................................................... 108
Training Planning and Scheduling ..................................................................................................... 109
Training Facilities and Resources ...................................................................................................... 110
Training Procedures and Methodology ............................................................................................ 111
Training Records and Recordkeeping ............................................................................................... 112
Logistics ................................................................................................................................................. 114
Communication Equipment and Systems ......................................................................................... 114
Supply Request and Delivery Systems .............................................................................................. 115
Purchasing Systems........................................................................................................................... 116
Inventory Storage and Controls ........................................................................................................ 116
Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance ............................................................................................... 118
Future Opportunities for Cooperative Efforts .................................................................................. 119
General Partnering Strategies ............................................................................................................... 119
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) ................................................................................................ 119
Legal Integration ............................................................................................................................... 120
Partnering Options ............................................................................................................................ 120
Status Quo (continuation of existing IGAs) ....................................................................................... 121
Expansion of Existing IGAs ................................................................................................................ 121
Contract for Services ......................................................................................................................... 122
Legal Integration ............................................................................................................................... 122
Success Factors ................................................................................................................................. 123
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
34/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
v
Restructuring Pitfalls ......................................................................................................................... 123
Options for Shared Service ............................................................................................................... 125
Strategy A: Status Quo ...................................................................................................................... 126
Strategy B: Expansion of Existing IGAsFunctional Unification ...................................................... 127
Strategy C: Contract for Services ...................................................................................................... 135
Strategy D: Legal IntegrationAnnexation ...................................................................................... 142
Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 147
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 147
Step 1: Implement Strategy BFunctional Unification (Administration) ............................................ 149
Step 2: Implement Strategy CContract For Services ......................................................................... 150
Step 3: Implement Strategy DAnnexation Of The City Of Medford Into JCFD3 ................................ 150
Example of Timeline.......................................................................................................................... 150
Implementation ............................................................................................................................. 151
Establish Implementation Working Groups .......................................................................................... 151
Joint Implementation Committee (Task Force) ................................................................................ 151
Meet, Identify, Challenge, Refine, and Overcome ............................................................................ 153
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 155
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
35/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
vi
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Study Area Base Map ..................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Summary of Organizational Overview Elements ........................................................................... 7
Figure 3: Summary of Governance and Lines of Authority Elements ........................................................... 9
Figure 4: Summary of Foundational Policy Elements ................................................................................. 10
Figure 5: JCFD3 Organizational Structure ................................................................................................... 12
Figure 6: MFR Organizational Structure...................................................................................................... 13
Figure 7: Summary of Organizational Design Elements .............................................................................. 14
Figure 8: Historic and Average CPI-U, 2004-2013 ....................................................................................... 15
Figure 9: Average CPI-U History, 2004-2013............................................................................................... 16
Figure 10: Historic Unemployment Rates, 2004-2013 ................................................................................ 16
Figure 11: Jackson County Average Annual Unemployment Rate, 204 through 2013 ............................... 17
Figure 12: City of Medford Home Sales, 2008-2013 ................................................................................... 18
Figure 13: Central Point Home Sales, 2008-2013 ....................................................................................... 18
Figure 14: Eagle Point Home Sales, 2011-2013 .......................................................................................... 19
Figure 15: White City Home Sales, 2008-2013 ........................................................................................... 19
Figure 16: Gold Hill Home Sales, 2008-2013 ............................................................................................... 20
Figure 17: JCFD3 Assessed Value, Growth, Levy Rate, and Total Amount Levied, 2009-10 to 2013-14 .... 21
Figure 18: Major General Revenue DistributionJCFD3 ........................................................................... 21
Figure 19: Additional General Revenue DistributionJCFD3 .................................................................... 21
Figure 20: JCFD3 Revenue History, 2009-10 to 2013-14 ............................................................................ 22
Figure 21: City of Medford AV, Growth, Hypothetical Levy Rate and Amounts, 2009-10 to 2013-14 ....... 22
Figure 22: Medford Fire Hypothetical Property Tax Revenue, 2009-10 to 2013-14 .................................. 22
Figure 23: General Revenue DistributionCity of Medford ...................................................................... 23
Figure 24: City of Medford AV and RMV History, 2009-10 to 2013-14 ...................................................... 26Figure 25: JCFD3 AV and RMV History, 2009-10 to 2013-14 ...................................................................... 27
Figure 26: MRFPD2 AV and RMV History, 2009-10 to 2013-14 .................................................................. 27
Figure 27: Measure 5 Compression Loss by Taxing District, 2009-10 to 2013-14 ...................................... 28
Figure 28: City of Medford Code Areas and Total General Governmental Rates, 2013-14 Tax Year ......... 28
Figure 29: JCFD3 Code Areas and Total General Governmental Rates, 2013-14 Tax Year ......................... 29
Figure 30: MRFPD2 Code Areas and Total General Governmental Tax Rates, 2013-14 Tax Year .............. 29
Figure 31: City of Medford Lost Property Tax from Urban Renewal, 2009-10 to 2013-14 ........................ 30
Figure 32: JCFD3 Code Areas, 2013-14 Tax Year ......................................................................................... 31
Figure 33: JCFD3 Projected AV Growth and Levy Amount, 2014-15 - 2018-19 .......................................... 31
Figure 34: Revenue ProjectionsJCFD3 (Property Taxes) ......................................................................... 32Figure 35: JCFD3 Projected Revenues, 2014-15 - 2018-19 ......................................................................... 32
Figure 36: Medford Fire Projected AV Growth and Hypothetical Levy Rate .............................................. 33
Figure 37: Revenue ProjectionsCity of Medford (Property Taxes) ......................................................... 33
Figure 38: JCFD3 Long Term Debt Outstanding .......................................................................................... 34
Figure 39: JCFD3 Historical Expenditures, 2009-10 to 2013-14 .................................................................. 36
Figure 40: JCFD3 Capital Projects Fund History, 2009-10 to 2013-14 ........................................................ 37
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
36/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
vii
Figure 41: JCFD3 Building/Land/Equipment Reserve Fund, 2009-10 to 2013-14 ....................................... 37
Figure 42: JCFD3 Projected Expenditures, 2014-15 to 2018-19 ................................................................. 38
Figure 43: MFR Historical Expenditures, 2009-10 to 2013-14 .................................................................... 38
Figure 44: MFR Projected Expenditures, 2014-15 to 2018-19 .................................................................... 39
Figure 45: JCFD3 Fund Balance Analysis, 2009-10 to 2013-14 ................................................................... 40
Figure 46: JCFD3 Fund Balance Projection, 2014-15 to 2018-19 ................................................................ 40
Figure 47: MFR Indirect Costs ..................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 48: Combined Cost of ServicesFY 2013/14 .................................................................................. 41
Figure 49: Cost of Service with Indirect Costs Included .............................................................................. 42
Figure 50: District/Department Specific Measures..................................................................................... 42
Figure 51: Comparison of Cost based on different District/Department Measures .................................. 42
Figure 52: JCFD3 Contract Services Summary............................................................................................. 43
Figure 53: MFR Contract Services Summary ............................................................................................... 43
Figure 54: Summary of Internal and External Communications Elements ................................................. 45
Figure 55: Summary of Reporting and Recordkeeping Elements ............................................................... 46
Figure 56: Summary of Information Technology Elements ........................................................................ 47
Figure 57: JCFD3 White City Station ........................................................................................................... 48
Figure 58: JCFD3 Central Point Station ....................................................................................................... 49
Figure 59: JCFD3 Gold Hill Station ............................................................................................................... 49
Figure 60: JCFD3 Dodge Bridge Station ....................................................................................................... 50
Figure 61: JCFD3 Sams Valley Station ......................................................................................................... 50
Figure 62: JCFD3 Agate Lake Station ........................................................................................................... 51
Figure 63: JCFD3 Eagle Point Station .......................................................................................................... 51
Figure 64: MFR Station 2 ............................................................................................................................. 52
Figure 65: MFR Station 3 ............................................................................................................................. 52
Figure 66: MFR Station 4 ............................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 67: MFR Station 5 ............................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 68: MFR Station 6 ............................................................................................................................. 54
Figure 69: Capital Replacement Planning Summary ................................................................................... 58
Figure 70: Capital Replacement Planning Summary ................................................................................... 59
Figure 71: Administrative and Support Complement ................................................................................. 61
Figure 72: Summary of Services Provided .................................................................................................. 61
Figure 73: Operational Staff Complement .................................................................................................. 62
Figure 74: Career Staffing per 1,000 Population (JCFD3) ........................................................................... 63
Figure 75: Career Staffing per 1,000 Population (MFR) .............................................................................. 63
Figure 76: Career Staffing per 1,000 Population (Combined)..................................................................... 64
Figure 77: Critical Task Staffing Needs by Risk............................................................................................ 65
Figure 78: Summary of Tabletop Critical Task Analysis .............................................................................. 66
Figure 79: Staff Allocation/Distribution ...................................................................................................... 66
Figure 80: Summary of Staff Scheduling and Additional Personnel Management Elements ..................... 68
Figure 81: Average Structure Fire Staffing Performance History ............................................................... 69
Figure 82: Summary of Compensation and Benefits Elements .................................................................. 72
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
37/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
viii
Figure 83: Summary of Disciplinary Process Elements ............................................................................... 73
Figure 84: Summary of Testing, Measurement and Promotions Process Elements .................................. 74
Figure 85: Summary of Health, Wellness, and Counseling Elements ......................................................... 74
Figure 86: Overall Historic Service Demand ............................................................................................... 75
Figure 87: Historic Service Demand by Incident Type ................................................................................ 76
Figure 88: Service Demand by Month 2012................................................................................................ 76
Figure 89: Service Demand by Day of Week 2012 ...................................................................................... 77
Figure 90: Service Demand by Hour of Day 2012 ....................................................................................... 77
Figure 91: Geographic Service Demand DistributionAll Incidents .......................................................... 79
Figure 92: Geographic Service Demand DistributionMedical Incidents ................................................. 80
Figure 93: Geographic Service Demand DistributionStructure Fires ...................................................... 81
Figure 94: Four-, Eight- and 12-Minute Travel Model ................................................................................ 83
Figure 95: Effective Response ForceThree Engines and One Aerial ........................................................ 85
Figure 96: Effective Response ForceTwo Engines and One Aerial .......................................................... 86
Figure 97: Incident Concurrency Rates (JCFD3) .......................................................................................... 87
Figure 98: Incident Concurrently Rates (MFR) ............................................................................................ 87
Figure 99: Historic Call Processing Performance ........................................................................................ 89
Figure 100: Historic Turnout Time PerformanceAverage ....................................................................... 89
Figure 101: Historic Turnout Time Performance90thPercentile ............................................................. 90
Figure 102: Turnout Time by Hour of Day .................................................................................................. 90
Figure 103: Historic Response Performance by Year (JCFD3) ..................................................................... 91
Figure 104: Historic Response Performance by Station (JCFD3) ................................................................ 91
Figure 105: Historic Response Performance by Year (MFR) ....................................................................... 91
Figure 106: Summary of Operational Command Elements ........................................................................ 93
Figure 107: Fire Prevention Program Components .................................................................................... 97
Figure 108: Code Enforcement ................................................................................................................... 98
Figure 109: New Construction Plan Review and Inspections...................................................................... 99
Figure 110: Existing Occupancy Inspection Program ................................................................................ 100
Figure 111: Recommended Fire Inspection Frequencies .......................................................................... 102
Figure 112: Public Education Programs .................................................................................................... 103
Figure 113: Fire Investigation Program ..................................................................................................... 104
Figure 114: General Training Competencies ............................................................................................. 107
Figure 115: Training Program Administration .......................................................................................... 108
Figure 116: Training Planning ................................................................................................................... 109
Figure 117: Training Facilities and Resources ........................................................................................... 110
Figure 118: Training Procedures and Methodology ................................................................................. 111
Figure 119: Training Records .................................................................................................................... 112
Figure 120: Communications Equipment and Systems ............................................................................ 114
Figure 121: Supply Request and Delivery Systems ................................................................................... 115
Figure 122: Purchasing Systems ................................................................................................................ 116
Figure 123: Inventory Storage and Controls ............................................................................................. 116
Figure 124: Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance .................................................................................... 118
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
38/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
ix
Figure 125: Comparison of Existing FTE and Cost Combined and Consolidated ..................................... 139
Figure 126: Admin and Support Staff Combined, Year 1 through 3 ......................................................... 140
Figure 127: Admin and Support Staff Combined, Year 4 through 10 ....................................................... 140
Figure 128: Forecast Taxable Assessed Value for 2013/14 through 2017/18 .......................................... 143
Figure 129: Combined JCFD3 General Fund Revenues, 2013/14 through 2017/18 ................................. 143
Figure 130: JCFD3 Combined Expenses, 2014/15 through 2018/19 ........................................................ 144
Figure 131: Combined General Fund Summary for 2013/14 through 2017/18 ....................................... 145
Figure 132: JCFD3 Forecast Combined Capital Projects Fund .................................................................. 145
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
39/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
x
This page is intentionally left blank.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
40/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
1
Executive Summary
Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI) was retained by two fire agencies in Jackson County
(OR) to conduct an Opportunities for Collaborative Efforts Feasibility Study. Those two fire agencies
included Medford Fire Rescue (MFR) and Jackson County Fire District 3 (JCFD3). The path that the two
agencies take also has a profound impact upon MRFPD2, which contracts for service from MFR. The
purpose of the study was to:
A. Assess the current fiscal, service level, and infrastructure conditions of each participatingagency; recommend improvements to their existing processes; and forecast each agencys fiscal
future for the next five years.
B. Identify full organizational collaboration options as well as partnership alternatives available tothe agencies.
C. Analyze the most feasible of these options and alternatives, recommending those with thegreatest opportunity for success.
In recent years, cooperative service and the consolidation of fire departments and emergency medical
systems has become a viable option in trying to ensure efficiencies are being captured, costs are
controlled, and innovation and technologies are being utilized. Typically, the motivations to look at
doing more with neighboring jurisdictions includes the desire to maintain or enhance current services or
service levels, reducing or eliminating future costs, or the elimination of duplication.
ESCI has been involved in many successful functional, operational, and legal consolidations. However,
we do caution clients that combining for the sole purpose of saving money has risk. In most cases there
are long-term costs savings through regional cooperative effort, but not all integrations ultimately result
in saving money. Analysis has to be done to determine what the potential is for cost reductions as well
as efficiencies that can be gained that will maintain or enhance services to the public. In todayseconomy the expectation is that the fire service will do more with less and deliver service in a
conservative manner, particularly as it relates to the long-term financial sustainability of programs and
services.
This report contains the following sections: Baseline Agency Evaluations for each independent agency
(including the fiscal analyses), Future Opportunities for Cooperative Efforts, Findings,
Recommendations, Implementation, and Conclusions.
KEY FINDINGS
Both fire agencies have already demonstrated their interdependence and their ability to collaborate on
various initiatives, such as dual battalion chief responses and shared duty officers. They have also
discovered the numerous challenges they each face but have in common with each other. A combined
and concerted effort to respond to these challenges is in their collective best interests which, we
presume, led to the initiation of this study. Both agencies are committed to the service they provide to
their customers and citizens. In brief, ESCI finds:
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
41/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
2
Finding #1: The current IGAs in place for sharing duty officer, battalion chief response, and fleet
services are working well.
Finding #2:The timing of integration between the agencies is favorable, given that complementary
vacancies exist in both agencies, potentially eliminating the need to fill them.
Finding #3:Each agency depends upon the other for mutual aid and automatic aid assistance during
emergency incidents. As stand-alone agencies, each one is hard-pressed to effectively combat a
significant, multiple alarm fire or other major incident without assistance.
Finding #4:Organizational cultures are different between the agencies. In ESCIs experience, a new
culture will emerge with integration, and no individual agencys culture will survive to dominate the
other.
Finding #5: MRFPD2 provides over half the emergency response fleet and other critical capital
equipment to MFR.
Finding #6:MFR does not have a funded apparatus replacement plan, leaving them vulnerable if a
contract with MRFPD2 is not renewed. This would have to be addressed by JCFD3 and MFR in that
event.
Finding #7:MFRs staffing levels (per 1,000 populations served) arebelow the regional median, but
when combined with JCFD3, staffing levels fall within the median range regionally.
Finding #8: Fire station locations in the combined service area are complementary, with no
inefficient overlap of existing stations.
Finding #9: There exist adequate administrative and management personnel to oversee both
organizations.
Finding #10: There are a minimum of five additional functional areas that each agency currently
performs independently that could be handled in a collaborate manner. These functional areas
include:
Shared administrative and support services Shared operations oversight Code enforcement, life safety, fire prevention, and related services Joint purchasing and logistics Shared training program
Finding #11: Both agencies value customer service. During the work leading to this report, each fire
agency consistently demonstrated a focus toward serving those who live, work, and play in the area.
Each agency is proud of its community and works hard to care for it.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
42/195
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
43/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
4
MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Given the analysis in this study and the findings above, ESCI recommends:
Recommendation #1: Implement Strategy B (Functional Unification of Administration via IGA). This
two-stage process combines the administrations of both agencies, starting first with conferring
authority to manage both fire departments to the JCFD3 fire chief. The fire chief then assembles abalanced executive team to establish parameters by which task forces are to form and perform.
Stage two is the actual formation of the task forces and commissioning their work with the criteria,
constraints, performance metrics, preferred outcomes, divisional structure, and timelines identified
that will act as the basis for the additional five functional IGAs outlined in Strategy B. This functional
unification should have a six to eighteen month lifespan. This is a moderate but limited risk strategy
to implement. The risk is mitigated due to the previous experience both agencies have with each
other developing successful IGAs. The cumulative savings for the first three years of the
administrative agreement is approximately 2.3 million dollars. This is accomplished by not replacing
currently vacated positions in each agency. The cumulative savings over ten years is approximately
11.5 million dollars based on the elimination of a total of 4.5 positions.
Recommendation #2: If the functional unification has been successful and the parties agree the
circumstances lend themselves to a more advanced level of cooperation, the agencies are ready for
the next step in the partnership continuum by implementing Strategy C (Contract for Fire Services).
All fire department elements are combined into one agency via a contract, with JCFD 3 providing the
service to Medford. Any support activities provided by Medford must be agreed upon in the
contract for services. The lifespan of the contract should be for three to five years. This is a
moderate but manageable risk strategy. Time and effort spent crafting a well written and thorough
agreement will minimalize the risk. Time and experience with the previous IGAs prior to execution of
this step is critical. The cumulative savings of a contract for service would be equal to or greaterthan functional unification.
Recommendation #3:If the contract for fire services has been successful and the parties agree the
circumstances lend themselves to permanently integrating into one agency, the final step in the
partnership continuum is implementation of Strategy D (Annexation of the City of Medford into
JCFD3). The difficulty in implementing this strategy is high with increased risk. It requires informing
the citizens of both agencies about the benefits and impacts to service delivery and cost prior to
holding an election. Approval by the residents of both the City of Medford and JCFD3 is necessary.
Time and experience with a contract for fire services prior to execution is strongly recommended. If
pursued, MRFPD2 must be engaged in the discussion since they cannot be annexed. They can
contract with JCFD3 to continue receiving services or can pursue merger with JCFD3. If the City of
Medford annexed to JCFD3, properties within the City of Medford would be assessed at the JCFD3
tax rate at the time of annexation. JCFD3 could voluntarily reduce their tax rate based on needed
revenues (see figure 127). Likewise, the City of Medford could modify their general fund budget and
tax rate to reflect the reduction of the fire fund.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
44/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
5
Baseline Agency Evaluations
Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI) was engaged by Jackson County Fire District 3 and
the City of Medford, Oregon to conduct a Cooperative Efforts Feasibility Analysis for the two fire
departments.
ORGANIZATION OVERVIEW
In order to properly determine what future cooperative efforts may exist for the two study
departments, a review of existing operations and conditions must first be accomplished. This allows ESCI
to evaluate the programs and functions of each organization, which will serve as the basis for future
cooperative efforts. This report section provides the reader with an overview of current conditions and
highlights similarities and significant differences between the departments.
Jackson County Fire District 3
Jackson County Fire District 3 (JCFD3) is recognized as a Rural Fire Protection District under Oregon
Revised Statutes (ORS Chapters 478 and 198). As a fire district, JCFD3 has the ability to levy a tax on all
real property within the boundaries of the established district and to contract with other areas to
provide service. Currently, JCFD3 protects an approximate population of 48,000 in a total land area of
approximately 167 square miles. The District provides fire suppression, technical rescue, first response
emergency medical services (transport capable), operations level hazardous materials response, and fire
prevention and life-safety services. These services are delivered from a total of seven stations (three
career and four volunteer) using a fleet of nine engines, one aerial ladder, two rescues, five tenders,
eight brush/wildland vehicles and a number of other ancillary apparatus and vehicles.
Medford Fire/Rescue
Medford Fire/Rescue (MFR) is a standing department within the municipal structure of the City of
Medford. All revenues to support the fire department are from general fund taxes levied by the City orfrom other sources such as bonds, contracts, or grants. In addition to the City of Medford, MFR also
provides services to Medford Rural Fire Protection District 2 (MRFPD2)1through contract. MFR currently
protects approximately 56.3 square miles (25.7 in the City of Medford and 30.6 in MRFPD2) and an
approximate population of 85,282 (75,920 in the City of Medford and 9,362 in MRFPD2). The
department provides fire protection, first responder emergency medical services, technician level
hazardous materials response, fire prevention and life-safety services from five stations deployed across
the city with a fleet of eight engines, two aerial ladders, two brush/wildland units, one water tender,
and a number of other ancillary apparatus and vehicles.
1MRFPD2 is also known as JCFD2.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
45/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
6
The following figure illustrates the service area of the two study departments.
Figure 1: Study Area Base Map
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
46/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
7
The following figure summarizes the general organizational elements of the study agencies and
highlights those elements that are significantly different (in red).2
Figure 2: Summary of Organizational Overview Elements
JCFD3 MFR
Department Preferred Acronym JCFD3 MFRGovernance Authority Rural Fire Protection District Direct Operating Department
Municipality Name N/A City of Medford
Name of County Jackson County Jackson County
State or Province OR OR
Jurisdictional Limits Encompasses all or portions of
several different governmental
units
Encompasses all of the
governmental boundaries of the
city, along with additional
contractual service areas
Communities Served (all or
portion)
City of Central Point, City of
Eagle Point, City of Gold Hill,
White City Urban ContainmentArea, Medford Industrial Park,
and unincorporated areas of
Agate Lake, Sams Valley, and
Dodge Bridge area
City of Medford, Unincorporated
Jackson County (MRFPD2)
Primary Risk Types Urban residential and
commercial, suburban
residential and light commercial,
rural residential and agricultural,
industrial, remote wildland or
wilderness areas
Urban residential and
commercial, Suburban
residential and light commercial,
rural residential and agricultural,
remote wildland or wilderness
areas
Community Growth Level Light to moderate Light to moderate
Year Agency Formed 1952 1886Services Fire suppression, ALS emergency
medical first responder, vehicle
extrication, hazmat operations-
level, public education, code
enforcement and inspections,
fire investigations, construction
plan review, land development
approval
Fire suppression, ALS emergency
medical first responder, vehicle
extrication, hazmat operations-
level, public education, code
enforcement and inspections,
fire investigations, land
development/construction
review, fire protection system
plan review and inspection
Technician-Level Hazmat
Services Provided By
Regional hazmat team in which
this agency does not participate
Regional hazmat team in which
this agency participatesHazmat Team Name State Team 8 State Team 8
Name of Dispatch Agency ECSO ECSO
Staffing Methodology Career firefighters on duty 24-
hours a day, intern firefighters
Career firefighters on duty 24-
hours a day
2Subsequent figures also follow this pattern, with elements that are significantly different denoted in red.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
47/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
8
JCFD3 MFR
Minimum On-Duty Strength or
Typical On-Call Availability
13 career, 18 including intern
firefighters
17
Latest ISO Rating 3, 4/10 4
Split Rating Yes No
Last ISO Survey Conducted In 2012 2005
Observations:
Organization of each organization is fundamentally different. JCFD3 is an independent Rural FireProtection District while MFR is a municipal fire department.
The risks protected by each agency, while some similarities exist, vary due to the populationdensity within the City of Medford. If not for the MRFPD2 area protected, MFRs response
territory would be primarily urban and suburban. MFR also has responsibilities for critical
infrastructure. JCFD3 protects various densities including three small urban communities, a large
industrial park, and scattered large industrial facilities and critical infrastructure.
The minimum on-duty staffing differs between the departments primarily due to the number ofstaffed stations and the service demand experienced within each agency. JCFD3 uses intern
firefighters, volunteer personnel, and a resident program to supplement the career personnel
within the District. MFR staffs all of their fire stations exclusively with career firefighters.
Governance and Lines of Authority
Regardless of type, all organizations must be governed and/or overseen by individuals or groups charged
with ensuring continued, sustainable operations. The study agencies are no different. This report section
provides the reader with a general description of each agencys governance and lines of authority.
Jackson County FD3
As mentioned previously, JCFD3 is a Rural Fire Protection District under ORS. Thus the organization mustfollow specific rules and regulations regarding governance. ORS 478.050 requires that directors
elected to serve on the governing board be an elector or an owner within the boundaries of the
established district. JCFD3 has a governing board of five members consisting of a president, vice-
president, secretary/treasurer, and two additional members. This governing board is charged with the
general oversight of the District and appointing the fire chief to oversee general operations.
Although the ORS are silent on the issue, it is not uncommon for an appointed fire chief to serve under a
personal services contract. Such an agreement would require specific items for continued employment
and would also protect the fire chief from any political difference of opinion. JCFD3s current fire chief
serves as an at-will employee and works under a personal services contract. The fire chief receives anannual performance evaluation by the board of directors.
Medford Fire/Rescue
The governance of MFR rests with an elected City Council that consists of eight councilmembers as well
as an elected mayor. The City Council, while charged with general policy decisions, appoints a city
manager to oversee the fire department. The fire chief (currently being filled by an interim) reports to
the city manager for all non-operational issues. The City of Medford operates as a Charter City within
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
48/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
9
the State of Oregon, which means that official duties and powers of the city are spelled out in the Citys
charter. While not contained within the City charter, the authority to operate a fire department has
been provided to cities through ORS. Within the City of Medford, the responsibility of fire protection has
been placed with the city manager who delegates that to an appointed fire chief.
The following figure summarizes the governance and lines of authority elements.
Figure 3: Summary of Governance and Lines of Authority Elements
JCFD3 MFR
Form of Government Rural Fire Protection District Charter City
Title of Governing Authority or
Body
Board of Directors City Council
Taxing Authority Provided the authority to levy
taxes for operating a fire
protection system under ORS.
Chartered for the purpose of
providing emergency service to
the community and qualifies to
enter agreements with the
governmental jurisdiction toprovide said services on its
behalf. MRFPD2 has authority to
levy taxes within their district.
Agency Authorization Document State laws and rules City charter and ordinances
Fire Chief Status At-will employee with a personal
contract
At-will employee with no
personal contract
Does the Chief Receive a
Performance Evaluation
YesAnnual YesNot consistent
Observations:
The governance and lines of authority of the study agencies is different. In essence, the fire chieffor JCFD3 is on an equal organizational level as the city manager in the City of Medford. Each
reports to an elected board and has been charged with operating the organization based on
their skills and ability. While the JCFD3 fire chief is focused on fire protection, his counterpart in
Medford is tasked with overseeing a number of departments all providing different services to
the community. The MFR fire chief is a direct report to the city manager. The MFR fire chief
position serves as the subject matter expert to the city manager.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
49/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
10
Foundational Policy Documents
Without proper written instruction, organizations may perform inconsistently and inefficiently. Proper
foundational policy documents will allow an organization to operate in a manner that ensures
consistency in personnel practices, operations, and performance. While organizations may have
different titles of foundational policy documents, the content can often be very similar. Personnel
policies are intended to provide both leadership and line staff with the ability to apply administrative
rules and regulations fairly and consistently. Operational guidelines outline expectations of personnel
during emergency and non-emergency functions. Often these documents are consolidated into a single
volume that is separated into category. Regardless of format, it is essential that all organizations have a
well-developed, well-organized, and well-distributed set of foundational policy documents. The
following figure summarizes the foundational policy documents for the study departments.
Figure 4: Summary of Foundational Policy Elements
JCFD3 MFR
Titles of Policy Documents Board Manual, Organization
Manual, Performance Manual
SOGs, City Admin Rules,
Performance Guidelines,Procedure Manual
Quality of Administrative Policy
Documents
Well organized and complete Well organized and complete
Important Civil Liability and Risk
Management Policies Present
Yes Yes
Adequate Operational Scene
Guidance
Yes Yes
Observations:
Each agency has a complete set of foundational policy documents. While the titles of thedocuments vary, the contents are similar but are agency focused.
Recommendations:
The departments should continue to work together to align their standard operating guidelineseventually leading to a single document that applies to both agencies.
Organizational Design
A well-designed organizational structure should reflect the efficient assignment of responsibility and
authority, allowing the organization to accomplish effectiveness by maximizing distribution of workload.
The lines on an organizational chart clarify accountability, coordination, and supervision. Thorough jobdescriptions should provide the details of each position and ensure that every individuals specific role is
clear and centered on the overall mission of the organization.
A review of the agencies organizational charts indicates that they are both organized in a top-down
hierarchy. Both organizational structures demonstrate a clear unity of command, in which each
individual member reports to only one supervisor and is aware to whom he or she is responsible for
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
50/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
11
supervision and accountability. This method of organization encourages structured and consistent lines
of communication and prevents positions, tasks, and assignments from being overlooked.
Both departments have sufficiently analyzed their missions and functions such that a resulting set of
specific agency programs have been established. Organized, structured programs permit better
assignment of resources, division of workload, development of future planning, and analysis of servicedelivery. Those departments that have clarified their programs with titles, assigned leadership,
resources, budget appropriations, performance objectives, and accountability are among the most
successful. The following figures illustrate the organizational structure of each study department.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
51/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
12
Figure 5: JCFD3 Organizational Structure
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
52/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
13
Figure 6: MFR Organizational Structure
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
53/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
14
The following figure summarizes the organizational design elements.
Figure 7: Summary of Organizational Design Elements
JCFD3 MFR
Clear Unity of Command Yes Yes
Organized with Clear OperatingDivisions
Yes Yes
Specific Programs with
Managers Designated
Yes Yes
Chief's Disciplinary Authority Up to and including termination Up to suspension from duty and
recommendation for
termination
Quality of Job Descriptions Complete, thorough, and up-to-
date
Complete, thorough, and up-to-
date
Collective Bargaining Yes Yes
Positions Covered Captain, Engineer, Firefighter,
Deputy Fire Marshal, Fire/Life
Safety Specialist
All positions below
Battalion Chief and Fire
Marshal
Observations:
Each study department has similar organizational designs with clear unity of command,operating divisions, and assigned program managers. The JCFD3 chief has termination authority
while that authority in MFR is retained by the city manager. Both departments have collective
bargaining for various positions but JCFD3 also uses a civil service commission to address hiring
and promotional processes for battalion chief, captain, engineer, deputy fire marshals, fire and
life safety and firefighter positions.
Recommendation:
The departments should work together to align their job descriptions, job titles, andresponsibilities.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
54/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
15
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Essential to the continued success of any emergency services organization is sustainable funding.
Additionally, internal financial controls that require organization officials to remain within existing
financial limitations will ensure that the organization remains solvent. This report section reviews the
sources of revenue for both JCFD3 and MFR; revenue projections based on historical funding, assessor
information, and District budget projections; costs of service delivery, and contractual services provided
by each agency.
Review of Key Economic Indicators
Economic indicators specific to Oregon, Jackson County, and the local area will provide the historic basis
for projecting future costs that impact the operation of each organization. Information in this section is
provided to substantiate the forecast and projected increases in assessed value (AV), revenue, and
expenditures that follow.
CPI/Inflation
Inflation is an important consideration when forecasting costs. For the purpose of this analysis, ESCI willuse the average Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) reported for 2004 though the
2013 period, for the Portland-Salem, Oregon statistical area as compiled by the U.S. Department of
Labor.Figure 8 graphs the inflation rate over the past ten years.
Figure 8: Historic and Average CPI-U, 2004-2013
Inflation in the area is trending upward since 2012 and at the end of 2013 it was slightly above its 10-
year average of 2.38 percent.
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Inflation/(Deflatio
n)
CPI-U
10-Yr Avg.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
55/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
16
Figure 9 shows the annual average inflation rate by year as well as the 10-year average.
Figure 9: Average CPI-U History, 2004-2013
Year CPI-U
2004 2.58%
2005 2.56%2006 2.60%
2007 3.71%
2008 3.28%
2009 0.12%
2010 1.25%
2011 2.86%
2012 2.31%
2013 2.50%
10-Year Avg. 2.38%
Unemployment Rate
The level of employment in the region could potentially impact the number of homes sold andultimately the sales price. Figure 10 displays the historical average unemployment rate in Jackson
County and the state-wide average. Despite being on a downward trend since 2010, Jackson County was
still trending higher than its 10-year average of 10.07 percent at the end of 2013. It is anticipated that
unemployment will continue to improve and that the downward trend will continue through 2014.
Figure 10: Historic Unemployment Rates, 2004-2013
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Jackson County
State-Wide Avgerage
Jackson Co 10-Yr Avg
Jackson Co. 10-Year
Avg. 10.07%
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
56/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
17
Figure 11: Jackson County Average Annual Unemployment Rate, 2004 through 2013
Year Rate
2004 8.40%
2005 7.60%
2006 6.70%
2007 6.60%2008 7.40%
2009 12.80%
2010 14.00%
2011 13.20%
2012 12.50%
2013 11.50%
10-Year Avg. 10.07%
Figure 11 shows Jackson Countys annual average unemployment rate from 2004 through 2013, as well
as the ten year average rate of 10.07 percent.
Housing Sales and Average Sales PriceCounty assessors utilize residential home sales, along with statistical analysis, to establish new real
market values (RMV) each year for every real parcel within their county. There is a two year delay that
follows actual sales data and when the RMV is adjusted in the certified tax rolls. As each year ends the
assessor begins to analyze the prior years sales, this process can take several months to complete and
the adjustments are not reflected in taxing districts property values until the following year. It is with
this in mind that the following local home sales data should be viewed, that the sales from 2013 will be
reflected in the 2014-15 fiscal year revenue. This delay allows taxing districts to have some foresight into
the changes that market conditions will have on their primary revenue source.
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
57/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
18
Figure 12 displays home sales and the median sales price for homes in the City of Medford market
between Q1 2008 and Q4 2013. From Q1 2008s high of ~$250,000 and the low in Q4 2010 of
~$170,000, the local market has been trending upward since. As of Q4 2013 the median sale price is
nearly back to the 2008 levels. The growth from 2012 was reflected in the 2013-14 tax roll values (the
current year), but the strong year-over-year growth seen in 2013 will not be reflected until the 2014-15
assessed valuation (the first year of our forecasts that follow).
Figure 12: City of Medford Home Sales, 2008-2013
Figure 13 displays home sales and the median sales price for the Central Point market between Q1 2008
and Q4 2013. From Q1 2008s high of just under $250,000, and the continued low from Q2 2011 to Q4
2011 of ~$155,000, the local market has shown strong growth over the two years since. As of Q4 2013
the median sale price is on its way back to the 2008 levels, and as of Q4 2013 was ~$220,000. The
growth from 2012 was reflected in the 2013-14 tax roll values (the current year), but the strong year-
over-year growth seen in 2013 will not be reflected until the 2014-15 assessed valuation (the first year
of the forecasts that follow).
Figure 13: Central Point Home Sales, 2008-2013
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
PriceCount
Count Price
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
-
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
PriceCount
Count Price
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
58/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
19
Figure 14 shows the home sales and the median sales prices for the Eagle Point market between Q1
2011 and Q4 2013. From the Q1 2011 low of just over $150,000, the local market has shown strong
growth over the three years since with an approximate increase of 30.0 percent. The growth from 2012
was reflected in the 2013-14 tax roll values (the current year), but the strong year-over-year growth
seen in 2013 will not be reflected until the 2014-15 assessed valuation (the first year of the forecasts
that follow).
Figure 14: Eagle Point Home Sales, 2011-2013
Figure 15 displays the home sales and the median sales price for homes in the White City market
between Q1 2008 and Q4 2013. From Q2 2008s high of ~$200,000 and the low in Q2 2011 of
~$100,000, the local market has been trending upward the two and half years since. As of Q4 2013 the
median sale price is slightly higher than ~$150,000. The growth from 2012 was reflected in the 2013-14
tax roll values (the current year), but the strong year-over-year growth seen in 2013 will not be reflected
until the 2014-15 assessed valuation (the first year of the forecasts that follow).
Figure 15: White City Home Sales, 2008-2013
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
-
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2011 2012 2013
PriceCount
Count Price
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
-
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
PriceCount
Count Price
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
59/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
20
Figure 16 shows the home sales and the median sales price for homes in the Gold Hill market between
Q1 2008 and Q4 2013. From Q2 2008s high of ~$250,000 and the low in Q1 2012 of ~$100,000, the local
market has been trending upward the two years since. As of Q4 2013 the median sale price is slightly
higher than ~$200,000. The growth from 2012 was reflected in the 2013-14 tax roll values (the current
year), but the strong year-over-year growth seen in 2013 will not be reflected until the 2014-15 assessed
valuation (the first year of the forecasts that follow).
Figure 16: Gold Hill Home Sales, 2008-2013
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
PriceCount
Count Price
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
60/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
21
Sources of Revenue
Revenues for an emergency services organization can come from a variety of sources including ad
valorem taxes, donations, grants, contracts, etc. For most, taxes make up a vast majority of
organizational funding. How those funds are then used to support the organization, however, vary.
Figure 17: JCFD3 Assessed Value, Growth, Levy Rate, and Total Amount Levied, 2009-10 to 2013-142009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Assessed Valuation 3,607,090,925 3,644,999,185 3,694,874,486 3,597,149,716 3,702,221,298
Growth / (Loss) 1.1% 1.4% -2.6% 2.9%
Levy Rate 3.1194 3.1190 3.1194 3.1194 3.1194
Total Levy Amount 11,133,188 11,247,083 11,400,891 11,097,595 11,407,278
As mentioned previously, JCFD3 is an independent taxing district, thus the organization has the
authority to levy a tax on all real property within the boundaries of the District. In addition to the
revenues generated from these taxes, the organization has two contracts with JCFD4 which total
$130,500 yearly.
Figure 18: Major General Revenue Distribution JCFD3
While the majority of general revenue is derived from property taxes and transfers as demonstrated in
the previous figure, additional sources of revenue are illustrated in the following figure.
Figure 19: Additional General Revenue DistributionJCFD3
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
Property Taxes Transfers
2011 2012 2013 2014
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
Earnings Grants Rental Income Contracts Miscellaneous Proceeds from
Sales
2011 2012 2013 2014
-
8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services
61/195
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
22
Figure 20 displays JCFD3s General Fund revenues over the past five years. Based on the FY 2013/14
top related