Continue discussion of Shared Fire Services

Background:
October of 2011 the cities of Ramsey, Nowthen and St Francis met to discuss the feasibility of some form of Shared Fire Service. At the first meeting it was decided to open the discussions to Oak Grove and Bethel to look at regional effort.
 
Resolutions were passed in October 2011 by each of the cities verbalizing the goals and purpose of the effort:
 

• Provide basic city services in an efficient manner
• Work cooperatively across community borders
• Establish a Joint Fire Study Group to look at the feasibility of a Shared Fire Service Group.
• The study group would report back to all communities by April 1, 2012 with a recommendation to the feasibility of the study

A combined press release was created and released from all 5 communities on November 7, 2011 (Attached)
 
Study group was made up from the following of each community:
 

• Administrator
• Elected Official
• Fire Chief
• Member of respective fire dept.

It should be noted that the Study Group was formed as an advisory group to each respective council. When decisions at the Study Group level were made, the elected person and Administrator were the voting members of each community.
 
On April 12, 2012 the Study Group made a presentation at Ramsey to all 5 communities. The PowerPoint presentation summarized the Final Report that the Study Group had generated. (Attached are both PowerPoint and Final Report) Issues identified within the Final Report were:
 

• Issues of Relief Associations
• Allocation of existing capital and debt
• Possible increase in budgets for some
• Identity issues
• Governance-People and Structure
• Benefits to Firefighters
• Perception of “Loss of Control”
• Differing Levels of Service

The Study Group recommendation was that there appeared to be opportunities for the greatest outcome for every tax dollar with some form of consolidation. The stated purpose of the group was find a way to provide the same or better fire related services at a good value to all tax payers; The Study Group recommended continuing to evaluate the feasibility of a shared service.
 
On May 22, 2012 Ramsey council discussed case #7.04 and passed resolution #12-05-075 to continue efforts towards a shared fire service. (Resolution attached)
 
Later in 2012 the 5 communities applied and were successful at receiving a grant to hire a consultant to further research a consolidation. The consultants (ESCI) Feasibility Study was received and a presentation was made on June 26, 2013 at Ramsey to the 5 communities (Study Attached) The conclusion of the study is lengthy but the opening statement contains the following statement: “Several of the study departments currently share certain services and work homogenously while all of the study departments benefit from mutual aid response from one another. Expanding the existing spirit of cooperation to gain even more efficiencies is the next logical step.”
 
On August 13, 2013, the Ramsey council discussed case #7.01 and passed resolution #13-08-133 to continue efforts towards a shared fire service.
 
Since then the Study Group has continued to meet. It has identified the following issues that have also been noted in the Study Groups Final Report and are noted in the ESCI Feasibility Study. It was the Study Groups decision to focus on the following:
 

• Develop a proposed draft Cost Share Model that is equitable for each community (See attached - note this is subject to revisions (per the footnotes on the document) that address the need to apportion administrative expenses)
• Work towards a draft JPA that would address Governance details
• Look at a plan that would bring all three Relief benefits up to the level of the highest group.

 
The Administrator's group met outside the Study group and generated a proposed draft Cost Share Model for discussion. Within the Study Group, the consensus was that outside expertise was needed to generate a draft JPA and create a plan to bring the Relief Associations up to the highest group’s level. Quotes were received for both endeavors.
 
In May 2014 the cities of Nowthen, St Francis and Bethel all passed resolutions to hire two consultants to address the JPA and Relief issues. Ramsey Council, after discussion tabled the case.
 
At the May 21, 2014 Study Group meeting, it was the consensus of the group to only pursue work on the JPA at this time, and address the Relief Association issues afterward when, and if, a consensus is developed on the governance structure of a new organization.

The question has been raised why these four communities are the only ones being considered?  Why not Elk River, Anoka-Champlin, or Andover?  Each of these cities have well-developed fire departments, are in close proximity, and serve as an important part of our current mutual aid network.

Each of the three other cities currently being considered (Nowthen, St. Francis, and Bethel) do not have full-time professional administrative staff.  Therefore, the combination of these cities does not result in a duplication of staff, but instead shares an existing administrative expense among a larger group.  In addition, Nowthen and St. Francis probably offer a suitable geographically-contiguous fire service area opportunity, based upon a close working relationship,  existing agreements/JPA, and the fact that each of the communities are willing participants in such a discussion.

Consequently, the Joint Fire Service Study Group started with this group of cities (less the City of Oak Grove, which dropped out after Phase 1 of the study) and did analysis of that group, without considering the other combination of cities, but being open to expanding the service area at any time. A prerequisite of that discussion would be the other cities interest in such a joint service analysis.
 
Historically, Ramsey started out under contract with Anoka-Champlin Fire Department, and about 25 years ago decided to go out on their own.  At the time, Oak Grove and Nowthen (aka, Burns Township) were also under contract with Anoka-Champlin for fire service.  Neither Anoka-Champlin and Andover came forward to suggest being part of the study, and even though the study was widely known and publicized, no formal request for participation was tendered to these organizations.  
 
Both St. Francis and Nowthen are generally self-reliant with manpower and equipment, therefore, the distance/time issue is not a major concern.  Primarily, the joint services effort shares administrative expenses, and results in some capital, operational, and coverage advantages.  The Mississippi River, Rum River, and Highway 10 create some operational barriers with the other communities, but those barriers have been overcome by Anoka-Champlin, for example (again, manpower and equipment in each City).  In Elk River, the distances and multi-county service area, are potential issues, but again, nothing that couldn’t be overcome, with willing partners.  Note, fire service is dispatched through the county system.
 
Other points to consider:

• Ramsey, Anoka, and Champlin discussed a merger back in mid to late 80’s, Ramsey decided to move ahead on its own.
• Elk River is currently dealing with three different counties and has contracts with two other communities, and have not expressed interest in merging with Ramsey
• Oak Grove initiated a shared services discussion in the 2005-2007 time frame. That effort failed, and no cities decided to move ahead.

Finally, a goal of the joint fire services group, since the beginning, has been to keep the door open for other interested communities. To date, the four communities currently in the process are the only ones that have shown interest.
 

This is for discussion only. Depending on Council direction, a case will be brought to a regular council meeting for action.

Staff is looking for direction on how this process is to proceed. The issues mentioned above including governance, cost sharing will be addressed in a draft JPA document. Other detailed questions such as City "weighted" decision-making has been brought up, and the study group agrees this must be addressed in an equitable manner via the draft JPA document.