ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services

8/12/2019 ECSI feasibility study on cooperative fire services

1/195


2/195

Baseline

Evaluation

Collaborative

Opportunities

Recommen

and

Implemen


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.


4/195

BaselineAgency

Evaluations

for

each

agency

(inc

financialanalyses)

FutureOpportunitiesforCooperativeEfforts

Findings

Recommendations

Implementation

Conclusions


5/195

Finding#1: ThecurrentIGAsthatareinplacefosharingdutyofficer,battalionchiefresponseand

servicesareworkingwell.

Finding#2:Thetimingofconsideringadditionalintegrationoptionsisfavorable,giventhat

complementary

vacancies

exist

in

both

fire

departments.


6/195

Finding#3:Eachagencydependsupontheothermutualaidandautomaticaidassistanceduring

emergencyincidents.Asstandaloneagencies,e

departmentishardpressedtoeffectivelycomba

significant,multiplealarmfireorothermajorinc

withoutassistance.


7/195

Finding#4:Organizationalculturesaredifferentbetweentheagencies.InESCIsexperience,ane

culturewillemergewithintegration,andno

individualagencyscultureshouldsurviveto

dominatetheother.

Finding#5:MRFPD2

provides

over

half

the

emergencyresponsefleetandothercriticalcapit

equipmenttoMFR.


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.


9/195

Finding#8: Firestationlocationsinthecombineserviceareaarecomplementary,withnoinefficie

overlapofexistingstations.

Finding#9: Thereexistsadequateadministrativemanagementpersonneltooverseeboth

organizations.


10/195


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.


12/195

Finding#14:Agencypolicymakersshouldconvenconsiderstudyrecommendations.Thetwopolicy

boardsandtheiradministrationshavecreateda

foundationforpartnershipsthroughtheexisting

andbyconductingthisstudy.Policymakersshoul

adoptaplan,similartotheoneoutlinedinthis

report,to

evaluate

each

of

the

recommendation

containedherein,aligningtheprocesses,service

andoperationsoftheagencieswhereverpossibl


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.


14/195

StrategyA:StatusQuo StrategyB:ExpansionofExistingIGAs Function

Unification

StrategyC:ContractforServices StrategyD:LegalIntegration Annexation


15/195

Assumesnochangefromthecurrentcircumstanceagreements

Currentsharedactivitiescontinue

SharedDutyOfficerandBattalionChiefRes

FleetMaintenance,Repair,FuelPurchasesa

EquipmentRental

and

Use

Mutualandautomaticaidagreements,etc.


16/195

ThisstrategycombinesnumerousorganizationalfuthroughthedevelopmentandapprovalofIGAs.

Sharedadministrativeandsupportservices

Jointoperationsoversight

Sharedcodeenforcement&preventionprog

Sharedpurchasing

and

logistics

JointTrainingProgram

Difficultytoexecute:moderatewithlimitedrisk. Ag

alreadyhaveexperiencewitheachotherincrafting

Estimatedsavings: $2.3millionduringfirstthreeyea

$11.5million

over

10

years.


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.


18/195

FullIntegrationoftheagenciesisaccomplishedvia InthecaseofJCFD#3andMFR,completeanne

onlyoccurinonedirection;JCFD#3annexingth

Medfordintothefiredistrict.

Inaddition,MRFPD2wouldneedtobeanactiv

this

strategy. Thispermanentlyintegratesthetwoagencie

Difficultytoexecute:highwithincreasedrisk(thiso

requireanelectionandapprovalbytheresidentsof

MedfordandJCFD#3). Timeandexperiencewitha

fireservicespriortoexecutionisrecommended.


19/195

The

City

of

Medford

would

be

taxed

as

part

of

th TheCityofMedfordcouldreducetheirgeneralf

requirementstoreflecttheeliminationofthefir

JCFD#3couldvoluntarilyreducetheirtaxrate.


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


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.


22/195

Recommendation#3:Longtermconsiderimpleme(AnnexationoftheCityofMedfordintoJCFD#3).

Ifpursued,MRFPD2mustbeengagedinthedisc

cannotbeannexed.TheycouldcontractwithJCF

receivingservicesorcouldpursuemergerwithJC

Requiresvoter

approval

by both

agencys

elector

JCFD#3staxratewouldapplyunlessvolunta

(Recommended)

Medfordsgeneralfundcouldbereducedto

Districttax.


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.


24/195

Initiative 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2

FunctionalIGA

Administrative

Contractfor

Fire

Service

Annexation


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


26/195

DonBivins|JackSnook

ESCI

[email protected]|jack.snook@es

503.570.7778


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


29/195


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.


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


31/195



ii

Medford Rural Fire Protection District 2

Bill Riggert, President

Dan Marcisz, Vice President

Jack Tait, Director

Bob Sheets, Director

Duane Vanekamp, Secretary/Treasurer


32/195



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


33/195



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


34/195



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


35/195



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


36/195



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 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


37/195



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


38/195



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


39/195



x

This page is intentionally left blank.


40/195



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:


41/195



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.


42/195


43/195



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.


44/195



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 (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.


45/195



6

The following figure illustrates the service area of the two study departments.

Figure 1: Study Area Base Map


46/195



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.


47/195



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


48/195



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.


49/195



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


50/195



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.


51/195



12

Figure 5: JCFD3 Organizational Structure


52/195



13

Figure 6: MFR Organizational Structure


53/195



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.


54/195



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.


55/195



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%


56/195



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.


57/195



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


2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

PriceCount

Count Price


58/195



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


2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

PriceCount

Count Price


59/195



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


2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

PriceCount

Count Price


60/195



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


61/195



22

Figure 20 displays JCFD3s General Fund revenues over the past five years. Based on the FY 2013/14