You are on page 1of 195

May 2014

City of Medford

Jackson County Fire District 3
Don Bivins 
&
Jack Snook
Baseline
Evaluation
Collaborative 
Opportunities
Recommendations 
and 
Implementation
• Assess current fiscal, service level, and infrastructure 
conditions of each agency; recommend 
improvements to existing processes; forecast each 
agency’s fiscal future for the next five years.
• Identify full organizational collaboration options as 
well as partnership alternatives available to the 
agencies.
• Analyze the most feasible of these options and 
alternatives, recommending those with the greatest 
opportunity for success.
• Baseline Agency Evaluations for each agency (including 
financial analyses)
• Future Opportunities for Cooperative Efforts
• Findings
• Recommendations
• Implementation
• Conclusions
• Finding #1:  The current IGAs that are in place for 
sharing duty officer, battalion chief response and fleet 
services are working well.
• Finding #2: The timing of considering additional  
integration options is favorable, given that 
complementary vacancies exist in both fire 
departments. 
• Finding #3: Each agency depends upon the other for 
mutual aid and automatic aid assistance during 
emergency incidents. As stand‐alone agencies, each 
department 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 ESCI’s experience, a new 
culture will emerge with integration, and no 
individual agency’s culture should 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 sufficient apparatus 
replacement plan, leaving them vulnerable if a 
contract with MRFPD2 is not renewed.  This would 
have to be addressed by JCFD#3 and MFR in that 
event.
• Finding #7: MFR’s staffing levels (per 1,000 
population served) are below the regional median, 
but when combined with JCFD#3, 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 exists 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. 
• Finding #12: Each agency strives to meet the 
expectations of its customers. The fire departments 
both make considerable effort to assure that they 
provide acceptable levels of service to their 
communities. 
• Finding #13: Each agency needs infrastructure 
improvements. Although the need varies, important 
gaps were identified in each organization. 
• Finding #14: Agency policymakers should convene to 
consider study recommendations. The two policy 
boards and their administrations have created a 
foundation for partnerships through the existing IGAs 
and by conducting this study. Policymakers should 
adopt a plan, similar to the one outlined in this 
report, to evaluate each of the recommendations 
contained herein, aligning the processes, services, 
and operations of the agencies wherever possible. 
• Finding #15: A contract for services and annexation 
are both feasible. Despite close collaboration on 
numerous operational and administrative issues as 
contained in the IGAs, combining JCFD#3 and MFR is 
feasible. The strategies move across the spectrum of 
partnership options from maintaining or enhancing 
the current IGAs short‐term, to contract for services 
in the mid‐term, to full integration via annexation as a 
consideration long‐term. The most efficient and 
effective collaboration is the strategy which provides 
the highest levels of service to both jurisdictions at a 
reasonable cost. Policymakers will need to determine 
the level of cooperation that they are comfortable 
with supporting.
• Strategy A: Status Quo
• Strategy B: Expansion of Existing IGAs – Functional 
Unification
• Strategy C: Contract for Services
• Strategy D: Legal Integration – Annexation
Assumes no change from the current circumstances and 
agreements
• Current shared activities continue
 Shared Duty Officer and Battalion Chief Response 
 Fleet Maintenance, Repair, Fuel Purchases and 
Equipment Rental and Use
 Mutual and automatic aid agreements, etc.
This strategy combines numerous organizational functions 
through the development and approval of IGAs. 
• Shared administrative and support services
• Joint operations oversight
• Shared code enforcement & prevention programs
• Shared purchasing and logistics
• Joint Training Program
Difficulty to execute: moderate with limited risk.  Agencies 
already have experience with each other in crafting IGAs.
Estimated savings: $2.3 million during first three years, 
$11.5 million over 10 years.
Contract for fire services through an IGA agreement
• Combines both agencies via a contract, treating the combined 
agency as one entity for fire and emergency services.
• Recommend an intergovernmental council (IGC) be formed
 Composed of six representatives – two electeds from the 
City, two electeds from the District, the city manager or his 
designee, and the JCFD#3 fire chief 
 Policy direction and actions needed to oversee agreement  
Difficulty to execute: moderate with manageable risk (well crafted  
agreement will minimalize risk).  Time and experience with other 
IGAs prior to execution is critical.
Estimated savings: Equal to or greater than savings anticipated 
under Strategy B.
Full Integration of the agencies is accomplished via annexation.
• In the case of JCFD#3 and MFR, complete annexation can 
only occur in one direction; JCFD#3 annexing the City of 
Medford into the fire district. 
• In addition, MRFPD2 would need to be an active partner in 
this strategy.
• This “permanently” integrates the two agencies.
Difficulty to execute: high with increased risk (this option would 
require an election and approval by the residents of the City of 
Medford and JCFD#3).  Time and experience with a contract for 
fire services prior to execution is recommended.
• The City of Medford would be taxed as part of the fire district.
• The City of Medford could reduce their general fund revenue 
requirements to reflect the elimination of the fire fund.
• JCFD#3 could voluntarily reduce their tax rate.
Recommendation #1: Implement Strategy B (Functional 
Unification)  beginning with an Administrative IGA.
• Stage One – confer authority to manage both fire 
departments to the JCFD#3 fire chief. 
 Fire chief assembles a balanced executive team to 
establish parameters by which task forces are to form and 
perform. 
• Stage Two – formation of the task forces and commissioning 
their work to develop and prepare for approval  of additional 
IGAs.  Include: 
 Constraints, performance metrics, preferred outcomes, 
divisional structure, and timelines identified.
• Task forces should be commissioned for six to eighteen 
months to allow them ample time to report back plans. 
Recommendation #2: Mid‐term consider 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.
• Consider a name change to reflect a regional flavor.
Note: Implementation of this strategy is a stand‐alone decision 
that would be considered after the agencies have ample time to 
monitor and evaluate the success of the functional IGAs put in 
place.
Recommendation #3: Long term consider implementing Strategy D 
(Annexation of the City of Medford into JCFD#3). 
• If pursued, MRFPD2 must be engaged in the discussion since they 
cannot be annexed. They could contract with JCFD#3 to continue 
receiving services or could pursue merger with JCFD#3. 
• Requires voter approval by both agency’s electorate.  
 JCFD#3’s tax rate would apply unless voluntarily reduced.  
(Recommended)
 Medford’s general fund could be reduced to off‐set the 
District tax.
Recommendation #3: Long term consider implementing Strategy D
(Annexation of the City of Medford into JCFD#3). Continued…
• Should commence prior to contract for services expiring to avoid
interruption of service
Note: Implementation of this strategy is a stand‐alone decision that
would be considered after the agencies have had ample time to
monitor and evaluate the success of the contract for services.
Typically this strategy would be considered three to five years after
the contract would be put in place.
Initiative 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Beyond
Functional IGA ‐
Administrative 
Contract for Fire 
Service
Annexation
• Receive and file the report
• Medford has a stakeholder feedback plan in place – due to
City Manager by July 6
• Independent review of report by each agency
• Internal discussion of strategies and options by each agency
• Joint study session held to discuss strategies and options
• Medford timeline – late July
• Direction given to staff
• Staff to develop a plan to implement (if that is direction given)
• Staff to report back to policy makers for approval of plan
• Implement plan of action
• Periodic reporting to policy makers
Don Bivins | Jack Snook
ESCI
don.bivins@esci.us | jack.snook@esci.us
503.570.7778
Jackson County Fire District 3
City of Medford
Oregon
Cooperatve Services Feasibility Study
25030 SW Parkway Ave. Suite 330 | Wilsonville, Oregon | 97070 | www.esci.us | 800-757-3724 | info@esci.us


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
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
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


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 ..................................................................................................................... 44
Strategic 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 ....................................................................................................... 60
Operations Staff .................................................................................................................................. 61
Staff Allocation .................................................................................................................................... 66
Staff Scheduling .................................................................................................................................. 67
Historical Staffing Performance .......................................................................................................... 68
Emergency Call-Back Procedures ........................................................................................................ 70
Human Resources Policies and Manuals ............................................................................................ 71
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
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 IGAs – Functional Unification ...................................................... 127
Strategy C: Contract for Services ...................................................................................................... 135
Strategy D: Legal Integration – Annexation ...................................................................................... 142
Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 147
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 147
Step 1: Implement Strategy B – Functional Unification (Administration) ............................................ 149
Step 2: Implement Strategy C – Contract For Services ......................................................................... 150
Step 3: Implement Strategy D – Annexation 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

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 Distribution – JCFD3 ........................................................................... 21
Figure 19: Additional General Revenue Distribution – JCFD3 .................................................................... 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 Distribution – City of Medford ...................................................................... 23
Figure 24: City of Medford AV and RMV History, 2009-10 to 2013-14 ...................................................... 26
Figure 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 Projections – JCFD3 (Property Taxes) ......................................................................... 32
Figure 35: JCFD3 Projected Revenues, 2014-15 - 2018-19 ......................................................................... 32
Figure 36: Medford Fire Projected AV Growth and Hypothetical Levy Rate .............................................. 33
Figure 37: Revenue Projections – City 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
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 Services – FY 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
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 Distribution – All Incidents .......................................................... 79
Figure 92: Geographic Service Demand Distribution – Medical Incidents ................................................. 80
Figure 93: Geographic Service Demand Distribution – Structure Fires ...................................................... 81
Figure 94: Four-, Eight- and 12-Minute Travel Model ................................................................................ 83
Figure 95: Effective Response Force – Three Engines and One Aerial ........................................................ 85
Figure 96: Effective Response Force – Two 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 Performance – Average ....................................................................... 89
Figure 101: Historic Turnout Time Performance – 90
th
Percentile ............................................................. 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
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


Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
x
This page is intentionally left blank.
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 participating
agency; recommend improvements to their existing processes; and forecast each agency’s fiscal
future for the next five years.
B. Identify full organizational collaboration options as well as partnership alternatives available to
the agencies.
C. Analyze the most feasible of these options and alternatives, recommending those with the
greatest 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 today’s
economy 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:
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 ESCI’s experience, a new
culture will emerge with integration, and no individual agency’s 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: MFR’s staffing levels (per 1,000 populations served) are below 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.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
3
Finding #12: Each agency strives to meet the expectations of its customers. The fire departments
both make considerable effort to assure that they provide acceptable levels of service to their
communities.
Finding #13: Each agency needs infrastructure improvements. Although the need varies, important
gaps were identified in each organization.
Finding #14: Agency policymakers should convene to consider study recommendations. The two
policy boards and their administrations have created a foundation for partnerships through the
existing IGAs and by conducting this study. Without a clear commitment from policymakers,
momentum and progress on valuable initiatives may eventually falter. Policymakers should adopt a
plan, similar to the one outlined in this report, to evaluate each of the recommendations contained
herein, aligning the processes, services, and operations of the agencies wherever possible. If the
policymakers desire to move forward with collaborative effort initiatives they would most likely
declare their intent by way of a formal resolution in the case of JCFD3 and by a city ordinance in the
case of the City of Medford. MRFPD2 and the City of Medford would most likely need to modify
their current agreement to acknowledge any arrangement(s) made between JCFD3 and Medford
that would affect them.
Finding #15: A contract for services and annexation are both feasible. Despite close collaboration on
numerous operational and administrative issues as contained in the IGAs, combining JCFD3 and MFR
is feasible. All strategies listed in this report are feasible. The strategies move across the spectrum of
partnership options from maintaining or enhancing the current IGAs short-term, to contract for
services in the mid-term, to full integration via annexation as a consideration long-term. Each
strategy requires independent decisions from the other and would typically be triggered by
experiencing success in the previous strategy. The most efficient and effective collaboration is that
strategy which provides the highest levels of service to both jurisdictions at a reasonable cost. This
could ultimately be any one of the proposed strategies identified in the report. Policymakers will
need to determine the level of cooperation that they are comfortable with supporting.


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 a
balanced 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 greater
than 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.

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 or
from 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)
1
through 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.


1
MRFPD2 is also known as JCFD2.
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


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 MFR
Governance 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 Containment
Area, 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 1886
Services 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 participates
Hazmat 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

2
Subsequent figures also follow this pattern, with elements that are significantly different denoted in red.
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 Fire
Protection District while MFR is a municipal fire department.
 The risks protected by each agency, while some similarities exist, vary due to the population
density within the City of Medford. If not for the MRFPD2 area protected, MFR’s 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 of
staffed 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 agency’s governance and lines of authority.
Jackson County FD3
As mentioned previously, JCFD3 is a Rural Fire Protection District under ORS. Thus the organization must
follow 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. JCFD3’s current fire chief
serves as an at-will employee and works under a personal services contract. The fire chief receives an
annual 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
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 City’s
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 to
provide 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
Yes – Annual Yes – Not consistent
Observations:
 The governance and lines of authority of the study agencies is different. In essence, the fire chief
for 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.

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 the
documents vary, the contents are similar but are agency focused.

Recommendations:
 The departments should continue to work together to align their standard operating guidelines
eventually 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 job
descriptions should provide the details of each position and ensure that every individual’s 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
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 service
delivery. 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.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
12
Figure 5: JCFD3 Organizational Structure



Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
13
Figure 6: MFR Organizational Structure

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 Operating
Divisions
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, and
responsibilities.


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 will
use 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
I
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n

/

(
D
e
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
)
CPI-U
10-Yr Avg.
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 and
ultimately 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%
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 County’s 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 Price
County 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 year’s 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.

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 2008’s 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 2008’s 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
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Price Count
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
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Price Count
Count Price
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 2008’s 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
Price Count
Count Price
-
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 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Price Count
Count Price
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 2008’s 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
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Price Count
Count Price
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 2013-14

2009-10 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 Distribution – JCFD3

$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
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
22
Figure 20 displays JCFD3’s General Fund revenues over the past five years. Based on the FY 2013/14
budget, 96.7 percent of JCFD3’s total revenue comes from property taxes.
Figure 20: JCFD3 Revenue History, 2009-10 to 2013-14
General Fund 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Property Tax 10,663,907 10,855,422 11,132,544 10,816,180 11,035,000
Investment Earnings 35,014 29,484 33,878 43,134 45,000
Miscellaneous 34,540 49,032 58,871 34,558 129,700
Grants/Contributions 4,696 1,800 67,969 18,943 100
Charges Service/Contract 19,600 20,500 21,000 21,500 22,000
Sale of Assets 38,123 - 893 1,250 500
Transfers In - - - - -
Total Revenue 10,795,880 10,956,238 11,315,155 10,935,565 11,232,300
Figure 21 depicts the City of Medford’s actual AV over the past five years as well as a hypothetical bare-
minimum levy rate. The levy rate is based on MFR existing expenses and revenues (Permit Fees, Public
Safety Fees, and Charges for Service). The “Total Levy Amounts” represents the amount needed to
balance against the expense short-fall. The hypothetical does not account for reserving additional
revenue for ending fund balance, as fire districts are required to have in order to bridge the five month
gap between the beginning of each fiscal year and when property tax revenue begins to come in
(typically mid-November). Because of this, the levy rate is not directly comparable with a fire district
levy rate without accounting for reserves and removing the Permit Fees and Public Safety Fees which
fire districts cannot charge.
Figure 21: City of Medford AV, Growth, Hypothetical Levy Rate and Amounts, 2009-10 to 2013-14

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Assessed Valuation 5,765,548,018 5,908,082,702 5,924,061,175 5,873,568,919 6,074,164,911

Growth / (Loss)

2.5% 0.3% -0.9% 3.4%

Levy Rate

1.771 2.089 2.073 2.255

Total Levy Amount

10,464,638 12,374,733 12,174,023 13,694,900
Figure 22 lists MFR’s General Fund revenue over the past four years. Permit Fees and Public Safety fees
make up 3.9 percent of MFR’s 2013-14 total revenue, and the Charges for Services are 9.3 percent of the
total. The remaining 86.8 percent is funded through the City of Medford General Fund. The Property Tax
listed below is the result of hypothetical calculated mentioned before.
Figure 22: Medford Fire Hypothetical Property Tax Revenue, 2009-10 to 2013-14
General Fund 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Property Tax

10,046,052 11,879,744 11,687,062 13,147,104
Investment Earnings

Permit Fees

5,211 4,568 7,185 7,544
Public Safety Fees

553,586 556,258 559,397 587,367
Miscellaneous

Grants/Contributions

Charges For Service

1,427,951 1,402,730 1,382,604 1,410,513
Total Revenue

12,032,800 13,843,300 13,636,248 15,152,528
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
23
The City of Medford operates on a biennial budget (two-year cycle). In addition, the City has multiple
sources of revenue. Many of the non-tax sources are designated for enterprise funds as illustrated in the
following figure.
Figure 23: General Revenue Distribution – City of Medford

Property taxes within the City of Medford comprise 29.8 percent of the City’s total revenue followed by
charges for services, which generates approximately 21.7 percent of total revenue. Also, unlike JCFD3,
the City has many other departments to fund besides the fire department. For FY 2013-15, the fire
department was allocated a total of $27,434,550 ($25,633,910 from General Fund including $2,800,000
from MRFPD2 and $1,800,640 from Public Safety Fund). This accounts for approximately 10.5 percent of
the City’s overall budget. Comparatively, the fire department accounts for approximately 24.1 percent
of the general fund expenditures and 49.1 percent of the public safety fund expenditures for FY 2013-
15.
Oregon Property Tax System
The property tax system is one of the most significant sources of revenue for more than 1,200 local
taxing districts in Oregon. Property taxes rely on county assessment and taxation offices to value the
property, calculate the tax, collect the tax, and distribute the money to taxing districts.
Taxing districts have the legal authority to levy taxes and, under Measure 50, each has a permanent tax
rate. In addition, taxing districts can levy temporary taxes, with voter approval, both for operating
expenditures (local option levies) and debt service (bond levies).
There were two structural changes to the system in the 1990s as a result of ballot measures. Measure 5,
which introduced tax rate limits, was passed in 1990. In 1997, Measure 50 was passed and further
transformed the system to one based primarily on permanent rates, assessed value replaced real
market value as the taxing basis, and it set limits on assessed value growth.
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
07-09 09-11 11-13 13-15
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
24
Measure 5 and 50 Impacts (Compression)
Measure 5
Measure 5 introduced limits, starting in 1991–92, on the taxes paid by individual properties. The limits
of $5 per $1,000 real market value for school taxes and $10 per $1,000 real market value for general
government taxes applied only to operating taxes, not bonds. If property taxes exceed these limits, then
they are reduced, or “compressed,” to the calculated limits.
To accomplish this, the taxes for each taxing district must be reduced. First, local option taxes are
reduced proportionately, possibly to zero. If there are no local option taxes or they have been reduced
to zero and compression loss remains, then taxing rates from the permanent rate for each taxing district
are reduced proportionately as well. This process is referred to as compression and the revenue loss for
the districts is referred to as compression loss.
It is important to note that while property tax rates are generally discussed in terms of assessed value,
the Measure 5 limits apply to real market value. This fact tends to add considerable confusion to the
general understanding of the “rate limits.” Often the two Measures (5 and 50) are conflated and it is
assumed that the rate limits are based on assessed value and that tax payers cannot pay more than $15
(per $1,000) for their combined taxes (not including bonds). But because the rate limits are calculated
on real market value, which statutorily can never be less than assessed value and tend to be twenty to
thirty percent greater than a property’s assessed value, the limitations are magnified by the ratio of real
market value to assessed value.
Measure 50
The 1997 Legislature drafted Measure 50 with the objective to reduce property taxes in 1997-98 and to
control their future growth. It achieved these goals by cutting the 1997-98 district tax levies, and by
making three changes: switching to permanent rates, reducing assessed values, and limiting annual
growth of assessed value.
While Measure 5 simply limited the tax rates used to calculate taxes imposed, Measure 50 changed the
concepts of both assessed values and tax rates. Assessed value was no longer equal to real market
value.
Real market value (RMV) is defined as "...the amount in cash that could reasonably be expected to be
paid by an informed buyer to an informed seller, each acting without compulsion in an arm's length
transaction occurring as of the assessment date for the year."
3

A property's assessed value (AV) is the lower of its RMV or its maximum assessed value. Each year, the
county assessor determines the property's real market value and calculates its maximum assessed value.
Properties are taxed on the lesser of the two, which is called the assessed value.

3
ORS 308.205.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
25
A property’s maximum assessed value (MAV) is the taxable value limit established for each property.
The first MAV for each property was set in the 1997-98 tax year. For that year, the MAV was the
property’s 1995-96 RMV minus 10 percent.
MAV can increase for only two reasons: a 3 percent annual increase or specific property events.
1. Three Percent Increase: For tax years after 1997-98, MAV is defined as the greater of the prior
year's MAV or the prior year's AV increased by 3 percent. This means MAV will increase by 3
percent per year unless the RMV of the property is less than MAV for two years in a row. If this
happens, MAV will not increase in the second year.
2. Property Events: The MAV can increase by more than 3 percent for any of the following
property events:
a. A result of new property or new improvements to the property,
b. The property is partitioned or subdivided,
c. The property is rezoned and used consistently with rezoning,
d. The property is first taken into account as omitted property, or
e. The property becomes disqualified from exemption, partial exemption or special
assessment.
For new property, MAV is calculated by multiplying the new property’s RMV by the change property
ratio (CPR), the ratio of AV to RMV of similar property.
Property Assessment
The process of identifying taxable property and assigning a value to it is termed "appraisal." County
assessors appraise most property in Oregon. The Department of Revenue (DOR) appraises certain large
industrial sites, and utility property.
Property subject to taxation includes all privately owned real property (e.g., land, buildings, and fixed
machinery and equipment), manufactured homes, and personal property used in a business. There is no
property tax on household furnishings; personal belongings and automobiles; crops; orchards; business
inventories; or certain intangible property such as stocks, bonds, or bank accounts.
Each county assessor appraises all property within the county at 100 percent of its RMV. RMV can go up
or down depending upon the market and circumstances specific to each property. Assessors consider
sales of similar properties, and may also use rents and income to determine the RMV of certain
properties.
The value or RMV of the property is determined as of January 1 of each year.
Assessed Value and Real Market Value History
A potential consequence of a down housing market is that it pulls RMV down with it and can be volatile
and unpredictable. Yet AV has historically grown at slightly greater than 3 percent per year since 1998.
Through the early 2000s the gap between RMV and AV widened to ratios of AV to RMV from 65 percent
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
26
to as low as 35 percent in some areas. This gap between RMV and AV is a cushion to protect tax loss due
to compression or value loss due to convergence. Convergence losses are the losses that occur when a
property’s RMV loses more value than the level of AV. In this case the AV is reduced until the RMV of the
property grows again. Monitoring historic values is key to understanding and predicting property tax
revenue for any district because of the dynamic that RMV and AV play in the calculation process.
Figure 24 shows the City of Medford’s AV and RMV history from the 2009-10 tax year to the 2013-14 tax
year. Over this period the City of Medford lost ~$2.6B of RMV or 27.7 percent. Over the same period
Total Assessed Value (TAV, which is AV prior to being reduced by Urban Renewal or Exemptions) grew
by ~$308M or 5.4 percent. The ratio of AV to RMV began in 2009-10 at 59.6 percent but by 2013-14 had
climbed to 86.8 percent.
Figure 24: City of Medford AV and RMV History, 2009-10 to 2013-14

Figure 25 displays JCFD3’s AV and RMV history from the 2009-10 tax year to the 2013-14 tax year. Over
this period JCFD3 lost ~$1.2B of RMV or 22.5 percent. Over the same period TAV grew by ~$95.1M or
2.6 percent. The ratio of AV to RMV began in 2009-10 at 65.3 percent but by 2013-14 had climbed to
86.5 percent.
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
A
V

&

R
M
V

(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
RMV/M5
TAV
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
27
Figure 25: JCFD3 AV and RMV History, 2009-10 to 2013-14

Figure 26 displays MRFPD2’s AV and RMV history from the 2009-10 tax year to the 2013-14 tax year.
Over this period MRFPD2 lost ~$327.6M of RMV or 27.8 percent. Over the same period TAV lost ~$2.4M
or 0.3 percent. The ratio of AV to RMV began in 2009-10 at 61.0 percent but by 2013-14 had climbed to
84.2 percent.
Figure 26: MRFPD2 AV and RMV History, 2009-10 to 2013-14


-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
A
V

&

R
M
V

(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
RMV/M5
TAV
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
A
V

&

R
M
V

(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
RMV/M5
TAV
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
28
Compression Considerations
For compression to have an impact on General Governmental taxing districts the combined tax rates
need to exceed $10 per $1,000 of RMV. But because RMV is typically greater than AV, rate compression
is not possible unless the combined total General Governmental tax rates are greater than $10 per
$1,000 of value.
Figure 27 lists the Measure 5 compression loss by taxing district for the past five years. The compression
loss reported below is due to “Non-Ad Valorum Amounts” that the County Assessor calculates based on
Utility properties but is not from standard rate compression.
Figure 27: Measure 5 Compression Loss by Taxing District, 2009-10 to 2013-14
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
City of Medford 53.00 108.00 91.11 75.22 71.43
JCFD3 983.00 229.00 219.96 207.22 204.23
MRFPD2 59.00 - 12.33 0.27 0.26
Figure 28 displays the City of Medford’s four code areas and their related total General Governmental
rates (not including bonds if any). In order for rate compression to affect the City of Medford the total
combined rate would need to be greater than $10 at the minimum. Unless new General Governmental
taxing districts are added to the taxing mix, or existing taxing districts introduce Local Option Levies, the
potential for rate compression is not a factor.
Figure 28: City of Medford Code Areas and Total General Governmental Rates, 2013-14 Tax Year
Code Area
Total Gov.
Rate
4-07 7.612
6-35 7.612
49-01 7.781
49-50 7.781


Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
29
Figure 29 displays JCFD3’s 21 code areas and their related total General Governmental rates (not
including bonds if any). In order for rate compression to affect JCFD3 the total combined rate would
need to be greater than $10 at the minimum. All but three of JCFD3’s code areas are safely under the
$10 limit. If a new General Governmental taxing district was added to the taxing mix in any of these
code areas, or any existing taxing districts introduce Local Option Levies, the potential for rate
compression would be a factor in these code areas.
Figure 29: JCFD3 Code Areas and Total General Governmental Rates, 2013-14 Tax Year
Code Area
Total Gov.
Rate
6-01 6.901
6-02 9.869
6-04 5.222
6-07 9.888
6-28 5.399
6-30 7.643
6-31 7.821
6-33 7.821
6-34 7.821
6-37 7.821
9-01 7.681
9-03 5.399
9-09 5.399
9-19 5.222
9-22 7.858
9-24 7.821
9-26 7.821
49-15 5.399
49-19 5.399
49-40 5.222
49-49 9.869
Figure 30 displays MRFPD2’s nine code areas and their related total General Governmental rates (not
including bonds if any). All nine code areas are well under the $10 limit and unless new General
Governmental taxing districts are added to the taxing mix, or existing taxing districts introduce Local
Option Levies, the potential for rate compression is not a factor for MRFPD2.
Figure 30: MRFPD2 Code Areas and Total General Governmental Tax Rates, 2013-14 Tax Year
Code Area
Total Gov.
Rate
4-03 4.774
4-05 4.774
4-25 4.597
4-26 5.213
9-23 4.597
49-03 4.774
49-05 4.774
49-10 4.774
49-39 4.597
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
30
Urban Renewal Impact
Urban renewal (UR) is a funding tool used by many cities and counties throughout Oregon. It diverts all
value growth from within the Urban Renewal Boundary for periods of 25 years or far beyond. Statutorily
a time limit cannot be placed on Urban Renewal Districts because the UR must continue to divert taxes
to fund the debt service related to the UR projects and paid off all existing debt. Additionally, UR
districts can add up to 20% (adjusted for inflation since the plan inception) of the plan’s original
Maximum Indebtedness by way of a plan amendment without voter or overlapping taxing district
approval.
Through the Division of Tax (the process of diverting UR Excess value from overlapping taxing districts)
over time can lead to compression on the General Government side of the Measure 5 limitation
calculations. This is because rate value is pulled from both the other general government taxing districts
as well as the school districts. This can be especially significant in the later years of an urban renewal
plan.
Figure 31 show the losses each tax year due to urban renewal. The total loss in 2013-14 was $1,110,433.
The City of Medford’s UR agency has projected that they will end the plan in 2025, but as discussed
earlier UR districts will continue to divert taxes until all plan debt has been paid off.
Figure 31: City of Medford Lost Property Tax from Urban Renewal, 2009-10 to 2013-14

Central Point has begun an Urban Renewal District that will affect a small portion JCFD3’s AV growth by
its diversion of tax over the next 25 to 30 years.

-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

T
a
x

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

F
o
r
e
g
o
n
e
Revenue loss - UR
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
31
Figure 32 lists all of JCFD3’s code areas with the total governmental rates (not including bonds) the TAV
and the percentage the code area is to JCFD3’s total AV in 2013-14. Here we see that the code area “6-
07” which is the Central Point Urban Renewal District makes up only 3.8 percent of JCFD3’s total
assessed value. Because of this the impact of this UR district should not be a significant draw on JCFD3’s
operating funds.
Figure 32: JCFD3 Code Areas, 2013-14 Tax Year

Revenue Projections
Projecting revenues for the study departments is difficult primarily due to the differences in how each
organization generates revenues and accounts for expenditures. In addition, since both organizations
revenues are tied in part to ad valorem taxes, projections are dependent upon changes to property
inventories and valuations of both existing and future properties.
To accurately reflect the varying natures of JCFD3 and MFR, different methodologies were used to
appropriately capture revenue projections. For JCFD3, revenue projections were based on a comparison
of assessor information and District budget projections. The following figure depicts JCFD3 revenue
projections for the subsequent decade.
Figure 33: JCFD3 Projected AV Growth and Levy Amount, 2014-15 - 2018-19

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Assessed Valuation 3,835,501,265 3,979,332,562 4,138,505,865 4,297,838,340 4,459,007,278

Growth / (Loss) 3.6% 3.8% 4.0% 3.9% 3.8%

Levy Rate 3.1194 3.1194 3.1194 3.1194 3.1194

Total Levy Amount 11,964,463 12,413,130 12,909,655 13,406,677 13,909,427
Code Area Total Gov. Rate TAV % of Total
6-01 6.901 64,971,898 1.8%
6-02 9.869 810,770,932 21.9%
6-04 5.222 499,935,745 13.5%
6-07 9.888 140,191,028 3.8%
6-28 5.399 224,368,582 6.1%
6-30 7.643 87,595,208 2.4%
6-31 7.821 151,320,490 4.1%
6-33 7.821 28,360,570 0.8%
6-34 7.821 87,000 0.0%
6-37 7.821 3,000 0.0%
9-01 7.681 551,687,428 14.9%
9-03 5.399 77,331,346 2.1%
9-09 5.399 2,483,760 0.1%
9-19 5.222 228,326,003 6.2%
9-22 7.858 12,200 0.0%
9-24 7.821 10,134,490 0.3%
9-26 7.821 358,370,064 9.7%
49-15 5.399 367,146,276 9.9%
49-19 5.399 13,348,033 0.4%
49-40 5.222 6,586,333 0.2%
49-49 9.869 79,190,912 2.1%
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
32
Figure 34: Revenue Projections – JCFD3 (Property Taxes)
4


Based on forecast property tax revenue, JCFD3 is projected to see an increase of between three and four
percent annually over the next decade. This will, however, depend on future development within the
District as well as revaluation of existing properties.
Figure 35 lists JCFD3’s projected revenue over the coming five years. Property tax revenue is based on
the growth projections shown in Figure 332, all other revenue amounts are based on JCFD3’s budgeted
amounts and increase by the CPI-U ten-year average of 2.38 percent over the five year period.
Figure 35: JCFD3 Projected Revenues, 2014-15 - 2018-19
General Fund 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Property Tax 11,430,000 11,858,625 12,332,970 12,807,789 13,288,081
Investment Earnings 50,000 51,189 52,405 53,651 54,926
Miscellaneous 31,200 31,942 32,701 33,478 34,274
Grants/Contributions 100 102 105 107 110
Charges Service/Contract 130,500 - - - -
Sale of Assets 500 512 524 537 549
Transfers In - - - - -
Total Revenue 11,642,300 11,942,369 12,418,705 12,895,562 13,377,941

For MFR, community growth was analyzed to project future revenue. Since the area’s growth has been
described as “light to moderate,” it would be reasonable to assume that historical growth would be an
indicator of future growth. With this in mind, ESCI developed MFR projections based on historical
revenue from property taxes to produce an estimate of future revenues as shown in the following
figure.
Figure 36 shows the projected AV over the coming five years as well as a hypothetical rate which
represents the rate required to generate the revenue needed to balance the General Fund each year

4
JCFD3 Adopted 2013/2014 budget documents.
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
33
(based on the difference between the projected revenues and expenses). This has been done to
approximate MFR needed tax rate if they were an independent taxing district. Although these projected
amounts would only balance the annual spending with equal revenues, no fund balance is being
accumulated or Capital Outlays have been funded in the projections. Nor does that include the needed
reserves that fire districts must maintain in order to fund expenditure between the beginning of each
tax year and the five to six months later when tax revenue begins to come in. Essentially each fire
district must maintain at least five months (based on monthly average of the total General Fund annual
expenses).
Figure 36: Medford Fire Projected AV Growth and Hypothetical Levy Rate

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Assessed Valuation 6,301,946,095 6,554,023,939 6,799,799,837 7,054,792,331 7,319,347,043

Growth / (Loss) 3.8% 4.0% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8%

Levy Rate* 2.001 2.094 2.101 2.108 2.115

Total Levy Amount 12,607,629 13,724,452 14,286,929 14,873,116 15,484,030

Figure 37: Revenue Projections – City of Medford (Property Taxes)

It is not the intent of this report to be a definitive source of future revenues for either organization.
Agency officials should work closely with their internal finance personnel and the county assessor’s
office to track and project future revenues on an annual basis.

$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
$80,000,000
$90,000,000
2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
34
Debt Analysis
Figure 38 lists JCFD3’s payment schedule for remaining long-range debt outstanding. Over the next eight
years the remaining payments will total $2,094,484.
Figure 38: JCFD3 Long Term Debt Outstanding
Debt Issuance Dated 11/4/2013

Principal Interest Total
2014-15 342,995 50,554 393,548
2015-16 225,338 36,422 261,760
2016-17 230,808 31,041 261,849
2017-18 236,456 25,349 261,804
2018-19 242,196 19,608 261,804
2019-20 248,062 13,729 261,791
2020-21 254,084 7,732 261,817
2021-22 128,572 1,539 130,111
Total Future Payments 1,908,510 185,974 2,094,484
MFR does not have any direct debt or other outstanding financial obligations. The City has recently
issued $39 million in bonds of which $10.4 million are for fire station reconstruction. The City issued an
increase to a Public Safety Utility Fee at the same time to cover the bond payments and backed the
bond with the City’s full faith and credit. Also, the City of Medford issued bonds to enable the City
prepay its unfunded actuarial liability to Oregon Public Employees Retirement System in an original
amount of $29,205,000 which is scheduled to mature in 2028. The amounts that would relate directly to
the fire department are not included in this study and would require detailed analysis of individual
contributions and actuarial analysis, both of which are outside the scope of this project.
Both agencies participate in the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) which provides
statewide defined benefit and defined contribution retirement plans for state, schools, and local
governments. PERS provides retirement and disability benefits, post‐employment healthcare benefits,
annual cost‐of‐living adjustments, and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries.
PERS benefits are determined upon employee entry date into the system. PERS Tier One plan is for
those employees hired prior to July 1, 1996; Tier Two is for those employees hired after July 1, 1996; and
the Oregon Public Service Retirement Plan (OPSRP) is for those employees hired after August 29, 2003.
PERS is administered under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 238 and Internal Revenue Code
401(a) by the Public Employees Retirement Board, who has the authority to amend the Plan’s benefits
and contribution rates. PERS issues publicly available comprehensive annual financial reports. The
reports can be obtained by writing to the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System, PO Box 23700,
Tigard, Oregon 97281‐3700, by calling (503) 598‐7377, or by accessing the PERS website as
www.oregon.gov/PERS.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
35
Funding of public pensions systems have become a concern of the public and the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) who issued (06/12) its Statement 68 Accounting and Financial
Reporting for Pensions (an amendment to GASB statement 27) which has the primary objective of
improving accounting and financial reporting of state and local government’s pensions. This new
reporting standard is not effective until after June 15, 2014 but it is recommended that agencies adopt
the reporting prior to the first effective year.
The Oregon’s PERS system has been one of the top funded public pension plans for several decades and
the financial outlook strong after recovering from the financial downturn of 2008. According to PERS
recently released document: “PERS Funding: Providing Secure Retirement Benefits for Oregon’s Public
Employees,” it states the following current conditions and assumptions going forward:
Funded Status:
 At the end of 2013, PERS was estimated to be 96% funded when including employer
side accounts or 87% funded when excluding employer side accounts. The goal is to
be 100% funded so PERS has $1.00 in assets for every $1.00 of benefits owed, based
on the PERS plan structure at the time and related actuarial assumptions.
 Liability reductions from Senate Bills 822 and 861, approved in 2013, combined with
positive fund earnings in 2012 and 2013, lowered PERS’ unfunded liability from $16.3
billion at the end of 2011 to an estimated $8.1 billion at the end of 2013 (excluding
employer side accounts).
 Employer contribution rates are projected to increase by approximately 2% when new
employer rates are adopted for the next two-year cycle, effective July 1, 2015.
 If the system consistently earns the assumed rate annually, employer contribution
rates will gradually decline beginning with rates that will be effective July 1, 2017.
 Employer contribution rates will also begin to decrease because lower-cost OPSRP
members are replacing retiring Tier One/Tier Two members.


Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
36
Costs of Service Delivery (Current and Projected)
The delivery of emergency services to a given community can vary based on the levels and types of
services provided, deployment of fixed facilities, staffing patterns, and the size of the area served. JCFD3
and MFR both provide emergency services in a similar fashion but differences exist in what services are
provided, how those services are provided, and the area to which those services are provided.
As already discussed, JCFD3 provides services to a population of approximately 48,000 people in an area
of approximately 167 square miles from seven stations (three career and four volunteer). As with any
emergency services organization that employs career personnel, the largest portion of the
organizational budget is comprised of personnel costs. As illustrated below, personnel costs for JCFD3
make up a majority of the total organizational budget over the last four years and will most likely
continue to increase each year.
Figure 39 lists JCFD3’s expense history for the past four years and the current budget year. The $1.3M of
Transfers Out in 2009-10 was split with $300,000 going to the Capital Project (then the
Apparatus/Equipment Fund) and $1,000,000 going to the Building/Land/Equipment Reserve Fund
(closed/merged into the Capital Project in 2010-11).
Figure 39: JCFD3 Historical Expenditures, 2009-10 to 2013-14
General Fund 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Personnel Services 7,509,557 7,450,972 8,265,651 8,239,165 8,848,200
Materials & Services 1,295,674 1,349,152 1,486,101 1,674,800 2,010,000

Debt Service

Principal 318,278 336,648 350,430 169,641 343,000
Interest 137,802 123,984 109,182 93,571 50,600
Capital Outlay 19,065 - - - -
Transfers Out 1,300,000 450,000 750,000 1,595,700 230,600
Total Expenditures 10,580,376 9,710,756 10,961,364 11,772,877 11,482,400


Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
37
Figure 40 lists JCFD’s Capital Projects Fund revenues and expenditures between 2009-10 and 2013-14. In
2009-10 the fund was called the Apparatus/Equipment Fund and in 2010-11 it became the Capital
Projects Fund. The following year (2011-12) the fund received a Transfer In from the General Fund in the
amount of $750,000 and a Transfer in from the Building/Land/Equipment Reserve Fund in the amount
of $174,127 totaling $924,127. All other Transfers In came directly from the General Fund. JCFD3’s total
capital expenditures budgeted for 2013-14 is $1,811,200.
Figure 40: JCFD3 Capital Projects Fund History, 2009-10 to 2013-14
Capital Projects Fund 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Beginning Fund Balance 195,706 374,882 704,833 937,258 2,488,825

Revenues

Investment Earnings - - - - 100
Miscellaneous - - 5,400 - 100
Grants/Contributions - - 145,656 - 100
Charges For Service - - - - -
Transfers In 300,000 450,000 924,127 1,595,700 230,600
Total Revenue 300,000 450,000 1,075,183 1,595,700 230,900

Expenditures

Materials & Services - - - - -
Capital Outlay 120,824 120,049 842,758 44,133 1,811,200
Transfers Out - - - - -
Total Expenditures 120,824 120,049 842,758 44,133 1,811,200

Ending Fund Balance 374,882 704,833 937,258 2,488,825 908,525
Figure 41 below shows JCFD3’s Building/Land/Equipment Reserve Fund which was closed out in the
2011-12 year and the balance was transferred to the Capital Projects Fund.
Figure 41: JCFD3 Building/Land/Equipment Reserve Fund, 2009-10 to 2013-14
Building/Land/Equip. Reserve Fund 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Beginning Fund Balance 710,930 174,127 174,127 - -

Revenues

Investment Earnings - - - - -
Miscellaneous - - - - -
Grants/Contributions - - - - -
Charges For Service - - - - -
Transfers In 1,000,000 - - - -
Total Revenue 1,000,000 - - - -

Expenditures

Materials & Services - - - - -
Capital Outlay 1,536,803 - - - -
Transfers Out - - 174,127 - -
Total Expenditures 1,536,803 - 174,127 - -

Ending Fund Balance 174,127 174,127 - - -

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
38
Figure 42 displays the projected expenditures for JCFD3 over the next five years. Personnel Services
typically grow at a faster rate than other expense categories and has been increased by 4.38 percent per
year over the five years projected. Materials and Services have been increased by the 10-year average
CPI-U rate of 2.38 percent. And the Debt Service amounts for principal and interest are based on the
amounts determined in the debt agreements.
Figure 42: JCFD3 Projected Expenditures, 2014-15 to 2018-19
General Fund 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Personnel Services 9,184,700 9,586,715 10,006,326 10,444,303 10,901,451
Materials & Services 2,004,000 2,051,635 2,100,403 2,150,329 2,201,443

Debt Service

Principal 342,995 225,338 230,808 236,456 242,196
Interest 50,554 36,422 31,041 25,349 19,608
Capital Outlay - - - - -
Transfers Out 600,000 - - - -
Total Expenditures 12,182,248 11,900,110 12,368,577 12,856,437 13,364,697
MFR utilizes a totally career workforce and provides services to approximately 85,282 people in an area
of 56.3 square miles from five staffed stations. Given the career nature of the department, personnel
costs also make up a majority of MFR’s overall historical budget as illustrated in the following figure.
Figure 43 lists MFR’s expense costs for the previous three years and the current budget year. Personnel
Services have averaged 83.9 percent of the annual General Fund costs.
Figure 43: MFR Historical Expenditures, 2009-10 to 2013-14
General Fund 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Personnel Services

10,104,440 11,771,050 10,686,760 10,962,680
Materials & Services

1,273,540 1,219,000 1,361,600 2,407,060
Indirect Overhead

1,349,788 1,349,788
Debt Service

Principal

Interest

Capital Outlay

585,820 170,500 238,100 26,000
Transfers Out

69,000 682,750 - 407,000
Total Expenditures - 12,032,800 13,843,300 13,636,248 15,152,528


Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
39
Figure 44 displays MFR’s forecasted General Fund expenses over the coming five years. Personnel
Services typically grow at a faster rate than other expense categories and has been increased by 4.38
percent per year over the five years projected. Materials and Services has been increased by the 10-year
average CPI-U rate of 2.38 percent. Note, the Indirect Overhead cost is based on calculations that the
City does every two years using metrics related to supporting departmental costs, these have been
increased based on the CPI-U rate of 2.38 percent over the five year period.
Figure 44: MFR Projected Expenditures, 2014-15 to 2018-19
General Fund 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Personnel Services 10,864,268 11,339,798 11,836,141 12,354,210 12,894,954
Materials & Services 2,464,276 2,522,852 2,582,820 2,644,214 2,707,067
Indirect Overhead 1,381,873 1,414,720 1,448,348 1,482,775 1,518,021
Capital Outlay - - - - -
Transfers Out - - - - -
Total Expenditures 14,710,417 15,277,369 15,867,309 16,481,199 17,120,042


Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
40
Fund Balance Analysis
Figure 46 depicts JCFD3’s General Fund balance history which can serve as a useful indictor of whether
the financial position of the District is improving or deteriorating. Over the five year period JCFD3’s
ending fund balance has maintained a safe fund balance and will fund the Capital Projects Fund via
Transfers-Out from the General Fund.
Figure 45: JCFD3 Fund Balance Analysis, 2009-10 to 2013-14
General Fund 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Beginning Fund Balance 2,869,221 3,084,725 4,330,206 4,683,997 3,846,685
Revenues 10,795,880 10,956,238 11,315,155 10,935,565 11,232,300
Expenditures

Personnel Services 7,509,557 7,450,972 8,265,651 8,239,165 8,848,200
Materials & Services 1,295,674 1,349,152 1,486,101 1,674,800 2,010,000

Debt Service - - - - -
Principal 318,278 336,648 350,430 169,641 343,000
Interest 137,802 123,984 109,182 93,571 50,600
Capital Outlay 19,065 - - - -
Transfers Out 1,300,000 450,000 750,000 1,595,700 230,600
Total Expenditures 10,580,376 9,710,756 10,961,364 11,772,877 11,482,400

Ending Fund Balance 3,084,725 4,330,206 4,683,997 3,846,685 3,596,585

Months of EFB 3.5 5.4 5.1 3.9 3.8

Figure 46 lists JCFD3’s projected General Fund balance over the coming five years. The basis for the
revenues and expenditures projections was discussed previously. ESCI recommends retaining at least
three months of ending fund balance in the general fund. Lowering cost is a key tool in retaining fund
balance as well as long-range fund balance planning.
Figure 46: JCFD3 Fund Balance Projection, 2014-15 to 2018-19
General Fund 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Beginning Fund Balance 3,596,585 3,056,637 3,098,896 3,149,024 3,188,150
Revenues 11,642,300 11,942,369 12,418,705 12,895,562 13,377,941
Expenditures

Personnel Services 9,184,700 9,586,715 10,006,326 10,444,303 10,901,451
Materials & Services 2,004,000 2,051,635 2,100,403 2,150,329 2,201,443

Debt Service - - - - -
Principal 342,995 225,338 230,808 236,456 242,196
Interest 50,554 36,422 31,041 25,349 19,608
Capital Outlay - - - - -
Transfers Out 600,000 - - - -
Total Expenditures 12,182,248 11,900,110 12,368,577 12,856,437 13,364,697

Ending Fund Balance 3,056,637 3,098,896 3,149,024 3,188,150 3,201,393

Months of EFB 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.9

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
41
Indirect Costs, Cost Allocations, and Contractual Obligations
In most municipal organizations, the individual department budgets, such as the fire department, do not
necessarily include costs that are absorbed within another area of the budget. These costs, including
administration, finance, payroll, human resources, and legal services, are referred to as indirect costs.
Few municipalities analyze the total costs to operate the fire department, including indirect costs in the
fire department’s budgets. This is the case in Medford.
Since MFR is a City department, all administrative (policy direction), payroll, finance, human resources,
and legal services are cost allocated to other departments within the City. While the department does
have some direct costs in these areas, the fire department budget does not account for general internal
allocations. In order to gain a better understanding of the true cost of providing services within the City
of Medford, ESCI asked the City to provide an analysis of their indirect costs as applied to the fire
department. A summary of the FY 2012/13 allocation is provided in the following figure.
Figure 47: MFR Indirect Costs
Division Indirect Cost
Fire Administration $476,100
Fire Operations $349,676
Fire Prevention $17,617
Fire Training $12,332
Capital Improvement Projects $474
PERS Debt $493,589
Total Indirect Cost $1,349,788
This exercise was completed because JCFD3 does not have indirect costs; all costs of providing services
are captured within the District’s budget. Therefore, the costs of providing these indirect services to
MFR must be added to the total cost of services provided to generate a more accurate comparison
between the two study departments. The following figure uses the information from previous figures to
calculate the combined cost of services with indirect costs for MFR included.
Based on information provided by both organizations, the combined budgeted operating expenditures
for fiscal year ending 2014 total $27,254,528 as detailed in the following figure.
Figure 48: Combined Cost of Services – FY 2013/14

JCFD3 MFR Combined
Personnel Services 8,848,200 10,408,680 19,256,880
Materials & Services 2,010,000 2,407,060 4,417,060
Indirect Overhead - 1,349,788 1,349,788
Debt Service 393,600 - 393,600
Capital Outlay 1,811,200 26,000 1,837,200

Total Expenditures 13,063,000 14,191,528 27,254,528

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
42
Figure 49 shows the percentage of the total combined cost that JCFD3 and MFR represent.
Figure 49: Cost of Service with Indirect Costs Included
Jurisdiction True Cost % of Total Cost Share
JCFD3 13,063,000 47.9% $ 13,063,000
MFR 14,191,528 52.1% $ 14,191,528
Total 27,254,528 100.0% $ 27,254,528
Figure 50 lists the specific measures associated with JCFD3 and MFR, these amounts along with the total
individual costs are the basis for Figure 51. Note that the Assessed Value used in Figure 50 is Net
Assessed Value (NAV) which is pre-urban renewal reduction and exemptions. The FTE calculation used
the ratio of three-to-one, three Volunteers and Interns for every one career staff. The Facilities/Stations
only include staffed stations with the exception of JCFD3’s Gold Hill station. This was included as it is
staffed with three interns.
Figure 50: District/Department Specific Measures
Jurisdiction AV Population
Service
Demand
Square
Miles
FTE (3/1
Vol/FTE)
Facilities /
Stations *
Engines
& Aerials
Total
Resources*
JCFD3 3,702,221,298 48,000 5,738 167.0 76.0 4.0 9.0 13.0
MFR 6,789,735,940 85,282 9,038 56.3 79.0 5.0 6.0 11.0

Total 10,491,957,238 133,282 14,776 223.3 155.0 9.0 15.0 24.0
Figure 51 shows the calculated cost/per based on the various factors (AV, Population, Service Demand,
Square Miles, FTE, and Resources).
Figure 51: Comparison of Cost based on different District/Department Measures
Per Dollar of
Assessed
Value
Per
Capita
Per Incident
in
Service
Demand
Per
Square Mile
Per
FTE (3/1
Vol/FTE)
Per
Resource
Jurisdiction
JCFD3 0.0075 579.34 4,846 166,518 365,902 1,738,033
MFR 0.0041 326.08 3,077 493,935 352,007 2,528,048
Contractual Services Provided
In addition to providing services to their respective jurisdictional boundaries, each of the study agencies
also provides services to areas outside those boundaries. Some of these services are operational while
others are functional or administrative. This section will review those contractual services provided by
each of the study departments.
JCFD3 maintains several intergovernmental agreements (IGA) to provide services to other entities. The
following figure summarizes those agreements.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
43
Figure 52: JCFD3 Contract Services Summary
Entity Contracted With Services Provided Remuneration
Fire District 4
General management and
Chief Officer response
$108,000 per FY
Fire District 4
General accounting and
financial services
$22,500 per FY
Additional software maintenance costs
MFR
Shared Duty Officer
Battalion Chief Response
None
Rogue Community College Space Lease Tuition waivers
As seen in the previous figure, external contracts for services generate approximately $82,000 of
additional revenue for the District. After June 30, 2014, this will increase to $130,000. Similarly, MFR
also contracts with external entities to provide various services. The following figure summarizes those
agreements.
Figure 53: MFR Contract Services Summary
Entity Contracted With Services Provided Remuneration
JCFD3
Shared Duty Officer
Battalion Chief Response
None
State of Oregon
Regional Hazardous Materials
response
Up to $46,904 for training
Up to $15,400 for medical monitoring
$100/hr for engines
$150/hr for aerials
$50/hr for staff vehicles
$50/incident for equipment charges
Specific personnel rates per rank
Up to $6,342 for outreach
Up to $5,000 for special projects
Up to $16,000 for equipment purchases
MRFPD2
Fire protection and rescue
services
Variable - $1,410,513 in 2014
RCC Training Tuition waivers
In addition to the contract between MFR and MRFPD2 identified above, MRFPD2 also provides a
substantial amount of capital equipment to MFR through apparatus, training equipment, defibrillators,
etc. Any future cooperative efforts will need to take into consideration how this type of funding will be
impacted and managed. ESCI notes that MRFPD2 historically has provided significant apparatus and
equipment not required as part of their contract.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
44
MANAGEMENT COMPONENTS
Most emergency services agencies face challenges to organizational processes and management. In
addition to the operational challenges of emergency response, the management of the business of a fire
department always presents unique issues involving the administration of financial resources, the
setting of goals and objectives, internal and external communications, information management, and
security. This section of the report examines the departments’ efforts in this area and preparation for
the future health of each organization.
Strategic Planning
The foundational documentation of any organization can be found in its strategic plan, which includes
an agency’s mission, vision, and values, as well as organizational goals and objectives. This document
guides the members of the organization toward the desired future state and ensures that all members
are pulling in the same direction. Development of the organization’s underpinnings is important, as is
communicating them effectively. Personnel at all levels of the agency need to understand why the
organization exists, where it is headed, and how to identify its success. While a fire department’s
mission may seem obvious, the creation of a common understanding is critical to its success.
JCFD3 has completed a formal strategic plan that identifies the organization’s mission, vision, and goals
and objectives for the next three to five year period. The plan was adopted in February 2012 (revised
March 2012) and includes the following strategic goals.
1. Minimize the direct and indirect impacts associated with fire, EMS, and rescue emergencies
2. Ensure sustainability of service delivery (people, facilities, fleet, and finance)
3. Promote, develop, and support craftsmanship, innovation, and excellence throughout the
organization
4. Promote community involvement and satisfaction
5. Develop and strengthen collaborative strategic partnerships

Although MFR has not independently prepared an organizational strategic plan, the City of Medford City
Council adopted the 2012-2018 Strategic Plan in February 2014. This document, which is intended to
provide direction regarding all City departments, identifies several elements that are specifically
directed at the fire department as identified below.
1. Objective 1.3: Increase public awareness of floodplain hazards and Fire & Life Safety
2. Objective 1.7: Fund and implement a phased-in approach to update all fire facilities as identified
in the Fire Facilities Master Plan
3. Objective 3.1a: Continue support of education programs such as Safe Kids and Fire & Life Safety
5



5
As of the study date, Safe Kids no longer has a MFR Chapter.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
45
Internal and External Communications Processes
Quality communications is an achievable goal for any organization, but one that always seems to be
most elusive. However, it is extremely important. To their credit, each department has established
communication processes that provide opportunities for department personnel to be heard and
involved, as well as processes whereby the public can stay informed about organizational news. The
following figure summarizes the internal and external communications elements for the study agencies.
Figure 54: Summary of Internal and External Communications Elements
JCFD3 MFR
Administrative Policies Available
to All Members
Yes, available on electronic
download source
Yes, available on electronic
download source
Standard Operating Guidelines
Available to All Members
Yes, available on electronic
download source
Yes, available on electronic
download source
Regularly Scheduled Staff
Meetings Conducted
Yes, executive meeting weekly;
Management team meeting
bi-weekly
Yes, bi-weekly
Minutes of Staff Meetings
Taken/Distributed
Minutes taken but not posted Minutes taken but not posted
Written Memos (print or
electronic) Used for the Regular
Dissemination of Agency
Information
Yes Yes
Standard Process for Memo
Distribution
Yes Yes
Receipt Verification Required for
Critical Information Distribution
Yes, signature required No formal system
Member Forums/Meetings for
Exchange with Administration
Yes, regularly scheduled
meeting and forums held with
Administration
Yes, scheduled meetings are
forums held by Administration
Email Distribution of
Information Used Regularly
Yes, agency email addresses
issued
Yes, agency email addresses
issued
Public Newsletter Published by
Community or Agency
Yes, issued by mail, agency
assembles and formats
distributed materials specific to
fire district
Yes, issued by mail, agency has
contributed material
Active Website In Use Yes, includes updates statistics
and public education materials
Yes, includes updates statistics
and public education materials
Formal Public Input Survey
Conducted
Yes, conducted by this agency Yes, conducted for all services
by municipality
Observations:
 Many of the internal and external communications elements are similar between the study
agencies.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
46
Recommendations:
 MFR should undertake a formal strategic planning process aside from the general city program
that identifies specific departmental goals and objectives.
 Both departments should post the minutes of periodic management meetings to ensure that
line staff are informed about policy and process decisions.
 MFR should implement a policy that allows them to obtain a verification receipt when critical
information is distributed to the staff.
 MFR should consider conducting a public input survey to determine community expectations for
future service delivery levels.
 MFR should formalize mutually agreed upon methods of communication with MRFPD2.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Records management is a critical function to any organization. A variety of uses are made of written
records and, therefore, their integrity must be protected. State law requires public access to certain fire
and EMS department documents and data. Clear written procedures are in place to provide for public
records access through the department staff.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) includes regulations that require all
individually-identifiable health care information be protected to ensure privacy and confidentiality when
stored, maintained, or transmitted. The following figure summarizes the reporting and recordkeeping
elements within each of the study agencies.
Figure 55: Summary of Reporting and Recordkeeping Elements
JCFD3 MFR
Hard Copy Files Secured Yes, passage locks and container
locks
Yes, passage locks and container
locks
Public Access Limited When
Buildings Occupied
Public access secured to limited
areas
Public access secured to limited
areas
Any Buildings with Premises
Security Alarms
No security systems No security systems
Observations:
 Both organizations do an excellent job at providing security to specific documents within their
organizations. Both departments have dedicated staff to ensure that records and reports are
safeguarded and disseminated as necessary.


Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
47
Information Technology Systems
Today’s fire service is heavily dependent upon several levels of technology, particularly in regards to
flow of information and keeping of critical documents. Commercial vendors provide a number of
systems and platforms from which organizations can choose for these purposes and each department
must ensure that adequate technologies are available. The following figure summarizes the information
technology efforts review.
Figure 56: Summary of Information Technology Elements
JCFD3 MFR
Type of Computer Network or System
PCs networked to agency
server
PCs networked to
community/municipal server
Redundant Servers Yes Yes
Computer Files Backed Up Yes, backed up off-site Yes, backed up off-site
Computers Programmed with
Password Protection
Yes, timeout with inactivity Yes, timeout with inactivity
Updated Firewall and Virus
Protection
Yes Yes
Observations:
 JCFD3 has a dedicated individual responsible for all information technology systems in place
within the organization. All servers are maintained locally and have appropriate security
measures in place. A technology plan was established recently that allows for the replacement
of hardware on a set cycle to ensure up-to-date technologies.
 MFR utilizes City of Medford Information Technology personnel to handle all issues related to
computers and other used technologies.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
48
CAPITAL ASSETS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
Aside from personnel, capital assets can be a department’s most critical expense; without proper
upkeep and replacement planning, facilities and apparatus can fall into disrepair and fail at a critical
time. This section evaluates the capital assets of the study agencies and provides recommendations for
replacement as necessary.
Facilities
Fire stations play an integral role in the delivery of emergency services for a number of reasons. A
station’s location will dictate, to a large degree, response times to emergencies. A poorly located station
can mean the difference between confining a fire to a single room and losing the structure. Fire stations
also need to be designed to adequately house equipment and apparatus, as well as meet the needs of
the organization and its members. It is important to research need based on call volume, response time,
types of emergencies, and projected growth prior to making a station placement commitment. The
following figures summarize ESCI’s non-engineering/architectural review of each facility within the study
area.
Figure 57: JCFD3 White City Station
Overview
The White City Station houses two engines, one aerial ladder truck, ambulance, technical rescue
trailer, boat, and a water tender in four, double depth apparatus bays of back-in configuration.
An additional two, single depth, back-in bays were added in 2008. The station is well maintained
and generally in good condition.
Structure
Construction type Conventional framing and concrete block
Date Built 1977, remodeled in 2009
Auxiliary power Yes
Condition Good
Special considerations (ADA, mixed gender
appropriate, storage, etc.)
Facility is ADA compliant and mixed gender
appropriate.
Square Footage 16,740
Facilities Available
Exercise/workout A well-equipped exercise room is present
Kitchen/dormitory
A kitchen and day room area is well equipped. Sleeping
for 8 is available in single rooms.
Lockers/showers Separate, gender appropriate restrooms and showers
Training/meetings A meeting room seats 20
Protection Systems
Sprinkler system Fully protected by fire sprinklers
Smoke detection Smoke detectors present

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
49
Figure 58: JCFD3 Central Point Station
Overview
The Central Point Station is one of the District’s three career-staffed stations, housing two
engines, one water tender, and two brush units in three, double depth, drive-through apparatus
bays. The station is in good condition.
Structure
Construction type Masonry block with a tile roof
Auxiliary power Yes
Condition Good
Special considerations (ADA, mixed gender
appropriate, storage, etc.)
Facility is ADA compliant and mixed gender
appropriate.
Square Footage 8,212
Facilities Available
Exercise/workout A well-equipped exercise room is present
Kitchen/dormitory
A kitchen and large day room area is present. Sleeping
for 7 is available in single rooms.
Lockers/showers Separate, gender appropriate restrooms and showers
Training/meetings Day room only
Protection Systems
Sprinkler system Fully protected by fire sprinklers
Smoke detection
Smoke detectors present in living areas and sleeping
quarters only

Figure 59: JCFD3 Gold Hill Station
Overview
The Gold Hill Station is a smaller intern firefighter-staffed station, housing one engine, a single
brush unit, and an ambulance. The facility is configured with two, double depth, drive-through
apparatus bays. The station is sufficient for its current use but has limited capacity for future
expansion.
Structure
Construction type Masonry block with a metal clad roof
Auxiliary power Yes
Condition Good
Special considerations (ADA, mixed gender
appropriate, storage, etc.)
Facility is ADA compliant and mixed gender
appropriate.
Square Footage 6,521
Facilities Available
Exercise/workout A good sized exercise room is present
Kitchen/dormitory
A small kitchen and day room area is present. Sleeping
for 3 is available in separate rooms.
Lockers/showers
One bathroom/shower is provided in each sleeping
room.
Training/meetings Kitchen table only. Two offices are present.
Protection Systems
Sprinkler system Fire sprinklers are present in the living areas only
Smoke detection Smoke detectors are present in living areas only

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
50
Figure 60: JCFD3 Dodge Bridge Station
Overview
The Dodge Bridge Station is a smaller, volunteer-staffed facility. It consists of four, double depth
apparatus bays that house an engine, a brush vehicle, and water tender and an additional,
separate, manufactured home that serves as living quarters for volunteers and interns. The
station dates to 1979, and is in fair to good condition. The manufactured home is new.
Structure
Construction type Concrete block on grade
Auxiliary power Portable generator only
Condition Fair to good
Special considerations (ADA, mixed gender
appropriate, storage, etc.)
Facility is not ADA compliant. Manufactured home is
mixed gender appropriate
Square Footage 3,072/1,800 in manufactured home
Facilities Available
Exercise/workout None
Kitchen/dormitory
A kitchen and living room are in the living quarters.
Sleeping for 3 is available in individual rooms.
Lockers/showers Restrooms and showers are shared
Training/meetings None
Protection Systems
Sprinkler system
Manufactured home is protected by a residential fire
sprinkler system
Smoke detection Smoke detectors present

Figure 61: JCFD3 Sams Valley Station
Overview
Serving as a volunteer-staffed facility, the Sams Valley Station consists of three, double depth
apparatus bays that house an engine, a water tender, a brush vehicle and a rehab unit. Like the
Dodge Bridge Station, a separate, manufactured home is on the site that serves as living quarters
for volunteers and interns. The station is aging, built in 1985, but in fair to good condition. The
manufactured home is new.
Structure
Construction type Concrete block on grade, tile roof
Auxiliary power Portable generator only
Condition Fair to good
Special considerations (ADA, mixed gender
appropriate, storage, etc.)
Facility is not ADA compliant. Manufactured home is
mixed gender appropriate.
Square Footage 4,172/1,800 in manufactured home
Facilities Available
Exercise/workout Exercise equipment is in the apparatus bays
Kitchen/dormitory
A kitchen and living room are in the living quarters.
Sleeping for 3 is available in individual rooms.
Lockers/showers Restrooms and showers are shared
Training/meetings A small table is in a kitchen area in the station
Protection Systems
Sprinkler system
Manufactured home is protected by a residential fire
sprinkler system
Smoke detection Smoke detectors present
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
51
Figure 62: JCFD3 Agate Lake Station
Overview
Also a volunteer-staffed facility, the Agate Lake Station houses an engine, a water tender, a brush
vehicle in two, double-depth apparatus bays. The station was constructed in 1995 and is in
excellent condition. There are no residential quarters in the station.
Structure
Construction type Concrete block on grade, metal clad roof
Auxiliary power Portable generator only
Condition Excellent
Special considerations (ADA, mixed gender
appropriate, storage, etc.)
Facility is ADA compliant. Storage space is limited.
Square Footage 2,968
Facilities Available
Exercise/workout None
Kitchen/dormitory A small kitchen area is present
Lockers/showers None
Training/meetings A small table is in a kitchen area
Protection Systems
Sprinkler system The station is not protected by fire sprinklers
Smoke detection Smoke detectors present

Figure 63: JCFD3 Eagle Point Station
Overview
The Eagle Point Station is career-staffed and consists of two, double depth apparatus bays
housing an engine, water tender, and brush unit. The station was constructed in 2002 and is in
excellent condition.
Structure
Construction type
Concrete block on grade, wood framed sections and
roof
Auxiliary power Automatic starting generator is in place
Condition Excellent
Special considerations (ADA, mixed gender
appropriate, storage, etc.)
Facility is ADA compliant. Storage space is adequate.
Square Footage 6,521
Facilities Available
Exercise/workout A small, well-equipped exercise area is present
Kitchen/dormitory
A kitchen area includes commercial grade appliances.
Sleeping is available for five in individual rooms.
Lockers/showers Dual gender appropriate
Training/meetings A small classroom seats 15
Protection Systems
Sprinkler system The station is fully protected by fire sprinklers
Smoke detection Smoke detectors present


Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
52
Figure 64: MFR Station 2
Overview
Medford’s Station 2 is a small, 2,200 square foot single bay station, housing only one fire engine
and its crew. This station was constructed in 1951 and is slated for relocation in the City’s current
Facility Master Plan, so it will soon be replaced.
Structure
Construction type
Concrete block on grade. Wood framed, composition
covered roof.
Auxiliary power Automatic starting generator is in place
Condition To be replaced
Special considerations (ADA, mixed gender
appropriate, storage, etc.)
Facility is not ADA compliant. Storage space is minimal.
Square Footage 2,200
Facilities Available
Exercise/workout A small exercise area is present
Kitchen/dormitory
Kitchen area is small. Sleeping is available for four in a
single sleeping room.
Lockers/showers There is a single bathroom and shower
Training/meetings In day room area only
Protection Systems
Sprinkler system The station is not protected by fire sprinklers
Smoke detection Smoke detectors present in sleeping areas only

Figure 65: MFR Station 3
Overview
Station 3 is a 4,300 square foot, four-bay facility, with a battalion chief unit and office. It holds
one fire engine, a reserve engine, a brush vehicle, and a battalion chief vehicle. This station dates
back to 1954 and is scheduled to be rebuilt in the City’s current Facility Master Plan.
Structure
Construction type Concrete block on grade.
Auxiliary power Automatic starting generator is in place
Condition To be replaced
Special considerations (ADA, mixed gender
appropriate, storage, etc.)
Facility is not ADA compliant and has exceeded its
capacity.
Square Footage 4,300
Facilities Available
Exercise/workout A small exercise area is present
Kitchen/dormitory
Kitchen area is small. Sleeping is available for six in a
single sleeping room.
Lockers/showers There is a single bathroom and shower
Training/meetings In day room area only
Protection Systems
Sprinkler system The station is not protected by fire sprinklers
Smoke detection Smoke detectors present in sleeping areas only


Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
53
Figure 66: MFR Station 4
Overview
Station 4 was constructed in 1969 and consists of 3,800 square feet of space configured as two
drive through bays. This station houses one fire engine and one ladder truck. Slated for full
remodel.
Structure
Construction type Concrete block on grade.
Auxiliary power Automatic starting generator is in place
Condition To be replaced
Special considerations (ADA, mixed gender
appropriate, storage, etc.)
Facility is not ADA compliant and is not dual gender
configured.
Square Footage 3,800
Facilities Available
Exercise/workout A small exercise area is in the dorm room
Kitchen/dormitory
Kitchen area is small. Sleeping is available for four in a
single sleeping room.
Lockers/showers There is a single bath and shower room
Training/meetings In day room area only
Protection Systems
Sprinkler system The station is not protected by fire sprinklers
Smoke detection Smoke detectors present in sleeping areas only

Figure 67: MFR Station 5
Overview
Constructed in 1975, Station 5 is a 3,100 square foot facility with one engine and crew and a
reserve engine. As a part of the Facility Master Plan, this station is to be expanded, adding one
bay and increasing the quarters. The project, however, is not currently funded.
Structure
Construction type Wood frame on grade.
Auxiliary power Automatic starting generator is in place
Condition To be remodeled
Special considerations (ADA, mixed gender
appropriate, storage, etc.)
Facility is not ADA compliant and is not configured for
dual gender use.
Square Footage 3,100
Facilities Available
Exercise/workout A small exercise area is provided
Kitchen/dormitory
A small kitchen is present as is sleeping for three
personnel in two bunk rooms.
Lockers/showers There is a single bath and shower room
Training/meetings Kitchen table only
Protection Systems
Sprinkler system The station is not protected by fire sprinklers
Smoke detection Smoke detectors present in sleeping areas only


Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
54
Figure 68: MFR Station 6
Overview
Station 6 is the City’s largest, as well as newest, having been constructed in 2000. It houses a
large complement of apparatus and equipment in three, double depth apparatus bays, all of
drive-through configuration.
Structure
Construction type Concrete block on grade.
Auxiliary power Automatic starting generator is in place
Condition To be remodeled
Special considerations (ADA, mixed gender
appropriate, storage, etc.)
Facility is generally ADA compliant and is appropriately
configured for dual gender use.
Square Footage 13,750
Facilities Available
Exercise/workout A medium, well equipped exercise area is present
Kitchen/dormitory
The kitchen is good sized and equipped with
commercial grade appliances. Sleeping for five is
available in separate rooms.
Lockers/showers
Bathroom and shower facilities are dual gender
appropriate
Training/meetings A good sized training room seats 25
Protection Systems
Sprinkler system The station is fully protected by fire sprinklers
Smoke detection Smoke detectors present throughout
Fire stations in the study area vary considerably. Both agencies have newer facilities as well as older
ones, as discussed in the tables above. When considering future cooperative efforts, the cost of future
facility replacement and ongoing maintenance is essential. Further, it is important that each agency be
informed of potential financial liabilities that may be associated with fire stations in need of repair that
may become of mutual interest.
In both organizations, some fire stations will be due for either repair or replacement at some point in
the future. The costs associated with these future requirements will need to be considered by both
agencies. As a part of an effort to initiate future shared service delivery, both governing bodies need to
pay careful attention to future facility costs and may need to craft agreements for addressing them in
the future.
It is important to point out that the City of Medford has developed a comprehensive Facility Master
Plan. The plan evaluates the existing fire stations and makes recommendations on needed
improvements. Under the plan, Stations 2 and 3 are slated for replacement, Station 4 is scheduled for a
full remodel, Station 6 is planned to receive some remodeling, and Station 5 is to be expanded but not
currently funded. The plan is partially implemented and funding is dedicated, however not all of the
plan’s projects are in progress at this time.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
55
Apparatus
Other than the emergency responders, response vehicles are the next most important resource of the
emergency response system. If emergency personnel cannot arrive quickly due to unreliable
transportation, or if the equipment does not function properly, the delivery of emergency service is
likely compromised.
Fire apparatus are unique and specialized pieces of equipment, customized to operate efficiently for a
narrowly defined mission. For this reason, fire apparatus are very expensive and offer little flexibility in
use and reassignment. As a result, communities always seek to achieve the longest life span possible for
these vehicles. The following figures provide an overview of each agencies apparatus fleet.
JCFD3 Apparatus
JCFD3 operates multiple fire response vehicles including nine structural (Type 1) engines, a single aerial
ladder truck, five water tenders, and nine brush fire (Type 6) vehicles, as detailed in the following tables.
Station 1 – Central Point
Apparatus
Designation
Type Year Make / Model Condition
Minimum
Staffing
6

Pump
Capacity
Tank
Capacity
7701 1 2008 Pierce/ Impel Good 3 1,250 750
7711 1 2003 Pierce/ Saber Fair 3 1,250 750
7741 3 2013 Pierce/ Tender New 2 500 2,000
7761 6 2008 Dodge S4T Good 2 NR 300
7781 6 2003 Ford/F450 Fair 2 NR 300
7731 4 2012 Ford/ Amb. Good 2 N/A N/A

Station 2 – White City
Apparatus
Designation
Type Year Make / Model Condition
Minimum
Staffing
Pump
Capacity
Tank
Capacity
7702 1 2005 Pierce/ Saber Fair 2 1,250 750
7712 1 1997 Pierce/ Saber Fair Reserve 1,250 750
7722 Aerial 2001 Pierce/ Aerial Good Cross 1,500 300
7732 4 2007 Ford/ Amb. Good 2 N/A N/A
7742 3 1991 Ford/ Tender Good 2 NR 3,500
7762 6 2004 Ford/F450 Good 2 NR 300



6
Denotes the minimum number of personnel required for the unit to respond to an incident.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
56
Station 3 – Gold Hill
Apparatus
Designation
Type Year Make / Model Condition
Minimum
Staffing
Pump
Capacity
Tank
Capacity
7703 1 1999 Pierce/ Saber Fair
2
(interns)
1,250 750
7763 6 1997 Ford/F350 Fair Volunteer NR 300

Station 4 – Dodge Bridge
Apparatus
Designation
Type Year Make / Model Condition
Minimum
Staffing
Pump
Capacity
Tank
Capacity
7704 1 1993 IHC/KME Fair Volunteer 1,000 1,000
7764 6 1996 Ford/F350 Fair Volunteer NR 300

Station 5 – Sams Valley
Apparatus
Designation
Type Year Make / Model Condition
Minimum
Staffing
Pump
Capacity
Tank
Capacity
7705 1 1990 Pierce/ Ford Fair Volunteer 1,000 750
7745 3 1979 Ford/ Tender Fair Volunteer NR 3,000
7765 6 1996 Ford/F350 Fair Volunteer NR 300
7783 6 1974 American Fair Volunteer NR 1,000

Station 6 – Eagle Point
Apparatus
Designation
Type Year Make / Model Condition
Minimum
Staffing
Pump
Capacity
Tank
Capacity
7706 1 2002 Pierce/ Saber Good 3 1,250 750
7746 3 2013 Pierce/ Tender New 2 500 2,000
7766 6 2000 Ford/F450 Good 2 NR 300

Station 7 – Agate Lake
Apparatus
Designation
Type Year Make / Model Condition
Minimum
Staffing
Pump
Capacity
Tank
Capacity
7707 1 1978 Pierce/Ford Fair Volunteer 750 500
7747 3 1994 Ford/Tender Good Volunteer NR 3500
7767 6 1996 Ford/F350 Good Volunteer NR 300
With an average age of 14.8 years, inclusive of all of the JCFD3 vehicles listed above, the District’s
equipment is in generally good condition and is well cared for overall. Exceptions are unit 7707, a 35-
year-old structural engine, 7745, a 34-year-old water tender, and 7785, another water tender that is 39
years of age. Although these units are placed in roles that result in minimal use, they are clearly beyond
their anticipated serviceable cycle and should be considered for replacement.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
57
MFR Apparatus
MFR operates a fleet consisting of eight structural fire engines, two of which are in reserve status, a 100-
foot aerial platform truck, along with a 65 foot Tele-Squirt aerial truck and a water tender. There is also
a hazardous materials response vehicle and multiple staff vehicles. All appear to be well maintained and
fully serviceable. They are detailed in the following figures. Those apparatus with an asterisk indicate
ownership by MRFPD2.
Station 2
Apparatus
Designation
Type Year
Make /
Model
Condition
Minimum
Staffing
Pump
Capacity
Tank
Capacity
8102* 1 2003 Pierce Dash Good 3 1,250 750

Station 3
Apparatus
Designation
Type Year
Make /
Model
Condition
Minimum
Staffing
Pump
Capacity
Tank
Capacity
8103* 1 2008
Pierce
Velocity
Good 3 1,250 500
8113
(Reserve)
1 1996 Pierce Arrow Good 3 1,250 500
8163* 6 2006 Ford F-550 Good 1 120 400
8153 BC 2009
Chevy
Suburban
Good 1 N/A N/A
8153
(Reserve)
BC 2001
Chevy
Suburban
Good 1 N/A N/A

Station 4
Apparatus
Designation
Type Year Make / Model Condition
Minimum
Staffing
Pump
Capacity
Tank
Capacity
8104 1 2011 Pierce Velocity Good 3 1,250 750
8121 Aerial 1999
Pierce Dash
100’ Aerial
Platform
Good 3 1,500 100

Station 5
Apparatus
Designation
Type Year Make / Model Condition
Minimum
Staffing
Pump
Capacity
Tank
Capacity
8105* 1 2011 Pierce Velocity Good 3 1,250 750
8115-
Reserve*
1 2001 Pierce Dash Good 3 1,250 750

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
58
Station 6
Apparatus
Designation
Type Year Make / Model Condition
Minimum
Staffing
Pump
Capacity
Tank
Capacity
8106 1 2005 Pierce Dash Good 3 1,250 750
8116
(Reserve)
1 1998 Pierce Saber Good 3 1,250 750
8126
(Reserve)
Aerial 1994
Pierce 65’ Tele
Squirt
Fair 3 1,250 500
8146* 3 2002
Kenworth
Pierce
Good 1 750 2,000
8186
Air
Van
1972 Chevy Step Van Poor 1 N/A N/A
8166 6 2006 Ford F-550 400
Haz-Mat 81
Haz-
Mat
Tractor/ Trailer Good 2 N/A N/A
Haz-Mat 83
Haz-
Mat

Chevy
Suburban/
Trailer
Good 1 N/A N/A
MFR engines and the aerial trucks range in age from two to 17 years with an average age of 9.8 years.
Excluded from the average is 8186, a 41-year-old Step Van, which is in aging condition and should be
retired from service. The first-out units that are housed in all stations are newer and in good to excellent
condition.
Future Apparatus Serviceability
A key consideration in evaluating the feasibility of combining agencies into one or more consolidated
entities is the costs that can be expected to be incurred for future replacement of major equipment.
Apparatus service lives can be readily predicted based on factors including vehicle type, call volume,
age, and maintenance considerations. In the following table, ESCI calculated the average age of fire
engines and aerial ladder trucks in the two agencies, to offer a point of reference when considering
future vehicle replacement costs that may be incurred.
Figure 69: Capital Replacement Planning Summary
Agency
Number of
front line
Engines
Average Age
of Engines
Number of
front line
Aerials
Average Age
of Aerials
MFR 5 6.4 1 19
JCFD3 8 16.8 1 12
Fire engines in the study agencies average 12.8 years of service overall. However, JCFD3 front line
engines, overall, are considerably older than MFR engines. For the purposes of this comparison, front
line engines are considered to be the primary engine in place at each of the seven JCFD3 stations. It is
noted that three of the stations are not staffed on a daily basis so those engines experience considerably
less use. Further, JCFD3 will take delivery of two new fire engines in June of 2014. If only the staffed
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
59
engines are considered, the average age is 10.6 years. With the new vehicles added to the calculation,
the average age is approximately 5.2 years for JCFD3.
Depending on multiple variables, an engine is typically expected to last 15 to 20 years in front line
service and an additional five years in reserve status. Should the agencies combine efforts to leverage
opportunities to share reserve or secondary engines, long-range cost avoidance may be gained by
maintaining fewer apparatus in total.
Aerial apparatus in the two agencies consist of one front line ladder truck in each, and one reserve in
MFR. The front line units have an average age of 15.5 years, with expected service lives that are similar
to or somewhat longer than those used for fire engines.
Capital Improvement Planning
When considering joining multiple agencies into a single entity, it is important to evaluate the future
costs that can be anticipated for the replacement of major capital assets. The most expensive capital
items that make up a fire department are facilities (fire stations) and major apparatus, including fire
engines and aerial ladder trucks.
ESCI reviewed capital replacement planning methods in the participating agencies. Different approaches
are employed, ranging from well planned and appropriately funded replacement schedules to simply
meeting capital needs on an as-needed basis. The findings are summarized in the following table.
Figure 70: Capital Replacement Planning Summary
Agency
Apparatus
Replacement Plan
Facility Replacement
Plan Funding Method
MFR
A replacement
schedule is in place
for apparatus,
however it is not
funded.
MRFPD2 maintains a
separate plan for
replacement of
apparatus owned by
the District.
A detailed facility
master plan is in place
including a phased
approach to
replacement and
upgrading of several
fire stations.
There is no dedicated or reserve funding
for apparatus replacement. Instead,
funding is requested as needed via the
biennial budget process. The facility
master plan includes multiple funding
sources:
A) Bonded debt - $10.4 million;
B) Current biennial budget - $1.2 million;
C) Future biennial budget(s) - $3 million.

JCFD3
A replacement
schedule is
maintained and is
fully funded.
A structured plan is in
place for facility
maintenance and
upgrades.
Funding methodology is well planned and
financed via funds maintained in reserve
in the Capital Fund.
MFR maintains a replacement schedule for fire apparatus based on defined service life expectations.
Though scheduled, the plan is not funded. Instead, the agency is required to request funding when
needed via the City’s biennial budget process. Funds are not set aside in reserve for apparatus
replacement. In regard to facility improvement and replacement, the City has completed a
comprehensive facility master plan which has been funded and is accommodating several station
replacement and upgrade projects in the next few years.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
60
JCFD3 has planned well for future costs for apparatus and facility replacement. Vehicle service lives have
been identified and serve as the foundation of a replacement plan. In addition to apparatus, future
upgrades to facilities are identified. Funding is provided for in the form of a capital fund which is
maintained to meet the needs of the replacement schedule.
STAFFING AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Emergency services organizations must provide sufficient personnel matched to the service demand and
risks found within their respective communities. As a component of this study, ESCI evaluated the
current deployment of emergency services staff of both departments in order to determine how the
organizations compare against each other as well as other departments of similar size, geography, and
demographic composition. In addition, ESCI evaluated each department’s personnel management
practices.
Several nationally recognized standards address staffing issues. Specifically, OSHA Respiratory Protection
Standard 29 CFR 1910.134 (Law); NFPA 1710 Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire
Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career
Fire Departments (Industry Standard); and NFPA 1720 Standard for the Organization and Deployment of
Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by
Volunteer Fire Departments (Industry Standard). These standards are frequently cited as authoritative
documents. In addition, the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) publishes benchmarks for the
number of personnel necessary on the emergency scene for various levels of risk.
7

Administration and Support Staff
The primary responsibility of a department’s administration and support staff is to ensure that the
organization’s operational entities have the abilities and means to fulfill its mission. Efficient and
effective administration and support are critical to the department’s success. Without adequate
oversight, planning, documentation, training, prevention and maintenance programs the operational
capabilities of the department may suffer and ultimately fail operational testing. Administration and
support require appropriate resources to function effectively.
Analyzing the ratio of administration and support positions to the total departmental positions
facilitates an understanding of the relative number of resources committed to this function. The
appropriate balance of administration and support positions to the operational component is critical to
the department’s ability to fulfill its mission and responsibilities. Although no formal studies have been
conducted to identify the optimum personnel mix, it has been ESCI’s experience that the typical ratio of
administrative and support staff to total personnel in career departments that do not provide EMS
transport services fall within the 10 to 15 percent range in municipal fire departments and 15 to 20
percent in fire districts and fire authorities. The following figure summarizes the administrative and
support positions within each study organization.


7
CPSE: formerly the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI).
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
61
Figure 71: Administrative and Support Complement
Position JCFD3 MFR
Fire Chief 1 1*
Deputy Chief 1* 2
Fire Marshal 1 1
Chief of Training 1 1
Deputy Fire Marshal/Inspector 2 4
Battalion Chief 1 0
Chief Financial Officer 1 0
Information Technology Technician 1 0
Facilities/Logistics Technician 1 0
Clerical 5 4
Total 15 13
* Indicates vacant position.
Clerical positions within JCFD3 include one administrative assistant, one finance assistant, and three full-
time staff assistants. Those positions within MFR include one executive support specialist, two full-time
office support staff, and three part-time office support staff.
Based on total career personnel, JCFD3 has an administrative and support ratio of 22.4 percent.
Comparatively, MFR has a ratio of 15.9 percent. Potential efficiencies in this area will be discussed in a
later section of this report.
Operations Staff
It takes an adequate and well trained staff of emergency responders to put the appropriate emergency
apparatus and equipment to its best use in mitigating incidents. Insufficient staffing at an operational
scene decreases the effectiveness of the response and increases the risk of injury to all individuals
involved. Many times, the types of services provided by the organization will impact the total number of
operational personnel. The following figure compares the services provided by the study departments.
Figure 72: Summary of Services Provided
Service JCFD3 MFR
Fire Suppression • •
BLS Medical First Response • •
ALS Medical First Response • •
ALS Transport Back-Up
Vehicle Extrication • •
Hazardous Materials Operations Technician
Technical Rescue (Rope, Water, etc.) •
Public Education/Code Enforcement • •


Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
62
As noted in the preceding figure, the two agencies provide similar services with the major difference
being the level of hazardous materials and technical rescue services. Technician-level hazardous
materials response is provided by MFR (as a state regional response team) while technical rescue
services are provided by JCFD3. ALS transport is also provided by JCFD3 but only in a back-up capacity to
Mercy Flights, the primary ambulance provider for both departments. The following figure illustrates the
operational complement of each organization.
Figure 73: Operational Staff Complement
Position JCFD3 MFR
Battalion Chief 3 3
Captain 12 15
Engineer/Apparatus Operator 12 15
Firefighter 18 33
Total Career 45 66

Intern 18 0
Volunteer Firefighter 10 0
Rescue Volunteer 4 0
Tender Driver 2 0
Support Volunteer 14 0
Total Intern/Volunteer 48 0
As can be seen in the preceding figure, a total of 111 career personnel are actively involved in the
operations element of the study departments. This does not include the volunteers and intern personnel
that are used to staff additional apparatus at outlying stations within the jurisdictional boundaries of
JCFD3. There are an additional 48 volunteers and interns involved in the operational delivery of service
at JCFD3. While raw numbers do little to determine the appropriateness of staffing levels, comparisons
with regional and national averages give somewhat of a benchmark from which to work. The following
figure shows the benchmark comparison of career personnel with information provided by the National
Fire Protection Association.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
63
Figure 74: Career Staffing per 1,000 Population (JCFD3)

NFPA provides data based on various regions and population levels across the nation. Since the
populations served by the study departments are different (48,000 for JCFD3 and 85,282 for MFR)
benchmark numbers are different. For JCFD3, the department’s career staffing is in line with the
regional benchmark and slightly below the national benchmark. For MFR, career staffing is below both
provided benchmarks as illustrated in the following figure.
Figure 75: Career Staffing per 1,000 Population (MFR)

0.97
1.20
0.96
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
Regional Median National Median JCFD3
Regional Median National Median JCFD3
0.90
1.28
0.77
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
Regional Median National Median MFR
Regional Median National Median MFR
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
64
When the populations and staffing levels of both departments are compared against the benchmarks as
a region, the total career staffing is in line with the region but below the national levels as identified in
the following figure.
Figure 76: Career Staffing per 1,000 Population (Combined)

The caveat that must be understood with these benchmarks is that the data provided by NFPA is
generated from peer surveys sent to each fire department in the nation. Only those surveys returned
completed are included in the data published and there is no validation of the data once it is included in
the benchmark report. In addition, the data does not distinguish between those departments that do or
do not provide transport EMS to their communities.
Tasks that must be performed at a fire can be broken down into two key components – life safety and
fire flow. Life safety tasks are based on the number of building occupants, and their location, status, and
ability to take self-preservation action. Life related tasks involve the search, rescue, and evacuation of
victims. The fire flow component involves delivering sufficient water to extinguish the fire and create an
environment within the building that allows entry by firefighters.
The number and types of tasks needing simultaneous action will dictate the minimum number of
firefighters required to combat different types of fires. In the absence of adequate personnel to perform
concurrent action, the command officer must prioritize the tasks and complete some in chronological
order, rather than concurrently. These tasks include:
 Command
 Scene safety
 Search and rescue
 Fire attack
0.85
1.34
0.84
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
Regional Median National Median Combined
Regional Median National Median Combined
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
65
 Water supply
 Pump operation
 Ventilation
 Back-up/rapid intervention
The Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) has developed a sample critical tasking analysis for the
number of personnel required on scene for various levels of risk. This information is shown in the
following figure.
Figure 77: Critical Task Staffing Needs by Risk
Sample Critical Tasking Analysis
Firefighting Personnel Needed Based on Level of Risk
Critical Tasks
Structure Fire
Maximum Risk
Structure Fire
Significant
Risk
Structure Fire
Moderate Risk
Non-Structure
Fire
Low Risk
Attack Line 4 4 2 2
Back-Up Line 4 2 2 0
Support for Hose Lines 4 3 2 0
Search and Rescue 4 4 2 0
Ventilation 4 2 2 0
Rapid Intervention Team (RIT) 4 4 2 0
Pump Operator 2 1 1 1
2
nd
Apparatus/Ladder Operator 1 1 1 0
Command 2 1 1 1
Safety 2 1 1 0
Salvage 4 0 0 0
Rehabilitation 2 2 2 0
Total 37 25 18 4
Each department was asked to conduct a tabletop critical tasking review to compare against the sample
provided by CPSE. The results of that analysis are illustrated in the following figure.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
66
Figure 78: Summary of Tabletop Critical Task Analysis
Incident Type
Number of Personnel
CPSE
Sample
JCFD3 MFR
Moderate Risk Structure Fire 18 14 14
Significant Risk Structure Fire 25 14 14
Maximum Risk Structure Fire 37 14 14
Grass/Brush Fire 4 3-9 9
Car Fire 4 2-4 3
Emergency Medical Incident 3 2-5 3
Motor Vehicle Crash/Extrication 3 5-6 3-10
Hazardous Materials Incident 3 6-15 4-13
There are some variances between the sample provided by CPSE and the study departments as to what
is believed to be an appropriate number of personnel for each specific incident type. It should be noted,
however, that each specific incident is different and requires varying degrees of involvement and
different numbers of personnel dependent upon the situation. This comparison is provided only to
illustrate how various incidents require different numbers of personnel to perform specific tasks in order
to effectively mitigate emergency incidents and will be used again later in this report comparing actual
staffing performance against critical task needs.
Staff Allocation
As presented previously, the raw numbers of personnel within each study department vary as do the
positions, and little can be gained from this presentation. How those personnel are distributed
throughout the jurisdiction can be an indicator of how well the department can produce its own
personnel for emergency incidents. JCFD3 maintains a minimum staffing level of 13 personnel at all
times consisting of one battalion chief and four three-person engines each staffed with one captain, one
engineer, and one firefighter. For MFR, the normal minimum staffing level is 17 personnel consisting of
one battalion chief, five captains, five engineers, and six firefighters. The following figure summarizes
how each department distributes available staff across their fixed facilities.
Figure 79: Staff Allocation/Distribution
Station/Apparatus
JCFD3
Minimum Staffing
MFR
Minimum Staffing
Battalion Chief 1 1
Station 1 (JCFD3 CP) 6 N/A
Station 2 (JCFD3 WC) 3 3
Station 3 (JCFD3 GH) 3 (Intern) 4
Station 4 (JCFD3 DB) Volunteer 3
Station 5 (JCFD3 SV) Volunteer 3
Station 6 (JCFD3 EP) 3 3
Station 7 (JCFD3 AL) Volunteer N/A
Each station houses an engine as the primary response vehicle but most also house additional apparatus
that can be used based on the specific incident type. For example, if the dispatched incident is wildland
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
67
in nature, brush vehicles may respond rather than the primary engine. Similarly, if the incident is in a
rural area, then tender may respond in addition to the primary engine. Staffing will vary for these
specific apparatus on how many personnel are available and the type of incident dispatched.
JCFD3 has an additional six interns assigned each day to supplement staffing; one at each of the career
stations and three at the Gold Hill station. JCFD3 has also implemented a program whereby volunteer
personnel can live in District-owned modular homes placed next to the rural fire stations in return for an
enhanced level of participation with the department. These volunteers staff an additional engine to
complement the career staff and to provide response performance to some of the rural areas of the
District. This program provides a quicker response given the volunteers proximity to the fire station for
all types of responses.
JCFD3 has divided their district into two battalions: urban and rural. The urban battalion covers Central
Point, White City and Eagle Point with four career engines and a career battalion chief on duty 24-
hours/day. The rural battalion includes the areas of Gold Hill, Sams Valley, Dodge Bridge and Agate Lake
and is covered by volunteers, resident firefighters and interns to supplement a career engine that also
responds to all incidents in these areas from the urban battalion. Gold Hill is staffed 24 hours/day with
intern firefighters who serve as the initial emergency response dispatched simultaneously with the
career engines.
Staff Scheduling
As evident from the previous figure, the study departments staff differently in that JCFD3 uses volunteer
and intern personnel as the primary responders at some of their stations. MFR is a completely career
fire department and relies on full-time personnel on call-back status to fill vacant positions when staffing
reaches a certain level.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
68
The following figure summarizes some of the scheduling elements that ESCI evaluated as a part of this
project.
Figure 80: Summary of Staff Scheduling and Additional Personnel Management Elements
JCFD3 MFR
Type of Department Combination Career
Uses Volunteers Yes No
Uses Interns Yes No
Volunteer Usage Primarily exterior support and
additional apparatus response
N/A
Intern Usage Serves as 4
th
person on career
engines and staffs Gold Hill
Station 3
N/A
Career Representation IAFF Local 1817 IAFF Local 1431
Career Schedule 1-1-1-1-1-4 1-1-1-1-1-4
Workweek 56 hours 56 hours
Shift Change 0800 0800
Career Pay Periods 26 26
Career Pay Cycle 27 day 27 day
Volunteer Compensation None N/A
Volunteer Benefits LOSAP N/A
Intern Reimbursement $5,250 tuition reimbursement
annually
N/A
Observations:
 The method of service delivery is different between JCFD3 and MFR regarding type of staffing
models employed. JCFD3 uses a combination of career, intern, and volunteer personnel with a
career engine response to all incidents while MFR relies solely on career staffing.
 The two labor unions, represented by separated bargaining units, function under different
collective bargaining agreements (CBA).
 The work schedules, workweek, shift-change time, pay periods, and pay cycles are identical.
Historical Staffing Performance
In most communities around the country, the number of fire calls has declined over the past decade. Yet
as the frequency of fires diminishes, in part due to stricter fire codes and safety education, the workload
of fire departments has risen sharply — medical calls, hazardous materials calls, and every sort of
household emergency are now addressed by fire departments. Therefore, as the frequency of fires
diminishes, the need for a ready group of firefighters has increased.
Although modern codes tend to make fires in newer structures more infrequent, today’s energy-
efficient construction (designed to hold heat during the winter) also tends to confine the heat of a
hostile fire. In addition, research has shown that modern furnishings generally burn hotter (due to
synthetics), and roofs collapse sooner because prefabricated roof trusses separate easily after a very
short exposure to flame. In the 1970s, scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
69
found that after a fire broke out, building occupants had about 17 minutes to escape before being
overcome by heat and smoke. Today, that estimate can be as short as three minutes.
8
The necessity of
firefighters arriving on the scene of a fire in the shortest span of time is more critical now than ever.
ESCI is providing analysis of incident staffing performance for each department in two ways. Initially, the
report will provide a glimpse of how well the departments are doing at producing their own staffing for
incidents within their primary service areas. ESCI believes this data is important and can be an indicator
for the individual departments as to the effectiveness of its own staffing efforts.
ESCI also recognizes that for all but the smallest, low-risk incidents, fire departments are typically acting
together in providing fire protection through a coordinated regional response of mutual and automatic
aid. This is particularly true for structure fires and other high-risk incidents where staffing needs are
high. ESCI believes that this data is equally important and can be an indicator of the level of success the
departments are achieving in providing adequate staffing to meet the needs of the higher-risk incidents.
Of significance to the staffing objective of this study is that NFPA 1710 establishes that a response
company consists of four personnel. The standard does not require that all four be on the same vehicle,
but does expect that the four will operate as a single functioning unit once on scene. The NFPA 1710
response time standard also requires that all four personnel be on scene within the recommended
response time guidelines.
There is another reason the arrival of four personnel is critical for structure fires. As mentioned earlier,
OSHA regulations require that before personnel can enter a building to extinguish a fire, at least two
personnel must be on scene and assigned to conduct search and rescue in case the fire attack crew
becomes trapped. This is referred to as the two-in, two-out rule.
9
There are, however, some exceptions
to this regulation. If it is known that victims are trapped inside the building, a rescue attempt can be
performed without additional personnel ready to intervene outside the structure. The following figure
illustrates, on average, how many personnel responded to working structure fires within the primary
jurisdictions of the study departments over the past two years.
Figure 81: Average Structure Fire Staffing Performance History

JCFD3
10
MFR
2011 9.1 12.8
2012 8.7 14.1
While MFR data indicates that the department is able to produce sufficient numbers of personnel for
most moderate risk structure fires (based on their critical tasking analysis provided previously), it is
apparent that for JCFD3 recordkeeping and/or data entry for structure fires needs improvement.
Routinely, departments with multiple company responses can see errors in the way that personnel

8
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Performance of Home Smoke Alarms, Analysis of the Response of
Several Available Technologies in Residential Fire Settings, Bukowski, Richard, et al.
9
29 CFR 1910.134(g)(4).
10
Staffing performance history was calculated using state incident codes: 111, 112, 120, 121, 122, and 123.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
70
counts are entered into records management systems (RMS). In many cases, only the personnel on the
apparatus assigned as primary are entered leaving additional personnel that responded on separate
apparatus, or in volunteer status, omitted from the report.
Emergency Call-Back Procedures
Many emergency services organizations, while staffed with paid personnel, still rely on additional
resources for the more involved incidents such as structure fires and disaster situations. In order to
generate additional resources, most departments have instituted a system whereby paid personnel are
“called back” to assist on-duty crews in these situations. The study departments are no different.
JCFD3 implemented Policy Number II-C in March 2013 that addresses call-back requirements for career
personnel. This policy is also addressed in Article 24 of the CBA. The policy applies to all career
personnel below battalion chief. The policy addresses periods of disaster and extreme incidents. It also
can be used to fill vacancies created by scheduled benefit leave. Both voluntary and mandatory call back
is addressed within the policy and, ultimately, management has the authority to deviate from the policy
when all other means of filling a vacancy fail.
MFR implemented Procedure 3.131 in September 2011 that addresses emergency callback procedures
for all career personnel. The policy covers all positions within the MFR organization and is activated
through Answer Page at a stated number within the policy. While not as detailed as the JCFD3 policy,
the procedure is suitable for use within the MFR organization.
Observations:
 The differences in call-back procedures between the departments are strictly administrative and
could be made more consistent to ensure that sufficient personnel are available for normal and
extreme incident situations.
 JCFD3 does not typically assemble the staff necessary to perform required critical tasks and
procedures in a timely manner at a moderate risk structure fire.

Recommendation:
 The departments should work together to align their employee call-back policies for major
incidents.


Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
71
Human Resources Policies and Manuals
It is important that members of the organization know to whom they should go when they have a
problem, question, or issue related to their relationship to the department. In large companies, this
function is typically handled by a human resource department. Staff within such a department handles
questions, issues, and tasks related to appointment, benefits, performance, disciplines, promotion, or
termination.
Since JCFD3 is an independent fire district, they have a human resources function that manages and
provides oversight to certain personnel policies. In the absence of this separate department, JCFD3 has
developed a number of policy and procedure manuals that address personnel management and human
resources directives. The first of these manuals is the “Board Policy Manual,” which address topics such
as the general personnel system including employment standards, rules and regulations, job
descriptions, collective bargaining, discrimination and harassment, civil service, etc. The second manual
is the “Organization Policy Manual,” which addresses topics of operations, training and safety, position
classification, and general rules and regulations regarding responsibilities and expectations. Additional
manuals include the “Performance Manual,” and the collective bargaining agreement. While some
policies, rules, and regulations within the various manuals are redundant, the documents are well-
organized and complete.
MFR, being a municipal fire department, falls under the purview of the “City Administrative
Regulations,” as well as a “Performance Manual,” “Standard Operating Guidelines,” and a “Fire
Inspector Procedure and Performance Manual.” The “City Administrative Regulations” contain policies
regarding drug and alcohol abuse, workplace violence and harassment and other general personnel
policies. The “Performance Manual” contains policies pertaining to individual performance, company
performance, and multi-company performance and are aligned primarily with operational guidance. The
“Standard Operating Guidelines” manual applies to a varied list of operational, administrative and
support policies. As with JCFD3’s procedure manuals, some policies are redundant and overlap with
each other as well as the collective bargaining agreement but are well-organized and complete.
Observations:
 The various personnel and policy manuals between the organizations have similar rules and
regulations and could be consolidated and standardized.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
72
Compensation Systems
In order for a department to recruit and retain quality personnel, compensation and benefits (as well as
overall working conditions) must be competitive with surrounding organizations. Each organization
applies various compensation and benefit packages to the respective departments. The following figure
summarizes the compensation and benefits elements of the study agencies.
Figure 82: Summary of Compensation and Benefits Elements
JCFD3 MFR
Retirement Plan State plan used
Employee pays 6% contribution
State plan used
City pays 6% contribution
Medical Insurance (not duty
related)
Employer paid Employer-employee shared
Dental Insurance (not duty related) Employer paid Employer-employee shared
Vision Insurance (not duty related) Employer paid Employer-employee shared
Critical Incident Stress Debriefing
(CISD) Program
County or regional team County or regional team
Employee Assistance Program (not
duty related)
Yes, employees only Yes, all personnel
Beginning FF Salary $63,204 $57,259
Median FF Salary $69,684 $64,454
Top FF Salary $76,824 $71,609
Beginning Engineer Salary $69,828 75,144 $
Median Engineer Salary $76,992 $76,964
Top Engineer Salary $84,876 78,784 $
Beginning Officer Salary (Captain) $80,340 $82,341
Median Officer Salary $88,584 N/A
Top Officer Salary $97,656 $85,939
Education/Other Incentive
3.5 percent for Associates Degree
5.0 percent of Bachelor’s Degree
$35/mo for Associates Degree
3 percent for Hazardous Materials
Team
EMS Incentive 5.0 percent for EMT-Intermediate
11.0 percent for EMT-Paramedic
2.0 percent for EMT-Advanced
5.0 percent for EMT-Intermediate
9.5 percent for EMT-Paramedic
Holiday Time 135 Hours 147.2 Hours
Vacation Time <2 years’ service – 96 hours
2 to <4 years’ service – 168 hours
4 to <9 years’ service – 216 hours
10 to <15 years’ service – 268
hours
15 to <20 years’ service – 288 hours
20 to <25 years’ service – 336 hours
>25 years’ service – 360 hours
1 to 60 mos service – 112 hours
61 to 120 mos service – 145.6 hours
121 to 180 mos service – 179.2
hours
181 to 240 mos service – 224 hours
241 to 300 mos service – 268.8
hours
>300 mos service – 322.5 hours
Sick Time 182 hours annually 168 hours annually
Observations:
 Significant differences lie between the compensation systems of the study departments. For
retirement plans, the employees of JCFD3 contribute six percent, whereas the City contributes
six percent for its employees. Medical insurance for JCFD3 is paid by the department while MFR
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
73
employees share insurance costs with the City. Salary differences for the positions noted vary
and incentives are allocated differently as are the awards of vacation time and holiday time.
Disciplinary Processes
A formal progressive disciplinary process for employees should be clearly identified and available. The
process should provide for various levels of discipline focused on correcting unacceptable behaviors
with the most reasonable actions considered appropriate and effective. The process under which
discipline is applied should be clear and unambiguous. A multi-level appeals process must be
documented to afford the employee who feels aggrieved by an unreasonable disciplinary action the
opportunity to have his/her issues reviewed by an impartial party.
The primary difference in the disciplinary processes of the study organizations is that of civil service. As
both organizations have disciplinary procedures laid out within their respective collective bargaining
agreements, JCFD3 has an additional step which includes civil service due process protections. The
following figure summarizes the disciplinary process elements.
Figure 83: Summary of Disciplinary Process Elements
JCFD3 MFR
Disciplinary Policy Board policies and civil service Formal written policy in place
Disciplinary Appeals Process
Formal written process in CBA
documents
Formal written process in CBA
documents
Observations:
 The fact that civil service is in place within JCFD3 and not MFR is a challenge to formal
operational cooperative efforts in the future. Any future cooperative effort would need to fully
address how new staff would be brought under the civil service system.
Testing, Measurement and Promotion Processes
Once achieving active employment, individuals should be evaluated periodically to ensure their
continued ability to perform their duties safely and efficiently. Technical and manipulative skills should
be evaluated on a regular basis. This provides documentation about a person’s ability to perform their
responsibilities and provides valuable input into the training and education development process.
Regular evaluation and feedback for personnel is critical to behavior modification and improvement. It
has long been proven that employees sincerely wish to perform well and to be a contributing part of any
organization. This desire to succeed is best cultivated through effective feedback that allows an
employee/member to know whether they are doing well or what needs improvement. The honest and
effective presentation of this feedback encourages the member to reinforce those talents and abilities
they already excel in and to work harder to improve the areas where they fail to perform as desired. The
following figure summarizes the testing measurement and promotional policies for the study
departments.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
74
Figure 84: Summary of Testing, Measurement and Promotions Process Elements
JCFD3 MFR
Periodic Capability Testing to
Measure Minimum Standards
Compliance
Yes, formal periodic testing Engineers and Captains only
Periodic Performance Evaluations Career personnel only Yes, written
Frequency of Performance
Evaluations
Quarterly Annual
Formal Promotional Testing Yes, career only Yes
Types of Promotional Testing Full assessment center Full assessment center
Observations:
 Since MFR does not have volunteer or part-time personnel, the differences regarding “career
only” elements were not highlighted. JCFD3 has implemented a plan to periodically assess all
operational personnel regarding their capability to perform critical tasks while MFR only applies
this type of assessment to engineers and captains. In addition, JCFD3’s testing is conducted
quarterly while MFR’s is done annually.

Recommendation:
 Both departments should ensure that all personnel are evaluated at least annually for both skills
and general performance.
Health, Wellness, and Counseling Programs
Physical capacity testing cannot detect all potential limiting conditions of an individual’s health and
fitness levels. A periodic medical evaluation is necessary. National safety standards for firefighters
recommend annual medical evaluations and bi-annual physical examinations. The examinations should
include all the criteria included in the entry-level exam, as well as periodic stress EKGs for persons over
40 and regular blood toxicology screening. Communicable disease vaccinations can also be updated as
needed during this process. The NFPA standard on medical requirements for firefighters (NFPA 1582), or
equivalent, should be used as a resource for establishing the criteria of both entry-level and on-going
medical evaluations for operational personnel. The following figure summarizes the health, wellness,
and counseling elements of the study departments and no significant differences are noted.
Figure 85: Summary of Health, Wellness, and Counseling Elements
JCFD3 MFR
Post-appointment Periodic Medical
Examinations
Yes, Career only Yes
Nature of Periodic Medical Exam Conducted by department or
contracted physician
Conducted by department or
contracted physician

Recommendation:
 JCFD3 should implement a wellness program that applies to volunteer and intern personnel as
well as career personnel regarding post-appointment annual medical examinations.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
75
SERVICE DELIVERY AND PERFORMANCE
The preceding sections of this document focus on the non-operational components of the study
organizations. While these components are essential to the success of the organizations, the delivery of
emergency services to the respective communities is the reason these departments exist. This section
evaluates service delivery and performance from the perspective of service demand, distribution,
concentration, reliability, and response performance.
Service Demand
Service demand can be defined in a number of ways but, essentially, it can be viewed as the workload of
an emergency service provider. The total workload of an organization can impact its ability to provide
service if resources are not adequately in place to address the demand placed on the system. Similarly,
the distribution of resources should be closely tied to service demand from a geographic perspective so
that physical resources are placed in the most appropriate location relative to historic demand. ESCI’s
review of service demand begins with an evaluation of total historic service demand by agency for the
period of January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012 as shown below.
Figure 86: Overall Historic Service Demand

JCFD3 has seen an overall increase in total service demand of 5.2 percent while MFR has seen an
increase of approximately 7.9 percent. MFR’s increase in service demand has occurred primarily in the
city while service demand in the MRFPD2 area has remained flat. While total service demand can be
useful, it tells a limited story. The following figure reviews service demand based on three specific
categories; fires, medical, and other incidents that include alarms, false calls, service calls, and public
assists, to name a few.

5453
5738
8375
9038
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
2011 2012
JCFD3 MFR
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
76
Figure 87: Historic Service Demand by Incident Type

As can be seen in the preceding figure, MFR has seen an overall higher service demand than JCFD3. For
JCFD3, emergency medical services demand comprised 70.2 percent of total service demand during
2011 and 68.8 percent during 2012. For MFR, emergency medical service demand comprised 71.5
percent and 73.2 percent for 2011 and 2012 respectively. The next element of service demand analysis
is temporal in nature. For an organization to effectively staff and deploy resources in response to service
demand, they first must evaluate when demand is occurring. This analysis begins with a review of
service demand by month.
Figure 88: Service Demand by Month 2012

186 192
290 292
3829
3950
5992
6619
1438
1596
2093 2127
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
2011 2012 2011 2012
JCFD3 MFR
Fire EMS Other
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
JCFD3 MFR
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
77
Based on service demand by month analysis, both organizations see a slight increase in service demand
during the summer months. This indicates a higher level of human activity during periods when the
weather is conducive to outdoor activities. The next analysis review service demand by day of week.
Figure 89: Service Demand by Day of Week 2012

From the daily service demand analysis, JCFD3 sees a relatively steady service demand across all days of
the week while MFR sees a slight decrease in overall service demand on weekends and Wednesdays.
This will be discussed later in potential future staffing scenarios. The final temporal evaluation of service
demand is that of hour of day.
Figure 90: Service Demand by Hour of Day 2012

0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
JCFD3 MFR
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
JCFD3 MFR
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
78
Based on hour of day analysis, both departments begin to see increases in service demand between the
hours of 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m.; peaking during the mid-day to mid-afternoon hours; and then
declining into the late evening hours. This bell curve pattern is typical and expected of organizations
providing medical response within their communities and is due highly to human activity. The next
evaluation of service demand is geographic in nature in that determining where service demand is
occurring is essential to the placement of physical resources. The following figure illustrates all incidents
within the study area for 2012.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
79
Figure 91: Geographic Service Demand Distribution – All Incidents

As can be seen in the preceding figure, total service demand is most dense within the City of Medford
with pockets of dense demand surrounding JCFD3 Stations 71, 72, and 76. This indicates that stations
are adequately placed in relation to historic service demand. Although total service demand plotted
geographically is important for resource distribution, the analysis of specific incident types is also
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
80
important to determine if specialized resources should be deployed in certain locations. The following
figure illustrates the geographical distribution of medical responses within the study region.
Figure 92: Geographic Service Demand Distribution – Medical Incidents

As expected, since medical responses comprise a majority of both agencies’ service demand, the
plotting of medical service demand tends to mirror the total service demand presented previously.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
81
However, unlike medical responses, structure fires require a larger amount of resources to successfully
mitigate. The following figure illustrates the geographical distribution of structure fires to determine if
physical resources intended for fire suppression are adequately deployed across the region.
Figure 93: Geographic Service Demand Distribution – Structure Fires

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
82
While much less dense in geographic distribution, structure fire service demand also typically occurs in
close proximity to an established fire station; once again indicating that existing resources are
adequately distributed.
Distribution Analysis
Distribution, when combined with service demand analysis, allows organizations to determine the most
appropriate location of physical resources, primarily facilities, and apparatus. To affect the most
appropriate response to most incidents, fire departments must adequately deploy resources to address
a variety of risks within their community. Published standards for the fire service indicate that urban fire
departments should be deployed such that 90 percent of service demand can be reached within four
minutes or less of travel time. Similarly, suburban and rural fire departments that are substantially
volunteer in nature should be able to reach 80 percent of service demand within 10 and 14 minutes
respectively. The following figure displays the travel model for the existing stations within the study
region.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
83
Figure 94: Four-, Eight- and 12-Minute Travel Model

Based on the travel models, 82 percent of the total historic service demand can be reached within four
minutes of travel while 97 percent can be reached within eight minutes of travel. From an independent
agency perspective, JCFD3 can reach 78 percent within four minutes of travel while MFR can reach 90
percent within the same period. Nearly 100 percent of historic service demand falls within eight minutes
of travel for both agencies.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
84
Concentration Analysis
Concentration is the ability of an emergency services organization to assemble the appropriate amount
of resources to effectively mitigate specific incidents within their jurisdiction. For the purposes of this
analysis, ESCI used a concentration, also known as effective response force, of three engines and one
aerial device. This is the typical effective response force for a moderate risk, single family, detached
dwelling as identified in published documents, although MFR does not include an aerial apparatus for
single family dwellings. Effective response force analysis does not consider staffing methodologies or
incident concurrency and only presents an idea of what a response capability could potentially be if all
apparatus were staffed and available for response.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
85
Figure 95: Effective Response Force – Three Engines and One Aerial

Given that it is possible that three engines may not be available based on service demand, ESCI also
analyzed the potential concentration of two engines and one aerial apparatus as illustrated in the
following figure.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
86
Figure 96: Effective Response Force – Two Engines and One Aerial

Based on the analysis, much more area can be covered with two engines and one aerial apparatus than
is possible with three engines and one aerial. Again, it should be understood that this type of analysis
does not take into consideration the staffing patterns of any given department nor does it consider the
availability of apparatus. Concentration analysis simply evaluates the area of potential coverage based
on the current distribution of resources, including mutual aid departments.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
87
Reliability Analysis
As departments grow and serve a growing population, service demand can increase such that
simultaneous incidents occur at a rate that stresses the system. Reliability analysis evaluates the
potential for simultaneous incidents within the system and the potential impact those incidents have on
the availability of resources. The figures below summarize the reliability/concurrency analysis that was
completed for this project for each agency.
Figure 97: Incident Concurrency Rates (JCFD3)

1 2 3 4 5 6
2011 76.1% 20.0% 3.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0%
2012 77.5% 24.1% 3.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Figure 98: Incident Concurrency Rates (MFR)

1 2 3 4 5 6
2011 67.7% 25.7% 5.5% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0%
2012 65.5% 26.8% 6.4% 1.2% 0.1% 0.0%

Based on the reliability analysis of the two departments, most incidents occur singularly. However, a
second simultaneous incident is occurring at a rate equal to or greater than 20 percent of the time
another call is already in progress. For a single station deployment this would be problematic if
insufficient resources were available. But, since both study departments operate from multiple stations,
these rates of concurrency should not generate substantial issues for either department.
Response Performance
Perhaps the most visible and highly publicized statistics of emergency services organizations are those of
response performance. Average response time is a common indicator of how well service is being
provided to a particular community. While this may serve the purpose of satisfying the public’s desire
for accountability, the industry standard is to measure a number of response performance indicators
and at specific percentile measures.
Response performance analysis evaluates how quickly an organization responds to an incident and is
more commonly known as response time. The response time continuum, the time between when the
caller dials 9-1-1 and when assistance arrives, is comprised of several components:
 Processing Time – The amount of time between when a dispatcher answers the 9-1-1 call and
resources are dispatched.
 Turnout Time – The amount of time between when units are notified of the incident and when
they are en route.
 Travel Time – The amount of time the responding unit actually spends on the road to the
incident.
 Response Time – A combination of turnout time and travel time and generally accepted as the
most measurable element.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
88
Other performance measurements are also valuable but not utilized in this analysis of staffing and
deployment, such as:
 Patient Contact Time – The actual time personnel arrived at the patient and began treatment.
 Scene Time – The total amount of time resources have spent on the emergency scene prior to
transport or clearing the incident.
 Transport Time – The total amount of travel time spent transporting the patient to a definitive
care facility.
 Hospital Time – The total amount of time the transporting unit spent at the receiving facility
before returning to service.
 Total Commit Time – The total amount of time between dispatch and clearing the incident.

While neither department serves as the primary provider of patient transport within their jurisdiction,
they do provide medical first response services. Thus, scene time, transport time, and hospital time are
not evaluated here and patient contact time is not routinely recorded. For the purposes of this analysis,
call processing, turnout, and response time will be the focus. Before entering this discussion, however,
the project team felt it necessary to provide a brief discussion about how the statistical information is
presented, particularly in regard to average versus percentile measures.
The “average” measure is a commonly used descriptive statistic also called the mean of a data set. It is a
measure to describe the central tendency, or the center of a data set. The average is the sum of all the
points of data in a set divided by the total number of data points. In this measurement, each data point
is counted and the value of each data point has an impact on the overall performance. Averages should
be viewed with a certain amount of caution because the average measure can be skewed if an unusual
data point, known as an outlier, is present within the data set. Depending on the sample size of the data
set, this skewing can be either very large or very small.
As an example, assume that a particular station with a response time objective of six minutes or less had
five calls on a particular day. If four of the calls had a response time of eight minutes while the other call
was across the street and only a few seconds away, the average would indicate the station was
achieving its performance goal. However, four of the five calls, or 80 percent, were beyond the stated
response time performance objective.
The reason for computing the average is because of its common use and ease of understanding. The
most important reason for not using averages for performance standards is that it does not accurately
reflect the performance for the entire data set.
With the average measure, it is recognized that some data points are below the average and some are
above the average. The same is true for a median measure which simply arranges the data set in order
and finds the value in which 50 percent of the data points are below the median and the other half are
above the median value. This is also called the 50
th
percentile.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
89
When dealing with percentiles, the actual value of the individual data does not have the same impact as
it did in the average. The reason for this is that the percentile is nothing more than the ranking of the
data set. The 90
th
percentile means that 10 percent of the data is greater than the value stated and all
other data is at or below this level.
Higher percentile measurements are normally used for performance objectives and performance
measurement because they show that the large majority of the data set has achieved a particular level
of performance. This can then be compared to the desired performance objective to determine the
degree of success in achieving the goal.
For this analysis, ESCI was most interested in the ability to respond with the appropriate resources to
the highest percentage of incidents. For this reason, ESCI analyzed National Fire Incident Reporting
System (NFIRS) data and generated average, 80
th
, and 90
th
percentile response performance for
emergency incidents only. In addition, while NFIRS data does not require the recording of call pick-up
versus dispatch time (producing call processing time) or the en route time (producing turnout time),
computer aided dispatch data for the same period was also evaluated to extract this information.
The analysis begins with an evaluation of call processing performance as provided below.
Figure 99: Historic Call Processing Performance
JCFD3 MFR
2011 0:01:02 0:01:16
2012 0:00:54 0:01:08
2013 0:00:55 0:01:06
NFPA 1221 provides recommendations regarding call processing performance for agencies that dispatch
fire resources. The standard recommends that 95 percent of all emergency incidents be dispatched
within 60 seconds of call receipt. Differences are not cited between medical and fire responses. The next
phase of emergency response is that of turnout.
Turnout is the time it takes personnel to receive the dispatch information, move to the appropriate
apparatus and proceed to the incident. NFPA 1710 provides for two different turnout time performance
objectives in this regard; 60 seconds for medical responses and 80 seconds for fire responses; allowing
personnel additional time to don personal protective equipment; both measured at the 90
th
percentile.
The following figures provide a summary of each department’s turnout time performance for calendar
years 2011 through 2013.
Figure 100: Historic Turnout Time Performance – Average
JCFD3 MFR
2011 0:02:04 0:01:07
2012 0:01:29 0:01:12
2013 0:01:29 0:01:12

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
90
Figure 101: Historic Turnout Time Performance – 90
th
Percentile
JCFD3 MFR
2011 0:02:29 0:01:52
2012 0:02:18 0:01:57
2013 0:02:20 0:01:57

Figure 102: Turnout Time by Hour of Day

NFPA 1710 Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency
Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments includes a
performance objective of 240 seconds or less travel time for the arrival of the first arriving engine
company in urban areas serviced by career fire departments.
11
NFPA 1720 Standard for the Organization
and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations
to the Public by Volunteer or Combination Fire Departments recommends a response performance
objective of nine minutes or less when measured at the 90
th
percentile in urban areas, 10 minutes or
less in suburban areas, and 14 minutes or less in rural areas served by volunteer or combination fire

11
NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical
Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. (National Fire Protection Association
2010.)
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
91
departments.
12
NFPA 1710 does not differentiate between the various population densities and assumes
that all areas served by career or mostly career fire departments will adhere to a single performance
objective.
The following figures illustrate the study departments’ overall response performance measured at the
average, 80
th
, and 90
th
percentile.
Figure 103: Historic Response Performance by Year (JCFD3)
Average 80th 90th
2011 0:07:17 0:09:39 0:12:56
2012 0:07:22 0:09:37 0:12:48
2013 0:07:35 0:10:23 0:12:55
Since JCFD3 serves urban, suburban, and rural areas, NFPA 1720 applies. The following figure illustrates
the department’s performance based on station to correlate the various population densities.
Figure 104: Historic Response Performance by Station (JCFD3)
Station Staffing Average 80th 90th
Central Point Career 0:06:33 0:08:22 0:10:33
Eagle Point Career 0:06:26 0:09:13 0:11:54
Gold Hill Intern 0:10:05 0:14:45 0:16:23
Sams Valley Volunteer 0:09:11 0:14:11 0:14:35
Agate Lake Volunteer 0:04:18 0:04:18 0:04:18
Dodge Bridge Volunteer 0:12:57 0:16:35 0:18:06
White City Career 0:08:22 0:10:44 0:14:03
As can be seen from the preceding figure, the response time of the career stations exceed the
recommended performance objective as indicated within NFPA 1710. The following figure illustrates
MFR’s historic response performance.
Figure 105: Historic Response Performance by Year (MFR)
Average 80th 90th
2011 0:06:51 0:07:31 0:09:00
2012 0:05:15 0:06:45 0:08:08
Based on NFPA 1710 recommendations, the department’s 90
th
percentile response performance is
higher than the recommended objective. While MFR is a fully career organization, the department does
cover a variety of population densities, with more sparsely populated areas in the MRFPD2 area that is
covered by contract. The potential for developing tiered response performance objectives for the
various population densities will be discussed later in this report.

12
NFPA 1720, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical
Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Volunteer and Combination Fire Departments. (National Fire
Protection Association 2010.)
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
92
Incident Control and Management
Of critical importance on any emergency scene is incident control and management to ensure that
personnel are prepared, sufficient planning has been completed beforehand, resources are known,
standards are adopted and safety is observed during operations. This begins with a department’s pre-
incident planning program where specific occupancies are “walked through” to evaluate potential risks
and identify potential hazards. Secondly, formal mutual and/or automatic aid agreements should be
established with neighboring departments to ensure sufficient resources are available for multi-
company incidents.
Incident control and management continues with the identification of water supply point (both hydrants
and static water points), ensuring that maps are available to assist in a rapid response and the
establishment of a standard of response by incident type including the minimum number of personnel
needed for the specific risk. Both turnout and response times performance objectives should be
established so that personnel have a measure by which to gauge themselves. Plans should be
established to provide for area coverage when internal resources are otherwise engaged and someone
should be assigned to oversee the command and control elements on a routine basis.
Finally, the safety of all personnel involved should be ensured by implementing an accountability system
that tracks the assignment of on scene personnel; command officers should have sufficient strategy and
tactics training as well as building construction knowledge; personnel should be appropriately trained
for response, particularly for hazardous situations; a safety officer should be available for involved
incidents; and federal safety procedures should be followed. The following figure summarizes the
incident control and management components of the study agencies.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
93
Figure 106: Summary of Operational Command Elements
JCFD3 MFR
Levels of Tactical Pre-Incident Planning Pre-incident plans for all
commercial/industrial/assembly/
institutional, pre-incident plans
for only high-hazard occupancies,
Electronic versions served up by
CAD-data interface
Pre-incident plans for all
commercial/industrial/assembly/
institutional, pre-incident plans
for only high-hazard occupancies,
Electronic versions served up by
CAD-data interface
Levels of Operational Planning Resources managed by standard
apparatus assignment based on
call-type, mutual aid agreements
in place- no formal assignment
system, multi-level hazmat
response plan
Resources managed by standard
apparatus assignment based on
call-type
Hydrant Locations Mapped Yes, no main sizes or flow rates
shown
Yes, no main sizes or flow rates
shown
Alternate Static Water Points Mapped Yes Yes
Maps Available in All Vehicles Yes, department vehicles and on
MDC
Yes, available through CAD system
push
Standard Response Recommendation
Based on Type of Call
Yes Yes
Minimum Number of Responders per
Apparatus Standardized
Yes Yes
Turnout Time Standards Established Yes :90 day, 2:00 night Yes 1:30
Total Response Time Standards
Established
Yes, variable Yes, 5:30 urban 9:00 rural
Simultaneous Incident Cover Plans Automatic station move-up by
CAD, Station move-up manually
by Incident Commander, Call-back
system for career personnel,
Additional manpower paging for
on-call responders, Duty Officer
shared between the District and
Medford
Station move-up manually by
Incident Commander. Call-back
system for career personnel. Duty
Officer shared between the
District and Medford
Duty Officer Assigned 24-Hours Per Day Yes, assigned shift officer Yes, assigned shift officer
Incident Command System Used Always, NIMS compliant Always, NIMS compliant
Incident Arrival Size-Up Announcement
Required
All incidents All incidents
Initial Strategy Declaration Required on
Arrival
All incidents with significant risk Working structure fires, wildland
fire, and all incidents with
significant risk
Accountability System Used on All Major
Incidents
Always Always
Command Officers Have Formal Strategy
and Tactics Training
State certification required State certification required



Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
94
JCFD3 MFR
Command Officers Have Formal Building
Construction Training
State certification required State certification required
Minimum Level of Hazmat Certification
for Responding Personnel
Hazmat – Operations Hazmat – Operations
Formal Safety Officer Assignment All incidents with significant risk Up to the incident commander at
each incident
Two-In, Two-Out OSHA/EPA Compliance Two-in, two-out rule compliance
only if sufficient manpower
present
Strict compliance two-in, two-out
rules
Observations:
 JCFD3 still uses primarily paper maps and map books for incident response while MFR has
implemented a CAD driven system of mapping within their primary apparatus.
 Response performance objectives vary by department and neither department applies the NFPA
recommendations. This is acceptable given policy maker and public expectations for service
delivery.
 JCFD3 has implemented an automatic station move-up plan based on CAD recommendations
but still relies heavily on the incident commander to make the final decision, as does MFR.
 While neither department has an assigned safety officer, each structure fire or other involved
incident receives two battalion chiefs (one from JCFD3 and one from MFR). The second arriving
BC serves as the safety officer for most incidents.

Recommendations:
 Both departments should monitor turnout time performance and distribute analysis for line
staff to gauge their individual responses.
 MFR should implement a policy that requires the assignment of a safety officer for all incidents
with significant risk.
 JCFD3 should ensure compliance with two-in, two-out regulations.
Communications and Dispatch Services
For most of the general public, initiation of 9-1-1 is the first step in securing an effective emergency
response. These 9-1-1 centers, otherwise known as Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP), can take on
one of many forms and can be overseen by an even greater variety of governance models. Some
agencies have communications and dispatch centers contained within their individual agencies while
others rely on local police, sheriff, or other municipal resources. Others have entered into agreements
with regional dispatch centers for the receipt and processing of 9-1-1 calls.
For the study departments, the latter is the case. Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon
(ECSO) provides all 9-1-1 call processing and dispatch services for both JCFD3 and MFR. ECSO is a
combined PSAP and dispatch facility for all of Jackson County. The center is the culmination of two
previous dispatch centers, Southern Oregon Regional Communications and Rogue Valley Consolidated
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
95
Communications. The two came together in 2010 and provides 9-1-1 and dispatch services to 26 law
enforcement, fire, and EMS agencies within Jackson County. ECSO provides Emergency Medical Dispatch
(EMD) to callers requesting medical assistance and dispatches appropriate resources using a tiered
approach. The center also uses a state-of-the-art computer aided dispatch (CAD) system that allows for
specific unit assignment to incidents as well as station move-ups and mutual aid dispatching. Previously
operated under the Jackson County Sheriff, ECSO is now an independent agency under Oregon Revised
Statute (ORS) 190.10.
During calendar year 2013, ECSO received a total of 314,104 incoming telephone calls including all 9-1-1,
seven-digit, administrative, ring-down, and specialized requests. Of these calls, 102,903 came through
the 9-1-1 system with 167,087 coming through the general administrative lines. Overall, this indicates a
decrease in call volume of approximately 1.1 percent over 2012.
Although both agencies are dispatched by ECSO, they are dispatched on different frequencies. While
this may reduce the number of incidents where simultaneous incidents could interfere with one
another, it also tends to complicate mutual and automatic aid. As mentioned previously, the
departments are already providing “closest unit response” along the city/district boundary line and also
sharing command staff for involved incidents. Moving the agencies to a single dispatch frequency would
streamline communications and allow for greater interoperability between the agencies.
Observations:
 Both departments are already dispatched by ECSO under similar protocols. Moving the agencies
to a single dispatch frequency with the availability of multiple local tactical channels would
increase interoperability and scene coordination/communication.

Recommendation:
 The departments should work with ECSO to determine the feasibility of a single dispatch
frequency with multiple tactical channels.
Specialty Teams
Aside from normal fire suppression and first responder emergency medical services (EMS) activities,
many emergency services organizations also provide additional services that provide an added value to
their particular organizations. These additional services can include hazardous materials response,
technical rescue response including any one or more disciplines such as high angle or low angle rope
rescue, structural collapse, confined space, trench rescue, ice rescue, dive, swift water rescue, or surface
water rescue to name a few.
One of the areas in which the study agencies already cooperate is in specialty teams. JCFD3 had made
an internal decision to provide technical rescue services in the disciplines of high/low angle rope, swift
water rescue, confined spaces rescue, and heavy vehicle extrication. The department provides
hazardous materials response at the operations-level. JCFD3 also houses a transport ambulance that can
be used to supplement the services provided by Mercy Flights. This unit is licensed by the State of
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
96
Oregon to provide advanced life support (ALS) transport services if necessary and can be used anywhere
within the region at the request of Mercy Flights. As a first responder agency, JCFD3 responds to all
emergency medical incidents within the department’s service area but responds to Alpha and Bravo
incidents Code 1 (non-emergency).
MFR serves as the regional hazardous materials response team and provides technician-level hazardous
materials response to the City of Medford, JCFD3, and the surrounding region through a contract with
the State of Oregon. The study departments rely on each other for their specialty services as described
above and this collaboration should serve as a model for future cooperative efforts. MFR also provides
first response medical services similar to JCFD3 but does not respond to non-emergency (Alpha)
incidents within the City of Medford.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
97
FIRE PREVENTION AND LIFE SAFETY SERVICES
An aggressive risk management program, through active fire and life safety services, is a fire
department’s best opportunity to minimize the losses and human trauma associated with fires and
other community risks.
The National Fire Protection Association recommends a multifaceted, coordinated risk reduction
process at the community level to address local risks. This requires engaging all segments of the
community, identifying the highest priority risks, and then developing and implementing
strategies designed to mitigate the risks.
13

Both of the study area departments understand the importance of fire prevention and public education,
appreciating their role in the planning process of a community with diversified zoning including
residential, commercial, and industrial properties. Fire prevention efforts are detailed in the following
figures.
The fundamental components of an effective fire prevention program are listed in the following table,
accompanied by the elements needed to address each component.
Figure 107: Fire Prevention Program Components
Fire Prevention Program
Components
Elements Needed to Address Program Components
Fire Code Enforcement
Proposed construction and plans review
New construction inspections
Existing structure/occupancy inspections
Internal protection systems design review
Storage and handling of hazardous materials
Public Fire and Life Safety Education
Public education
Specialized education
Juvenile fire setter intervention
Prevention information dissemination
Fire Cause Investigation
Fire cause and origin determination
Fire death investigation
Arson investigation and prosecution
Code Enforcement Activities
A fire department should actively promote fire resistive construction, built-in warning and fire
suppression systems, and effective administration of applicable fire codes and ordinances. Doing so not
only protects an individual property owner’s interests, but those of community safety and economic
viability overall. The essential components of effective code enforcement include:
 Adoption and administration of appropriate codes and ordinances
 Active participation in new construction building permit fire and life safety plans reviews
 Completion of inspections pursuant to building permit issuance


13
Kirtley, Edward, Fire Protection Handbook, 20
th
Edition, 2008, NFPA, Quincy, MA.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
98
 Inspection of existing commercial and high risk occupancies
 Enforcement and management of code related activities
On the following pages are ESCI’s observations of the two fire agencies’ code enforcement and
inspection programs.
Figure 108: Code Enforcement
JCFD3 MFR
Fire codes adopted Oregon Fire Code 2010 Oregon Fire Code 2010
Code used – year/version 2010 2010
Local codes or ordinances adopted,
amendments
None
Multiple amendments
regarding fireworks,
commercial occupancy
requirements, explosive
prohibition, fuel storage
restrictions, etc.
Sprinkler ordinance in place None
Required in commercial
basements only
Observations:
 Both organizations have adopted the 2010 Oregon Fire Code, the most current available. The
City of Medford has enhanced the code adoption with a variety of amendments as noted above.
JCFD3 has not amended their adoption. Neither organization has established a residential fire
sprinkler ordinance.
New Construction Inspection and Involvement
When a new building is constructed in a jurisdiction, it becomes the protection responsibility of the fire
department for the life of the structure. For this reason it is essential that a fire agency be closely
involved in the process of reviewing proposed building plans for fire and life safety concerns.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
99
Figure 109: New Construction Plan Review and Inspections
JCFD3 MFR
Consulted in proposed new
construction
Yes. Targets a 7 day turn
around on submitted plans.
Yes. Via the Land
Development
Committee – all City
departments have
combined input and
review. In addition, plan
review and inspection of
fire protection systems
is entirely performed by
the fire department as
delegated by the
building department.
Perform fire and life safety plan
review
Yes, but limited to water
supply, apparatus access and
installed protection systems.
Not a fully comprehensive
F&LS plan review.
Building Department
conducts fire and life
safety plan reviews with
input as needed from
the fire department. Fire
department reviews
land development
projects for access,
water supply, and fire
protection system
requirements.
Sign-off on new construction
Part of the process based on a
Memorandum of
Understanding with cities and
county.
Fire Department sign-off
required. Very harmonious
interaction between building
and fire departments.
Charges for inspections or reviews
For re-inspection only. Initial
inspection is included in
permit fees, however the Fire
District does not receive any
portion of permit fees.
Included in building permit
fees for sprinkler and alarms
systems. Fees may be charged
for multiple re-inspections.
Some specialized permits
have additional fees.
Observations:
 The organizations approach the process of new construction review and approval in a similar
manner. It is important that a fire department be closely integrated into the process of
reviewing plans, approving building permits, and inspecting for compliance as the building is
constructed. These functions are well addressed in MFR and JCFD3.
 It is noted that a sign-off for approval of plans in JCFD3 is not formally required. A relationship
has been developed with the County Building Department that generally assures that the fire
department will approve prior to issuance of a building permit, but the practice is described as a
courtesy that is extended to the District, rather than a firm requirement.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
100
Recommendation:
 JCFD3 should continue to work with Jackson County building officials to formalize the process of
assuring that the fire department’s approval of plans is required prior to the issuance of building
permits.
General Inspection Program
Once a new building had been constructed in compliance with applicable codes and ordinances, the
importance of life safety code enforcement does not end. In most occupancy types other than
residential, adopted codes empower the fire department to inspect buildings periodically to assure
ongoing safety code compliance.
ESCI reviewed the existing occupancy inspection practices in the two agencies and lists findings in the
following figure.
Figure 110: Existing Occupancy Inspection Program
JCFD3 MFR
Perform existing occupancy
inspections
Yes Yes
Self-inspection program in place None
Yes. Primarily for public
education purposes.
Frequency of inspections
Low hazard: 3 year rotation
Moderate: as much as 2 years
High hazard: annually
Approximately 600 Company
inspections annually. (Lower
hazard categories including B
and M occupancies) Others by
FL&S staff on a 1 – 3 year
rotation. Falling behind, not
meeting goals currently.
Special risk inspections As needed Yes
Storage tank inspections As needed As needed
Key-box entry program in place Knox box system Knox box system
Inspection program
Completed by a
combination of F&LS
staff and line personnel
Completed by a combination
of F&LS personnel and line
personnel.
Citation process in place and formally
documented/adopted
Yes Yes
Inspection records computerized Yes Yes
Number of personnel devoted to
program
1 Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal
2 Deputy Fire Marshals
1 Administrative Staff
Assistant
Part time, overtime from line
personnel, as needed
1 Fire Marshal
4 Inspectors
1 part time support staff
Line personnel for lower risk
inspections
Fees for specialty inspections No No
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
101
Observations:
 MFR calculates that nearly 5,000 commercial occupancies exist within the jurisdiction,
presenting a considerable code compliance workload. In 2012, the department completed
approximately 1,200 fire related inspections. Inspection frequency is based on the risk level
identified for each property with higher risk buildings being inspected annually, moderate level
occupancies bi-annually and lower hazard structures every three years.
14
The intervals are lower
than national standards recommend, due to the workload presented and staffing capacity. MFR
reports that they are currently unable to fully achieve the above inspection interval goals, based
on numbers of available personnel.
 JCFD3 uses a very similar approach to existing occupancy code compliance monitoring. A one to
three year inspection interval, based on risk, is also in place in the District. A total of 1,587 were
reportedly completed in 2013. The District has elected to discontinue the past practice of using
on-duty fire crews to complete lower risk inspections based on an interest in providing time for
them to complete more pre-incident occupancy reviews. Despite the change, the District has
maintained the ability to keep up with the targeted inspection frequency goals. However, it is
noted that fewer commercial occupancies exist in the District as compared with Medford. The
District has just over 1,400.
 JCFD3 finds that it is necessary to supplement its Fire and Life Safety Division at times due to the
number of available division staff and workload. MFR is lightly staffed in the Fire and Life Safety
Division and, as a result, is challenged to meet inspection frequency goals, reportedly having the
same number of inspection personnel in place that it did many years ago, despite a large
increase in the number of buildings that are subject to inspection.


14
Most recent year for which data was provided.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
102
ESCI offers the following discussion simply as a point of reference. The recommended frequency for
commercial fire safety inspections varies by the type of property, classified by degree of hazard. The
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) provides a standard for recommended inspections by hazard
class, as listed in the following table:
Figure 111: Recommended Fire Inspection Frequencies
Hazard
Classification
Example Facilities
Recommended
Inspection
Frequency
Low
Apartment common areas, small stores and offices, medical
offices, storage of other than flammable or hazardous materials.
Annual
Moderate
Gas stations, large (>12,000 square feet) stores and offices,
restaurants, schools, hospitals, manufacturing (moderate
hazardous materials use), industrial (moderate hazardous
materials use), auto repair shops, storage of large quantities of
combustible or flammable material.
Semi-annual
High
Nursing homes, large quantity users of hazardous materials,
industrial facilities with high process hazards, bulk flammable
liquid storage facilities, facilities classified as an “extremely
hazardous substance” facility by federal regulations (SARA Title
III).
Quarterly
Source: NFPA Fire Protection Handbook
Given the staffing limitations present, achieving an inspection goal that is consistent with the above
example may not be achievable. However, ESCI encourages both organizations to seek ways to maximize
the use of available and future personnel in an effort to achieve the highest and most appropriate
existing occupancy inspection frequency attainable.
Fire and Life Safety Public Education Program
Providing fire safety education to the public to minimize the occurrence of fire and train the community
in appropriate actions to take when faced with an emergency is a particularly important fire protection
strategy. Life and fire safety education provides the best chance for minimizing the effects of hostile fire.
The following figure summarizes public education activities.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
103
Figure 112: Public Education Programs
JCFD3 MFR
Public education/information officer in
place
Yes. Part time, on call, PIO
only. No dedicated public
education position is in
place, shared responsibility.
No dedicated stand-alone
public education position. Fire
inspector with a significant
amount of time dedicated to
public education.
Public education in the following areas:
i) calling 9-1-1 Yes Yes
ii) EDITH (exit drills in the home)
Team teaching program
with Department of
Forestry. Station tours
completed by on duty
crews.
Yes
iii) smoke alarm program
Yes. Give away and install
detectors when needed,
inspect smoke detectors on
all medical responses.
Yes. Alarms check by crews
routinely, installed as needed.
iv) fire safety (heating equipment,
chimney, electrical equipment,
kitchen/cooking, etc.)
Yes Yes
v) injury prevention (falls,
burns/scalding, bike helmets,
drowning, etc.)
Home safety tips offered.
Primarily fire focused.
Yes, broadly based
vi) fire extinguisher use Yes Yes
vii) fire brigade training No On request
viii) elderly care and safety On request
Fall and fire prevention
offered
ix) curriculum used in schools
National Fire Academy CPR
Anytime and other tools are
used
Hazard House Program. CPR
Anytime Program
x) baby-sitting classes offered No No
xi) CPR courses, blood pressure checks
offered
Yes. CPR Anytime school
program is used
Yes. CPR Anytime school
program is used
Publications available to public
Available in stations as well
as provided to various
locations in the community
Available in stations
Bilingual information available Yes Yes
Annual report distributed to
community
Included in quarterly board
reports and annual
newsletter
Yes. Included in annual Fire
Marshal Report
Juvenile fire setter program offered
Yes. In-house personnel are
intervention trained.
Active program in place
Wildland interface education offered Yes
Evaluations offered. Ready,
Set, Go Program in place

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
104
Observations:
 Both organizations have made a solid commitment to public education outreach and clearly
appreciate the key role that it plays in the prevention of fires. In addition, both have expanded
their efforts to include a variety of injury prevention initiatives that go beyond fire prevention
alone. As detailed in the figure above, all of the essential components of an effective public
education program are in place, both in MFR and JCFD3. The agencies are commended for their
commitment.
 While they are effectively meeting public education needs, both do so in the absence of a
dedicated Public Education Officer (PEO), instead distributing responsibilities to multiple
individuals throughout the organizations.

Recommendation:
 Both organizations should consider appointing a formal public education position to enhance
the capabilities of the fire and life safety divisions. This could be accomplished cooperatively as
well.
Fire Investigation Programs
A sometimes under-appreciated component of fire prevention programs overall is that of assuring that
the cause of a fire that has occurred is effectively identified so that public education and code
enforcement efforts can be targeted toward identified causes. Fire cause determination is not limited to
intentionally cause incidents, but includes all forms of accidental fires, as well. Following is a review of
fire investigation efforts in the study agencies.
Figure 113: Fire Investigation Program
JCFD3 MFR
Fire origin and cause determination
1 of 3 F&LS is on call at all
times. Often respond on the
initial call. Initial assessment
completed by line personnel
with F&LS personnel.
Referred to on call
investigator if undetermined
or suspicious in nature.
Line crews complete initial
assessment. More complex,
large loss and suspicious fires
referred to FLSD.
Arson investigation and prosecution
Prosecuted by City Police,
County Sheriff’s Office or
State Police Arson unit,
depending on jurisdiction.
Prosecuted by City Police,
County Sheriff’s Office or
State Police Arson unit,
depending on location.
Arson investigation training provided
All F&LS staff are
appropriately trained and
certified via local IAAI
training. 24 hours/year plus
monthly training.
All FLSD staff are
appropriately trained and
certified via local IAAI
training.
Person responsible for investigations Fire Marshal
Fire Marshal, Inspectors, and
Captains
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
105
JCFD3 MFR
Local FIT membership (fire
investigation team)
Regional team is in place and
F&LS participates
Regional team is in place and
FLSD is active
Process for handling juvenile suspects
Processed via County Juvenile
Court
Citation process via City Police
Department
Liaison with law enforcement F&LS investigator Fire Marshal/Investigators
Scene control practices in place Yes Yes
Photographer available Yes Yes
Adequate and appropriate
equipment issued/supplied
Yes Yes
Evidence collection process in place Yes Yes
Release required for entry Yes Yes
Reports and records of all incidents
made
Yes Yes
File, record, and evidence security
Records secured in
administrative offices.
Evidence is not stored in Fire
District facilities.
Records secured, evidence
secured via Police
Department.
Observations:
 The determination of a fire’s origin and cause is handled in a similar manner in both
organizations. Line personnel are appropriately trained in initial investigation practices and
more complex fires are referred to fire prevention staff, as needed.
 Investigation and prosecution of intentionally caused or suspicious fires is properly channeled
through law enforcement agencies.
 Appropriate documentation and record keeping practices are in place.
 The two organizations demonstrate a high level of appreciation for the importance of fire
prevention as a component of a community’s overall fire protection delivery. Both approach fire
prevention in a similar manner in most regards.
 Because of the way that the prevention divisions are staffed and structured, members of both
serve in multiple roles, as is commonly the case in similar sized organizations. The result is that
members serve as “Jack of all trades” in many regards, unable to focus on single areas of
emphasis. As interest in cooperation continues, multiple opportunities will present themselves
for re-thinking the deployment of fire prevention personnel. Individuals will have the
opportunity to target their efforts and specialize in areas to deliver services more effectively.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
106
TRAINING AND EDUCATION
Providing safe and quality fire and emergency services requires a well-trained workforce. Training and
education of personnel are critical functions for each study agency. Without quality, comprehensive
training programs, emergency outcomes are compromised and emergency personnel are at risk.
One of the most important jobs in any department is the thorough training of personnel. The
personnel have the right to demand good training and the department has the obligation to
provide it.
15

Proper training of emergency services personnel starts prior to being hired or joining an agency. Specific
knowledge and skills must be obtained to achieve a basic understanding of the roles and responsibilities
of an emergency responder. Placing individuals in positions of authority without first giving them the
tools to succeed often ends in failure and discouragement by both the officer and their subordinates.
ESCI reviewed the JCFD3 and MFR training programs, as summarized in the following pages.
The two study agencies have entered into a variety of joint effort to blend their training programs in the
interest of increased efficiency and reduced duplication. The efforts are encouraged and room for
additional collaboration clearly exists. In many respects, as noted in the following discussion, important
elements of shared program management and delivery are in place, however the groups have stopped
short of blending the programs to the fullest extent possible. Regardless of decisions that will be made
about future more formal, cooperative efforts, the current training program collaborative efforts should
be continued and expanded upon.
General Training Competencies
The first comparison reviews the fundamental components that are considered the most foundational
elements of an effective training program.

15
Klinoff, Robert. Introduction to Fire Protection, Delmar Publishers, 1997. New York, NY.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
107
Figure 114: General Training Competencies
JCFD3 MFR
Incident command system – cert
levels defined?
NIMS based NIMS based
Accountability procedures Passport Passport
Policy and procedures Yes Yes
Safety procedures
OSHA safety standards
addressed
Yes
Recruit academy
Defined in the District’s
Development Plan. Start with
an 8 week in-house academy.
Upon completion, assigned to
a shift with identified task
completion requirements
with review each shift plus
quarterly task performance
evaluations a final one-year
evaluation process. Well-
structured program.
In-house recruit academy
ranges from 8 to 12 weeks
generally. Addresses
identified internal needs.
Structured, mapped out – 40
hour week. Targets FFI and II
certification and wildland
firefighting certification upon
completion. Supplemented
with additional “advanced
academy” during the
probationary year.
Special rescue (high angle, confined
space, etc.)
Train rope rescue, swift water
and confined space rescue at
technician level for team
members, operations for all
others.
Awareness level minimum in:
Low angle rescue, confined
space, trench rescue, swift
water rescue.
Hazardous materials
Awareness and Operations
level
HazMat team members at
technical level
Wildland firefighting
S130/190 levels, some at
higher levels
S130/131/190 levels
Vehicle extrication
Yes. Included in ongoing
training plans.
Yes. Included in recruit
academy and ongoing
training.
Defensive driving
Addressed in entry level
training plus annual
continuing training. NFPA
Driver course used.
EVOC course used to some
extent. Not annual
certification. Consistent
driving instruction Included in
advanced recruit academy.
Use and care of small tools Yes Yes
Radio communications & dispatch
protocol?
Yes Yes
EMS skills and protocol?
EMT-B, minimum plus ALS
continuing education based
on state requirements.
EMT-B, minimum plus ALS
continuing education based
on state requirements.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
108
Observations:
 ESCI’s review of the general training competencies indicates that the agencies adequately
address the basic topics that we expect to find in a quality training program. Collaboration is
apparent in that the agencies share fundamental training initiatives such as incident command
and personnel accountability systems, a positive attribute.
 While training content is similar, delivery of education is largely separated. One example is the
training of new firefighters which is handled similarly, yet independently in the two
organizations.

Recommendations:
 The study departments should consider and evaluate the feasibility of a joint recruit academy to
ensure compatibility of initial training.
 JCFD3 should ensure that all response personnel are trained to the hazardous materials
operations level in accordance with OSHA regulations.
 Both departments should implement similar driver training courses to ensure consistency across
the region and potentially reduce costs.
Training Administration
To function effectively, a training program needs to be managed. Administrative program support is
important, though frequently weakly addressed. An additional element of effective administration is the
development of program guidance in the form of training plans and goals.
Figure 115: Training Program Administration
JCFD3 MFR
Director of training program
Division Chief of Training and
Safety and Staff Assistant
Battalion Chief of Training and
Safety. (Training Chief)
Goals and objectives identified
Identified in the Development
Plan and District Strategic Plan
strategies relative to training.
Training calendar is developed
based on program goals and
objectives in a working
document but not a specific
document defining program
goals and objectives.
Training Committee in place
Also a 7 member Training
Committee. Each is a section
lead.
Yes. Committee of lead
instructors, approximately 14
members.
Observations:
 Both training programs are well-developed and a valuable approach is in place in the form of
training “leads,” essentially individuals that are tasked with responsibility for delivery of
educational content in defined subject areas. The system is well organized and effectively
distributes the workload associated with training delivery.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
109
Training Planning and Scheduling
For training delivery to be effective it must be well planned and carefully organized. Content should be
developed based on defined goals and objectives and an annual training plan should be in place.
Figure 116: Training Planning
JCFD3 MFR
Training objective (who, level, etc.)
Defined in the Development
Plan
Defined in the Succession Plan
Employee development program
used
Development Plan is in place Included in the Succession Plan
Goals and objectives identified
In the Development Plan and
District Strategic Plan.
Generally only. Via the training
calendar.
Budget allocated to training
$156,000 exclusive of
personnel costs
$137,470
16

Using certified instructors Yes Yes
Annual training report produced
Included in the District’s
quarterly report which is
combined and an annual
report.
Training hours summary only.
Adequate training
space/facilities/equipment
The training program is well
supported with needed
resources.
Adequate, however training
ground facilities are aging,
deteriorating.
Maintenance of training facilities Adequate Inadequate
Observations:
 Training objectives are defined in a similar manner in both organizations. A development plan in
JCFD3, called a succession plan in MFR, establishes training direction, goals, and objectives.
 Training is planned collaboratively, but only to a limited extent. A shared training calendar is
developed, but not utilized to the full potential of the concept.
 Multiple opportunities exist to establish a highly collaborative training program, shared by the
two agencies.


16
Includes training funds from MRFPD2.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
110
Training Facilities and Resources
To be able to deliver effective training to fire and EMS personnel, some resources are necessary to arm
the trainer with the tools needed to provide adequate educational content. Training facilities and
resources are summarized below.
Figure 117: Training Facilities and Resources
JCFD3 MFR
Training facilities (tower, props,
pits)
5 story tower and drill site at
the White City Station. 3.5
acres.
Tower and props on a
dedicated training ground.
i) live fire prop
Shipping containers used for
live fire
Multiple small fire props
ii) fire and driving grounds
Driving area included around
the drill tower
Yes
Classroom facilities
Classroom in the
Administration Building plus a
small conference room; a
classroom in the White City
Station, and a dirty classroom
on the drill ground next to the
facilities/logistics building.
At training ground and in
stations. Converting ventilation
prop area into a “dirty
classroom” also.
Video, computer simulations
Portable AV kit, multiple
computer resources. Well
supplied.
Adequately supplied. Well-
equipped in stations and new
simulation program.
Books, magazines, instructional
materials
Adequately supplied Adequately supplied
Observations:
 Training grounds, props, and classroom facilities are available in both organizations. MFR
maintains a training site with a drill tower. However, the facility is aging and is reported to have
multiple maintenance issues that need to be addressed.
 JCFD3 has a large, well developed training facility that includes a five-story drill tower and
multiple props. The site has plentiful room for vehicle maneuvering and is well equipped. In
addition, classroom facilities are readily available in the adjacent fire station and administration
building.
 As the two agencies work more closely together, opportunities exist to make more efficient use
of both facilities. Several steps are already in place to develop defined props at one site or the
other to eliminate duplication.


Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
111
Training Procedures and Methodology
Of equal importance to program planning, educational contact hours and available tools is the
methodology with which training is delivered. Procedures and training manuals need to establish a
balance between the provision of didactic information and the hands-on practice of manipulative skills.
Training procedures in the study agencies are summarized below:
Figure 118: Training Procedures and Methodology
JCFD3 MFR
Training manual developed and
used
Primarily identified in the
Development Plan.
Essentially outlined in the
Performance Guidelines and
Succession Plan documents.
Attention to safety High High
Post incident analysis Routinely Routinely
Priority by management toward
training
High High
Manipulative skills methodology Yes Yes
Task performances/frequency
Task performance
evaluations are conducted
as needed for various
levels of certification by
DPSST; Quarterly
performance evaluations of
all paid crews are
conducted at the end of
each quarter and are
related to training topics of
that quarter.
In the form of Performance
Guidelines
Annual training hours Defined at the state level Defined at the state level
Use of lesson plans Performance Guidelines only Performance Guidelines only
Night drills Occasionally Occasionally
Multi-agency drills Yes Yes
Inter-station drills Yes Yes
Disaster drills conducted
Annual Disaster Drill at the
County level
Occasionally
Annual performance evaluation
conducted
Quarterly “company
performance evaluation”
conducted as skills assessment
process. Accommodates
individual assessment at a
company level.
An informal annual skills
assessment process is in place
on an ongoing basis. Not an
annual program. Specific Semi-
annual check-off for ladder and
pump operator, also company
officer.
Observations:
 Training methodologies in the two organizations are similar in many respects and continuing
efforts are under way to blend the training programs together where possible. JCFD3 is currently
developing performance guidelines to mirror those that are in place in Medford, to the extent
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
112
that is feasible, and a two year training calendar is jointly developed, broken down into annual
and quarterly components. Each section has a quarterly theme general topic area, identified
together by the training staff.
 JCFD3 has a well-developed approach to periodic skills assessment by way of a quarterly
performance evaluation practice. MFR has an informally organized annual skills assessment
process that is loosely defined. Periodic evaluation of firefighter’s hands-on capabilities is highly
important, but also time consuming.
 The two training programs are integrated to some degree in the form of coordinated scheduling,
planning, and initiatives to avoid duplication. However, performance guidelines differ and are
not fully aligned, which challenges joint training. In addition, information developed in the
course of stakeholder interviews indicated that, while training calendars are developed jointly,
they are not effectively coordinated, or integrated to the degree that they have been in the
past. Commendably, many of the key aspects of training are united and continued efforts will
prove beneficial in bringing the programs more closely together.

Recommendation:
 Both departments should work closely with local emergency management personnel to ensure
inclusion in periodic regional disaster exercises and drills.
 Both departments should implement a formal program of periodic performance and skills
evaluation at a department level.
Training Records and Recordkeeping
Record keeping is important both to track training delivery, as well as to assure that multiple continuing
education requirements are met. The following figure compares the study agencies’ record keeping and
reporting.
Figure 119: Training Records
JCFD3 MFR
Individual training files maintained Yes Yes
Records and files computerized
CertRight Training Records
Management System
In Firehouse Software
Daily training records Yes Yes
Company training records Yes Yes
Training equipment inventoried
Not formally. AV equipment is
tracked through the IT
Department.
Yes
Pre-fire planning included in
training
Target hazard occupancy walk
through tours are done
routinely.
Yes
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
113
Observations:
 Both of the agencies maintain appropriate records and reporting on their training activities.
Should the two decide to move forward with more formal cooperative efforts initiatives, a single
training records management software program will need to be established.
 Both organizations share common training needs and incorporate the same ongoing training
standards and requirements. A similar program management approach is used in both
instances, including the designation of subject matter experts to provided educational outreach
in defined areas, a system that is duplicated in both programs. Lesson plans and training
guidelines are also common, many of which are developed jointly, yet kept separate based on
concerns with agency identity and logos.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
114
LOGISTICS
Logistics is the term used to describe what used to be called “supplies.” It refers to the procurement,
management, and delivery of the goods and materials required to keep a fire department’s emergency
responders equipped with the things they need. This also includes the materials needed by office staff
and other support divisions to carry out their parts of the organization’s overall mission. Of course, that
leads back to the support of those personnel carrying out the department’s core missions.
The logistics team is responsible for the day-to-day management of inventory purchase, storage, and
delivery. Doing that job effectively requires attention to the purchasing of supplies—deciding which
vendors to use, how much to keep on hand, and how to keep that inventory safe from misuse or loss.
Communication Equipment and Systems
Radio communications, essential to firefighter safety as well as fireground effectiveness, requires
complex equipment that tends to present high maintenance costs. JCFD3 and MFR have assigned
responsibility for communications equipment as listed below.
Figure 120: Communications Equipment and Systems
JCFD3 MFR
Communications equipment and
systems
Battalion Chief is responsible
for communications
equipment. A radio room
houses a reserve of
communication’s equipment.
Effective system in place.
A shift engineer is responsible
for ordering and maintenance.
Generally handled on days off
with overtime.
Observations:
 The above approach works for both organizations. However the assignment of on-shift
personnel is reportedly problematic when issues arise on the responsible employee’s days off.
As a result, either problems do not get addressed in a timely manner or overtime cost is
incurred.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
115
Supply Request and Delivery Systems
At one time it was not unusual to find large quantities of certain supplies stored in fire department
facilities. Today, most departments adhere to a just-in-time philosophy, recognizing that certain supplies
can be “stockpiled” at the various vendors rather than in a department facility. The main exceptions to
this rule are those items identified as “mission critical” or which are difficult to obtain on short notice.
Certain firefighting supplies and equipment fall into this category.
Figure 121: Supply Request and Delivery Systems
JCFD3 MFR
Station supplies
Managed via an outside
vendor for career stations.
Volunteer stations are supplied
through a central supply
system at the White City
Station.
Shift firefighter manages
station supplies with off duty
hours, assisted by on duty
personnel at Station 6.
Firefighting supplies and small
equipment
Centralized supply system is in
place at the White City Station.
Assigned to another line
person
EMS supplies and equipment
A Captain is responsible for
EMS supplies. Stored in central
supply at White City Station.
Same as above
Observations:
 JCFD3 uses a combination of contracted supply services, Logistics Division staff, and internal task
assignment to individual shift personnel. MFR distributes these responsibilities between
multiple shift members.
 The current approach has been developed by necessity and availability of personnel. However,
the system is fragmented and some areas, particularly those assigned to shift personnel do not
always receive timely attention or incur overtime costs.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
116
Purchasing Systems
In the area of purchasing there are two issues: who to buy from, and how to process those purchases.
The first is managed through the logistics function. The second is more commonly managed through the
finance function (with logistics following policies and practices dictated by finance). In smaller
organizations the logistics and finance functions may reside in the same individual or office. In larger
organizations they may be separate, but they still work together closely.
Figure 122: Purchasing Systems
JCFD3 MFR
Purchase ordering process
Purchase Order process is in
place. Is balanced against each
category budget. Must be
signed by Operations Chief,
referred to finance.
Supplies stocked are ordered
by phone. Purchases processed
via a City purchase order
process.
Inventory and equipment/supply
access
Some controls are in place but
are weak. Currently being
addressed.
Tracked with request forms.
Observations:
 Purchase ordering and control practices are in place in both organizations and appear to be
adequate.
 Inventory control could be improved in both agencies.
Inventory Storage and Controls
A well-organized logistics function will also analyze the market regularly to make sure that its current
vendors still provide the best value to the department. Value is defined as a combination of both price
and reliability. The well-run logistics function also incorporates safeguards to ensure against both
complacency and fraud. The ordering of office supplies and toilet paper may be mundane, but it is in the
area of relatively small purchases that public sector fraud is discovered at times.
Figure 123: Inventory Storage and Controls
JCFD3 MFR
Centralized inventory
facilities/systems
Inventory is primarily located
in Logistics and White City
Station. Uniforms, EMS
supplies and fire supplies are
inventoried. Some firefighting
equipment is not adequately
inventoried and tracked.
None. Turnouts, EMS and
station supplies are housed at
Station 6. All other equipment
and supplies are stored at
various stations where space is
available.
Equipment/supply ordering
Request is made to a Support
Assignee (shift member) or
Facilities and Logistics Manger
Phone call to station 6 for
stored supply.
Equipment/supply delivery
May be delivered by BC or
Logistics or picked up by crews
Senior volunteer or BC will
deliver or crew will pick up.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
117
Observations:
 Inventory and control of access to equipment and supply stocks differs considerably between
the agencies and is reported to be limited in some regards. Improved inventory controls can
result in cost savings.

Recommendation:
 Both departments should implement formal inventory controls of equipment and supplies.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
118
Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance
Vehicle maintenance in the City of Medford is conducted by the City’s maintenance facility with the
exception of staff vehicle maintenance which is generally performed by a commercial shop. The City
shop has the ability and training to address the majority of fire apparatus issues and two of the shop
personnel are certified Emergency Vehicle Technicians.
Figure 124: Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance
JCFD3 MFR
Vehicle maintenance facility
Previously completed in-
house. Recently transitioned to
use of the City shop
exclusively.
City operated maintenance
shop.
Processes for requesting repair or
maintenance
Apparatus binder in vehicles
has a form to track
maintenance requests. System
is also backed by a redundant
electronic request and tracking
system.
Service request form is
submitted to City shops.
Tracked in shops, records are
well maintained.
Equipment/supply ordering
Request is made to a Support
Assignee (shift member) or
Facilities and Logistics Manger.
Requests submitted to the
individual assigned to the area.
Observations:
 In the last two years, JCFD3 changed from completing their vehicle maintenance in-house to
using the City of Medford’s maintenance facility. Those interviewed from the City did not
indicate issues with vehicle maintenance; however, JCFD3 stakeholders expressed problems
with inadequate repairs and repeating problems.

Recommendation:
 Both departments should monitor vehicle maintenance reports and ensure that maintenance is
being performed efficiently and effectively by certified personnel.


Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
119
Future Opportunities for Cooperative Efforts
While the preceding sections of this report are intended to provide each department with a type of
scorecard for their own internal purposes, the overall intent of this project was to identify areas in which
the organizations could work more closely together through cooperative efforts. The following
paragraphs serve to outline the various options and alternatives that are available as the departments
move forward in serving the future populations and service demand.
GENERAL PARTNERING STRATEGIES
In order to discuss partnering strategies, the terms and definitions used to describe them must first be
understood. The following terms, while not necessarily described by statute, provide general
descriptions of each strategy and an explanation of the differentiation between various approaches to
partnering.
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
An agreement between agencies as provided for by ORS 190, often referred to as “190 Agreements.”
This can include shared or contracted programmatic services, referred to as functional unification. Areas
that could be of focus between JCFD3 and MFR include administrative services, Training, IT, code
enforcement, fire protection, public education, scene command and control, closest unit response,
shared response guidelines, logistics and wellness, to name a few. Another, more advanced level of
partnership is shared or contracted services, referred to as “contract for services.” While the two study
agencies are not currently unified, the response to emergencies jointly through the automatic aid
agreement is illustrative of the type of cooperation one would expect to find as organizations begin to
“operate as one.” The most “global” IGA would be one that has the City of Medford contracting for fire
services with JCFD3.
When two or more agencies enter a collaborative relationship, to combine one or more functions
typically through an IGA, no permanent organizational commitment is made, and all decision-making
power remains with individual organizations unless specified in the agreement. An example of the
transitioning of authority would be one agency agreeing, through an IGA, to allow another agency to
provide administrative oversight, such as is currently accomplished by JCFD3 and JCFD4 for
administrative services. Interagency collaboration may include participation of fire agencies in regional
activities such as local fire management associations (such as fire defense boards), mutual aid
agreements, and interagency disaster planning exercises. As a rule, most modern fire agencies
consistently operate in a very collaborative mode, having learned long ago the value of the practice.
Many times, close collaboration between two or more organizations will lead to a legal integration.
State law declares intergovernmental cooperation as a matter of statewide concern and grants cities
and special districts broad power to contract with other governmental entities for any function or
activity the agencies have authority to perform. Specifically, ORS 190.007 declares that
intergovernmental cooperation is “…in the interest of furthering economy and efficiency in local
government, intergovernmental cooperation is declared a matter of statewide concern.”
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
120
ORS 190.010 gives local government the authority to enter into agreements that provide for the
performance of a function or activity:
 By a consolidated department;
 By jointly providing for administrative officers;
 By means of facilities or equipment jointly constructed, owned, leased or operated.
 By one of the parties for any other party;
 By an intergovernmental entity created by the agreement and governed by a board or
commission appointed by, responsible to and acting on behalf of the units of local
government that are parties to the agreement;
 By a combination of the methods described in that section.
Legal Integration
Legal integration consists of combining two or more agencies into one agency, including all aspects of
policy, administration, governance, financing, functions, and operations. These occur generally in three
forms; merger, consolidation, and annexation.
 Merger – A form of legal integration where an agency(s) ceases to exist by being absorbed
into a single surviving district.
 Consolidation – A form of legal integration where two or more agencies form a new,
successor agency.
 Annexation – A form of legal integration where an agency extends its boundaries outside of
its previous limits. While the law allows one agency to expand its boundaries to annex
another agency into its service area, it may only do so if the involved agencies are formed
under differing statutory authority, or an agency dissolves, rendering it available for
annexation.
17
The appropriate means of legally integrating a city and a fire district in the
State of Oregon is through annexation of the city into the fire district.
Partnering Options
As they relate to JCFD3 and MFR, partnering opportunities are discussed in greater detail in the
following section, beginning with a status quo approach and progressing incrementally to complete legal
integration of the agencies. The following options are discussed:
 Status Quo (continuation of existing IGAs)
 Expansion of existing IGAs
 Contract for Services
 Legal Integration – Annexation

17
Oregon Department of Revenue, Boundary Change Information, pamphlet 150-504-405, 12/10, page 5.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
121
Status Quo (continuation of existing IGAs)
This option continues the current status of the two organizations without change. JCFD3 and MFR simply
continue to do business as usual, cooperating with and supporting each other as is currently done, with
no change to governance, staffing, or deployment of resources. The current collaborative practices,
through regional IGAs, and through those explicit to the two organizations, would remain in effect.
JCFD3 and MFR are party to at least two organization specific IGAs, as determined from the information
ESCI was provided. These are:
 Shared Duty Officer and Battalion Chief Response – 6/2013
 Fleet Maintenance, Repair, Fuel Purchases and Equipment Rental and Use – 11/2013
In addition to these formal agreements, the departments cooperate informally in several other areas
including fit testing, hose loads, hose colors, hose sizes, similar SCBA and RIT packs and radio types. ESCI
commends JCFD3 and MFR in the development of these IGAs; particularly the one explicit to their
sharing of a duty officer and battalion chief response. Through the sharing of a duty officer and battalion
chief response, the entire region has the ability to call upon command-level personnel from either
department to assist with duties and responsibilities outside station-level response. In addition, involved
incidents, such as structure fires, have a second battalion chief respond (from either jurisdiction) to
function as an additional resource to the on-scene command officer.
Expansion of Existing IGAs
Not only do the two agencies collaborate in the areas noted above, JCFD3 and MFR should continue to
investigate future collaboration opportunities including:
 Shared administrative and support services
 Shared operations oversight
 Code enforcement and life safety, fire prevention services, public education and information
programs (functional unification)
 Joint purchasing and logistics
 Regional training program
These potential additional IGAs or amendments to existing IGAs further unify the two agencies while
maintaining specified independence, or by the assumption of independence through the agreements
being mute to specific functions. This approach lacks the long-term commitment discussed above as well
as the advantages that could be gained in terms of increased efficiency that are realized in a long-term
integrated service delivery environment.
This list of potential future additions to the existing IGAs further blurs the lines between the two
agencies, retaining little in the way of distinction between the two agencies as separate. The only major
components remaining separated are fire chief/CEO position, policy- and budget-setting, and full
emergency operations. In the case of the latter, the emergency operations unification concept is
somewhat forwarded with the addition of duty officer coverage.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
122
Contract for Services
The contract for services strategy takes the next step in the continuum of increasing collaboration. In
this case, all operations are unified under a single organizational structure; both agencies would remain
independent, from a legal standpoint, but from a service delivery perspective they would operate as
one. A contract for services, accomplished through an IGA, is usually used to segue toward complete
integration, or at least provide the opportunity for each agency to be able to “benchmark” progress and
performance, and assess the true impact on service delivery. The level of trust required to implement a
contract for services needs to be high, since independence and autonomy in core mission activities
(emergency operations) have been subordinated to the best interest of the region, or in favor of the
preferred future state of a complete integration if that decision were to be made in the future.
If a contract for services were to be considered, an administrative IGA would need to be put in place first
to establish a reporting system and single policy oversight body for the chief to report to. Basic
considerations in the agreement would need to include, but not necessarily be limited to, unity of
command, chain of command, span of control, authority, and standardized policies, guidelines,
practices, and reporting protocols. Based on experience in these matters, ESCI recommends the IGA
would provide for a three to five year term of agreement.
Legal Integration
Oregon law provides for the complete integration of agencies as described at the beginning of this
section. Legal integration requires an affirmative vote of the electors of the affected jurisdictions. Of all
options for shared service, integration (annexation) requires the most exacting legal process.
The integration of fire protection services involves a change in governance of one or more entities; the
process is guided by ORS 190, ORS 198, and ORS 478. Single purpose governmental units (such as fire
districts) typically have the power to merge and consolidate with other service providers much more
freely than cities. Cities may annex to neighboring fire districts to take advantage of economies of scale,
and to more effectively plan for an orderly expansion of the city within its urban growth boundary.
Annexation
ORS states: “Annexation includes the attachment or addition of territory to, or inclusion of territory in,
an existing district.”
18
Annexations are more typical in the city/fire district relationship, where a city will
ask voters to approve the annexation of the city into the fire district, and levy a pre-determined tax rate
to be collected and turned over to the fire district. The fire district assumes all responsibility for fire
protection within both the fire district’s and the city’s boundaries.
In the case of JCFD3 and MFR, complete annexation between the two agencies can occur only if the City
of Medford takes the step of being annexed into JCFD3. Although outside the scope of this study, there
is also the potential for JCFD3 and MRFPD2 to come together through merger. Since MRFPD2 currently
relies on MFR for fire protection and other emergency services, their continued and constant
involvement in the decision-making process will be critical to a successful final outcome.

18
Oregon Revised Statute 198.705(14).
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
123
Success Factors
The success of a strategic restructuring, regardless of the type, depends on many things. In ESCI’s
experience with dozens of alliances and integrations however, leadership is the single factor that most
frequently determines success. Nearly always, key staff or elected officials champion the concept
garnering the support of the various affected groups (political, labor, member, and community). In
addition, good leadership fosters an organizational culture receptive to planning, calculated risk taking,
and flexibility. The manner in which leaders promote a trusting relationship between all groups, and aid
two-way communication between them, is essential. From these issues, research done by Kohm, Piana,
and Gowdy identifies five factors that most often seem to contribute to the successful implementation
of a unification or integration.
19
The five are:
 Leadership that believes strongly in the partnership and demonstrates this belief, often by
acting selflessly to maintain it.
 Multiple forms of communication to keep all persons (policy makers, staff, members, and
community) up to date about plans, problems, and benefits concerning the partnership.
 Face-to-face communications with partner organizations in the form of meetings, training, and
other forums to build trust and understanding among staff.
 Flexibility through an expectation that even in the best-planned partnership unforeseen issues
will arise, mistakes will be made, and alternative paths will be identified.
 Early evidence of benefit to assure everyone that they are on the right track, such as better or
less expensive employee benefits or improved facilities.
Restructuring Pitfalls
Organizational alliances and integrations fail for many reasons, such as: the proposal being ruined by an
unfavorable outcome of a public election, or the reality of financial analysis. These issues aside,
however, four major pitfalls can cause even the most feasible alliances or integrations to go wrong:
command, communication, control, and culture.
Command
Undertaking any partnership absolutely requires that effective leadership be demonstrated consistently
at all levels. Policymakers and administrators must guide their respective agencies, yet (at the same
time) they must cooperate with partner organizations. Differing leadership styles may tend to cause
repressed friction at best and open conflict at worst. Problems with sharing control and making
decisions sends the wrong message to the members of the organization, which can lead to an unraveling
of even the best proposal.

19
Amelia Kohm, David La Piana, and Heather Gowdy, “Strategic Restructuring, Findings from a Study of
Integrations and Alliances Among Nonprofit Social Service and Cultural Organizations in the United States,” Chapin
Hall, June 2000, page 22.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
124
Communication
Silence or limited information from leaders about potential or upcoming partnerships breeds fear,
mistrust, and misinformation among affected persons. The leadership of collaborating organizations
must agree to communicate actively with all affected groups. Everyone must be provided the same
information at the same time. Most importantly, leaders must demonstrate two-way communication
skills by carefully listening to (and acting on) the concerns of all constituents.
It is important to note that while regular, ongoing communication is important, this should not be
confused with a democratic process. Unification or integration requires firm leadership and bold
decision-making of often unpopular initiatives. A clear vision of the future and an unrelenting resolve to
achieve that desired state is imperative to success.
Control
Frequently, the strategic partnering process is compared to a marriage: “Marriage is when two people
become as one; the trouble starts when they try to decide which one.”
20
As in marriage, strategic
restructuring often fails because of organizational or personal agendas, and egocentric issues. The
tenets of leadership require that someone be in charge, but in the interest of greater good, some of
those in leadership positions must agree to yield power. Some who are accustomed to operating in a
position of control may have trouble adjusting to new roles that require more collaboration, although,
personal sacrifice in the interest of community good may not always win out.
Culture
The general characteristics of a fire department encourage the creation of a culture unique to that
organization. The paramilitary structure, the reliance on teamwork, and the hazards of the work builds
strong bonds between members who tend to share group behaviors, assumptions, beliefs, and values.
Bringing two such groups together, with cultures formed through different experiences, always results in
a change to both organizational cultures. If the partnership is successful, no one culture will overcome
the other - instead, a new culture will evolve from the two; conversely if the organizational cultures are
incompatible, the partnership will fail.
Leaders must be aware of organizational culture and its role in the wellness of the agency’s soul. Early
recognition by leadership of the importance of culture to the success of a partnership can help to
overcome differences and build on strengths.
The authors of the book “Making the Pieces Fit” state: “Last but not least, it is important to be firm with
the plan. There will be individuals who will not necessarily support every decision and who will not
always give their best effort to ensure that the transition is handled efficiently and effectively. It is
imperative that those in a leadership role explain to everyone involved the importance of their
participation. Stress that they are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner at all times
despite personal opinions, which may or not be consistent with those in charge.”
21


20
Source unknown.
21
“Making The Pieces Fit,” Snook and Johnson; Jones & Bartlett Publishers/IAFC, page 82, 1997.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
125
Options for Shared Service
In the following section, ESCI examines the general partnering strategies in further detail and explores
their feasibility. ESCI references the following considerations in this discussion.
Strategic Scope
The decision regarding whether to establish a single agency or create smaller program partnerships can
be complex and even intimidating. ESCI has evaluated the feasibility of a range of cooperative effort
strategies between JCFD3 and MFR. A combined agency may well be complex and challenging to
accomplish in the near term, as discussed later in this section. Several smaller partnerships and/or
cooperative effort strategies are often more easily implemented as a precursor to more complex and
involved strategies such as a fully integrated fire agency.
Key Elements
MFR and JCFD3 currently have several significant commonalities. Both agencies are dependent on each
other to effectively combat moderate to large fires and other major incidents that pose a risk to their
respective community. In addition, the study departments currently share certain functional and
operational components. ESCI brings focus to three key elements during the development of proposed
strategies.
 Increased Efficiency: Strategic options must identify ways to increase efficiency through
elimination of redundancies in both administration and operations.
 Cost Containment: Strategic options must be evaluated according to their ability to contain and
potentially reduce costs to each agency.
 Service Delivery: Strategic options must also be evaluated based upon the quality, needs for,
and sustainability of services. Closer cooperation in service delivery can many times reduce costs
and increase operational effectiveness for agencies.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
126
Strategy A: Status Quo
Level of cooperation
This strategy requires a continuing commitment to existing agreements and periodic review/updates.
Estimated timeline for completion
Immediate
Affected sections
None – this is a continuation of existing conditions
Affected stakeholders
MFR and JCFD3, their members and the communities served.
Summary/Objective of strategy
Maintain and build upon the value derived from existing shared services; no new shared services are
anticipated.
ESCI guidance
Policy makers should ensure that discussions and decisions focus on the desired outcomes and best
interests of the communities served and also to fully commit to the improvement and successes of the
existing shared service programs. The current IGAs, based on ESCI’s observations and stakeholder
feedback, are productive and add value to the efficiency and effectiveness of each agency. For example,
through the sharing of an on-duty officer and battalion chief coverage, the departments are able to
ensure that command staff are readily available at all hours of the day. In addition, providing additional
battalion chief response to all major incidents allows for greater scene control and safety. The outcomes
of these cooperative agreements should be studied more in depth by the participating organizations.
Special/Social considerations
This option continues to afford the policy makers with a high level of control as only the current set of
fire protection issues contained in the IGA will necessitate interagency review and decisions. No internal
impact is likely to occur socially as this represents current status. The communities served will not be
impacted.
Policy actions
No policy action necessary.
Fiscal considerations
The status quo represents no shift in cost or change in efficiency.
Issues & Impacts
No changes over current state. The human reaction and uncertainty of change has already been
processed and accepted by stakeholder groups. Each agency, however, should continue to have frank
discussions about the future of their respective organization so that fears of, “…what tomorrow holds…”
can be alleviated.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
127
Strategy B: Expansion of Existing IGAs – Functional Unification
Level of cooperation
This strategy requires alignment of standard operating guidelines, policies, procedures and certain
operational aspects to make the combined functions perform properly.
Success of a functional unification strategy is built upon 1) an essential trust relationship between the
partner agencies; 2) the thoroughness of the agreement; 3) a collaborative approach to the
management of the programs; and 4) community understanding and support. Since the two agencies
already operate via an IGA for some functionally unified sections, the foundation to build from has been
created. The areas to be considered could include, but not necessarily limited to:
Shared Administrative and Support Services Timeline: Short term
Objective: Sharing the administrative and support elements of the study agencies to promote
improved efficiencies by eliminating duplication in administrative and support positions.
Summary Background: A sharing of administrative resources occurs when two or more agencies
maintain their separate legal status and separate operational elements but combine some or all of
their administrative functions such as overall oversight authority, planning, policy making, personnel,
budget, emergency preparedness, information technology, clerical responsibilities, etc.
Policy Action: Evaluate current administrative and support duties and responsibilities. Identify
redundancies and potential reductions. Determine appropriate levels of staff.
Pro
 Improved interdepartmental consistency
in human resources, hiring, payroll and
other administrative functions.
 Reduction in redundancy resulting in
better efficiency.
 Increased focus on specialty programs and
services.
 Coordinated planning.
Con
 Potential loss of individual departmental
identity.
 Difficulty in merging payroll and other human
resources systems.
 Challenges in merging technologies.
 Challenges in merging processes and
procedures.
Fiscal Considerations:
 Should result in lower personnel costs by removing redundant positions.
 May require new personnel management IT system(s).

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
128
Shared Operations Services Timeline: Short term
Objective: Provide a system of shared operational services and employees.
Summary Background: Shared operations services would include day-to-day operational oversight
and management of all operational functions. Coordinated staff and command functions would be
managed in a unified manner. The assignment and direction of staffing and apparatus related to
emergency fire and medical services would be handled by the consolidated operations division. All
facilities and equipment resources assigned to the agencies will be managed and allocated in the best
interest of the jurisdictions being served. This IGA should provide better depth of service and afford
more effective utilization of resources as they are needed throughout the day and night.
Policy Action: Direct the chief and executive staff to establish an operations task which shall develop
a plan to be considered for implementation. Once developed and adopted by executive staff the IGA
could be considered for approval and implementation by the elected officials of both agencies.
Pro
 Increased safety for all regional
responders.
 Better deployment of limited resources
 Increased depth of service throughout the
area.
 Excellent career development
opportunities for officers through
exposure to a variety of incidents and
situations.
 Improved focus on specialty programs.
 Standardization of emergency response
protocols and practices.
 Increased flexibility in staffing.
Con
 Officers would need to become familiar with
geographic areas that they may or may not
currently be familiar with.
 Organizational members will have to become
familiar with practices that they might not have
experience with at this time.
Fiscal Considerations:
 Additional training may be required to familiarize all personnel with each other’s operational
practices, procedures, and standing orders and protocols.



Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
129
Regional Code Enforcement, Life Safety Education Program, Fire
Prevention Services, Public Education, and Information Programs
Timeline: Short term
Objective: Provide for a Uniform Fire Code with a single set of local amendments that apply to new
construction, remodels, and tenant improvements as well as providing for cost effective, regional code
enforcement activities, life safety, and public education and information program.
Summary Background: The study departments have adopted the state fire code and the City of Medford
has added local amendments to address issues considered unique to the jurisdiction. Adopting a single
fire code would benefit the fire departments, developers, and the citizens of the entire region. One such
benefit includes a decrease in the cumulative cost of individually developing local amendments to the
fire code. Prevention services and education programs can be more effective and efficient on a regional
basis. Investigation services could be combined and standardized similar to the existing duty officer
program.
Policy Action:
 Administrative staff should commission a task force to develop a plan for the integration of the
programs and services identified above.
 Formalize the creation of a coalition through a written agreement.
 Involve others from outside the area and from non-traditional groups (insurance industry,
educators, Oregon State Fire Marshal, media).
 Create standardized messages that can be used across the region.
 Learn from others. Model the coalition after other successful regional fire prevention and public fire
safety education programs.
 Some agreements related to current local amendments could be affected by changes or the
adoption of new amendments.
 Agencies must work closely with building officials in the adoption of local amendments.
 Develop a model citation program for local adoption as part of the local amendments.
Pro
 Fire codes and enforcement of those codes
would be more consistent throughout the
region.
 Municipalities can share resources to ensure
that programs are delivered throughout the
region.
 Reduced cost by consolidated resources.
 Consistent messaging in the areas of public
information and education will assist in
improving outcomes in the region.
Con
 Potential loss of local control of inspection
program.
 Potential loss of municipality-specific
education programs.
Fiscal Considerations:
 The elimination of duplicated staff effort.
 Cost savings can be achieved through group purchasing of materials and other media and materials.
 Marginal costs of creating a single fire code should compare favorably against the reduced level of
effort required individually by the agencies.


Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
130
Joint Purchasing and Logistics Timeline: Short to long term
Objective: Create the authority to jointly purchase and bid apparatus, equipment, safety devices,
supplies, parts and services necessary to support fire department operations and functions.
Summary Background: The study departments use and maintain a variety of emergency apparatus
types and equipment such as personal protective equipment (turnout gear, helmets, gloves, etc.), and
all sorts of small and large tools and ancillary equipment. Among the common types of apparatus and
equipment each department uses different makes, models, and configurations. A standard
specification and procurement process for apparatus, equipment, tools and supplies would result in
lower cost, faster production, training efficiencies, and safer and more efficient scene operations. A
joint purchasing and logistics program can also lead to a long-term program of sharing equipment
across the region to enhance overall capabilities. This could include a joint capital replacement plan
that encompasses all heavy rolling stock within the region, funded by individual partners.
Policy Actions:
 Administrative staff should commission a task force to develop a plan for the integration of joint
purchasing and logistics
 Policies and procedures would be developed that would address how the consolidated function
would purchase, warehouse, and distribute all needed equipment and supplies necessary to
support the fire department. This could include a joint purchasing agreement that would deal
with the bidding and purchasing of apparatus, equipment, and specific large maintenance and
repair items.

Pro
 The potential cost savings in purchasing
capital equipment can result in considerable
savings.
 Standardization of apparatus, equipment
and tools, as well as the placement of such
tools and equipment can increase on scene
efficiency and effectiveness.
 Ease of training personnel from multiple
agencies on use and operation of apparatus
and equipment.
 Joint warehousing and distribution should
reduce cost and increase efficiency in
getting the tools and supplies to the right
place on time.
Con
 Potential loss of customization in apparatus
equipment and practices.
 Achieving consistency with new practices and
procedures will take time to implement.
 Specialization of apparatus based on
community risk will impact certain equipment
needs.
 Agreement will need to be reached on what
will be purchased and utilized.

Fiscal Considerations:
 Time and effort savings by preparing fewer bid specifications.
 Cost savings in acquiring emergency fire apparatus and equipment.
 Consider the purchase of commercial or stock versus custom apparatus.
 Consider leasing versus outright purchase of emergency apparatus.
 Centralized logistical facilities will need to be made available, but could reduce warehousing cost
significantly.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
131
Regional Training Program Timeline: Short term
Objective: Consolidate training programs to provide more options that include specialized personnel
to capitalize on the instructor base and expertise of each agency.
Summary Background: The departments currently have separate training programs, which may limit
instructional opportunity, duplicate recordkeeping, and foster separation of workgroups. In addition,
JCFD3 continues to use volunteer, intern and part-time personnel where MFR does not. Consolidating
training programs will allow each agency to work side-by-side with all types and levels of personnel to
improve working relationships and foster an environment of cooperation.
Policy Action: Agencies should expand the current model of joint initial training and develop joint
ongoing training program standards and objectives that comply with published standards and
effectively address all mandatory training requirements.
Pro
 Personnel would have more options to
attend training on alternative days/nights.
 Interagency training opportunities with
consistent instruction should result in
enhanced emergency scene cooperation,
teamwork, and performance.
 Reduced cost and duplication of effort in
the planning and development of course
materials.
 Broader array of topics, apparatus, tasks,
and evolutions for personnel to
experience.
 The program could easily expand to
include other agencies, further enhancing
the training opportunities throughout the
region.
Con
 Cooperative effort may result in less agency-
specific training and flexibility.
 Additional time and effort would be experienced
in the initial development and standardization
of training manuals and curriculum.
Fiscal Considerations:
 A reduction in duplicated staff effort and training staff to develop similar but separate programs
based on the same or differing standards.
 The elimination of duplicated staff effort in the selection, development, and updating of separate
training manuals.
 Instructional time is likely impacted during multi-agency training sessions by reducing or
eliminating the time devoted to adaptive or remedial training.
 An emergency workforce trained under a cooperative system is more efficient and effective in
reducing property damage and loss during emergency incidents.
 An elimination or reduction in duplicated staff effort in the creation and updating of multiple
training plans and curriculums.
 Instructional time is increased during multi-agency training sessions.
 A reduction in costs through coordination of shared training resources and equipment.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
132
This strategy requires in-depth, multi-level and multi-functional planning, review, external and internal
discussions, collaboration and agreement among the policy makers and the administrative staff
members of both agencies. This strategy does not require formal public approval. Typically,
communities expect policy makers to guide these types of decisions.
ESCI notes that existing governing entities (Fire District Board and Medford mayor/City Council) are
preserved with a functional unification strategy, although the level of unilateral control is typically
decreased for one or both agencies. Depending on the functions being considered, the management
team of the unified programs and/or services would report to the specific policy group(s). In those types
of circumstances the expectation would be the chief/administrator would report to an oversight group
that would have representation from each agency serving in an oversight or advisory capacity unless
specified otherwise in the IGA agreements. This will be discussed later in detail.
Estimated timeline for completion
This timeline is reduced due to the familiarity each agency has toward the other given the current
relationship experienced under the existing IGAs. New issues may arise from the planning process,
however, so the importance or priority of the planning process should not be diminished or by-passed
due to presumed familiarity. If trust is high and conflicts minimal, this strategy could be accomplished in
as little as three months; however, ESCI recommends a three to 12 month planning and implementation
phase. For agreements that are more complex or involved or impact more internal stakeholders the
longer time period might be appropriate.
Affected sections
Administration, Operations, Training, Code Enforcement, Fire Prevention, Investigation Services, Public
Education, IT, Logistics and Purchasing
Affected stakeholders
While all agency members are affected in some manner, the policy makers and agency staff members
will realize the most significant effects.
Summary/Objective of strategy
The objective should be seamless unification of mutually identified functions across the two jurisdictions
by means of an intergovernmental agreement(s).
ESCI guidance
The two jurisdictions face similar challenges given present-day context. While the listed initiatives for
MFR and JCFD3 are often duplicative, the array of service functions are set in a context of differing
demographics, geography, service delivery, and community ethos.
ESCI notes that, while the administrative function of the two departments can achieve cost reductions
and cost avoidance, the same assumption cannot similarly be made for other functions. The JCFD3 fire
chief and the city manager and designated staff must establish and conduct regular joint meetings for
the purpose of establishing the parameters of the functional unification. This includes workload analysis
to ensure greatest effectiveness while maintaining proper balance. ESCI recommends that the JCFD3 fire
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
133
chief and Medford’s city manager and designated staff convene an ad hoc steering committee to work
with them for the purpose of creating a standard methodology for developing, approving, and
implementing mutually agreed upon functional plans.
Special/Social considerations
Policy makers should understand that functional unification is complex, labor-intensive and challenging;
as such, it is often a precursor for a contract for fire service or legal integration.
Functional unification can encounter an inherent administrative inflexibility resulting from political
complexities of the arrangement. Given accountability to two political bodies, administrative leaders can
be pulled in multiple directions; they may also be limited by contractual (IGA) requirements in their
ability to adjust to environmental changes. Consequently, conflicting policy directives may sometimes be
troublesome in a functionally unified agency. These challenges underscore the importance of the
founding political relationship, the contractual agreement and the skills of management to ensure
success. Depending on the form of the agreement, employees may remain with the original employer or
transfer to another employer.
22

Internal staff in the affected sections will likely require some time to adjust to new processes and
reporting relationships. The community may notice changes in who they deal with and different
processes likely employed from this strategy.
Policy actions
The policy makers will need to develop, approve and implement an intergovernmental agreement or
agreements.
Fiscal considerations
The hard costs of these additional activities and/or services absorbed by administrative personnel are
likely to be negligible if additional personnel are not hired. Workloads for these involved personnel will
increase significantly, particularly during planning and implementation periods. This will have to be
considered during the planning process.
Areas such as administrative services would likely need to be agreed to or compensated for (unless in-
kind services could be offered in exchange). A simple annual rate per FTE could be agreed upon, such as
the total annual cost of the Administrative Services function divided by the FTE count per agency, with
one agency paying the other agency their equivalent rate on an annual basis. A multitude of cost
allocation considerations are possible to account for both financial savings and the shifting of services or
functions provided.
Fire prevention services would require assigning personnel to manage and provide necessary services to
both agencies. If the MFR or JCFD3 fire marshals’ position were vacated, the salary and benefits savings
could possibly be shared by both agencies. Similar savings could be experienced of a deputy fire
marshal/inspector position were vacated rather than a fire marshal position.

22
ORS 190.020 requires that the IGA must include provisions that speak to the employment and preservation of
benefits of the employees of the entities.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
134
Information technology, planning, and GIS services; small incremental workload spikes for existing
capacity within the existing agencies should be expected. Again, a cost allocation formula can be used to
determine a cost share for each agency, or these type services could be absorbed by “the system” if
both agencies mutually agreed.
Logistics supply services would need to be determined. The geographic area covered will provide some
challenges, but a system can be developed to provide these services in a singular manner. Careful
evaluation of the impact on this function is prudent.
Training would require the assignment of personnel that are familiar with both organizations and the
differences in models currently in use; career, volunteer, etc. If a single director of training position is
created, a second FTE will be necessary to ensure that the individual needs of the agencies are being
met.
There are a variety of cost allocation or cost savings formulas that could be considered by the agencies.
Some examples are discussed later in the report.
Issues & Impacts
 A reduction in total FTEs could be expected.
 No permanent organizational commitment is made.
 All decision-making power remains with individual organizations.
 Requires a collaborative approach to the management of the functions between the two
administrations.
 Does not require public approval at the ballot box.
 Existing governing structures are preserved.
 Program managers and administrative personnel can be pulled in multiple directions if functions
are not structured properly.
 Requires blending rules, regulations, and operating procedures.
 Increased efficiency and effectiveness in functional programs.
 Increased efficiency for both organizations in all consolidated functional areas is a likely
outcome.



Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
135
Strategy C: Contract for Services
Level of cooperation
Contract for services is the combining of two agencies whereby one agency contracts with the other
agency to provide fire and emergency services. This is accomplished through mutually agreed upon
terms in an IGA by contractual authority of ORS Chapter 190.
This strategy requires alignment of virtually all fire department operations and functions. In effect, the
combined emergency resources (staffing, equipment, facilities, programs and services) of the two
agencies are configured to operate as one.
In this scenario, JCFD3 would provide fire protection and emergency medical services throughout the
City of Medford in a manner consistent with the agreement. Under this condition, the territory within
the City would be served as integrated territory with JCFD3.
JCFD3 would be responsible to maintain mutual aid agreements, automatic aid agreements, and other
standing agreements and contracts as may be necessary to ensure that effective, uninterrupted services
are provided under the conditions of the agreement.
Other areas that may be considered under the agreement could include, but not necessarily be limited
to:
 Fire and Life Safety plan review
 Fire investigation
 Fire code adoption and management
 Enforcement of applicable codes, ordinances, regulations, and statutes
 Coordinate activities with other City departments
 Provide emergency management services
 Participate in community events as appropriate

JCFD3 and the City of Medford would need to agree to compensation in consideration for the services to
be provided by JCFD3. Typically the length of the agreement would be from three to five years with
compensation detailed for each of the years of the agreement.
Similar to functional unification, success of a contract for services strategy is built upon 1) an essential
trust relationship between the partner agencies; 2) the thoroughness of the program and services
agreement; 3) universal operational standards and procedures; 4) a collaborative approach to the
management of the fire departments; and 5) community understanding and support.
This strategy requires in-depth, multi-level and multi-disciplinary planning, review, external and internal
discussions, collaboration and agreement among the policy makers and the administrative staff
members of both agencies. The result should feature a single organizational structure with roles and
responsibilities as well as agency specific expectations addressed.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
136
While this strategy does not require public approval at the ballot box, ESCI recommends a genuine effort
to gain community-wide understanding and support. Typically, the community will understand the
rationale for this type of agreement, particularly when they are accustomed to the two agencies
operating together at major emergency events.
ESCI notes that the JCFD3 Board and the Medford mayor/City Council structure remain constant with a
contract for services strategy, although the level of unilateral control for the City of Medford is
decreased.
ESCI would propose the establishment of an intergovernmental council (IGC) composed of six
representatives – two elected representatives from the City, two elected representatives from the
District, the city manager or his designee, and the JCFD3 fire chief – meet to receive information of the
interest to the parties and to make recommendations to the governing bodies on policy relating to fire
protection and emergency service within the City. During the first year of the agreement they should
meet at least quarterly. The full governing bodies of the City and the District Board should meet at least
annually.
The number and positions of personnel to be conditionally transferred at the time of the execution of
the agreement should be detailed. The transferred employees could become employees of the District
during the term of the agreement. Compensation, benefits, seniority, representation, and all other
employee considerations would need to be detailed in the agreement.
Typically the District would be afforded the opportunity to utilize the City of Medford’s facilities,
apparatus, and equipment as if they were owned by the District. Exceptions would need to be specified
in the agreement.
Estimated timeline for completion
A timeline to establish contract for services is dependent upon the number and complexity of issues
arising from the planning process. If trust is high and conflicts minimal, this strategy could be
accomplished in as little as one year; however, ESCI recommends a 12- to 24-month planning and
implementation process. There is a lot to do and consider, thus it typically takes longer than
stakeholders initially anticipate.
Affected sections
All – Operations, Administration, Personnel (HR), Finance, etc.
Affected stakeholders
All – The local communities and all agency members are affected in some manner.
Summary/Objective of strategy
The objective is seamless operations and emergency service delivery across the two jurisdictions by
means of an intergovernmental agreement.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
137
ESCI guidance
As previously noted, the agencies face the challenges associated with emergency service delivery set in a
context of differing demographics, geography, and community ethos.
ESCI notes that there are differences in the composition of personnel between MFR and JCFD3. The use
of volunteers and student interns will need to be addressed. This could create challenges in attempting
to blend emergency service delivery. By the same token there is an opportunity to expose the interns to
a more diverse experience, particularly if assigned in the City of Medford. ESCI recommends a formal
planning process to prepare for this strategy, which should include both global and strategic
components. Based on ESCI’s experience, it is essential that personnel are blended across jurisdictional
lines. ESCI notes that careful attention should be paid to local knowledge of everything from special
hazards and risks, to geographic challenges and knowledge.
Regular command and staff meetings are essential to inform the membership of process and status
reporting, to establish rules, regulations, and procedures, and to receive feedback on how things are
working at the service delivery level. These regular meetings are essential to answering questions and
addressing concerns of internal stakeholder groups. This will include planning for and addressing staffing
issues, workload considerations, and deployment just to name a few. ORS 190.020 requires that the IGA
must include provisions that speak to the employment and preservation of benefits of the employees of
the entities.
Operational employee groups should be engaged in regular discussions and allow staff to field questions
regularly. Employees need honest statements of intentions and planning; also reassurance to the extent
possible. There is no such thing as over-communicating when job security appears to be at stake or
there are major changes made to a person’s professional environment. Changes to working conditions
become a mandatory subject of bargaining. The means by which employees would be managed, and/or
transferred under a contract for services agreement, would have to be addressed specifically.
The policy makers may consider establishing a focus group of external stakeholders to use as a sounding
board on the concept of a contract for services. Select people of influence and keep them informed and
engaged. Listen carefully to their advice and concerns. As with employees, be honest and do not
speculate, but express your collective intentions. Develop a communication strategy to keep the citizens
of the combined jurisdictions informed if implementation appears a possible outcome of discussions.
Special/Social considerations
Policy makers should understand that a contract for services could serve as a precursor for legal
integration. In fact, it has been proven to be a very useful vehicle in providing agencies a chance to
function as one on a “trial basis.” Policy makers typically appreciate the fact they can establish
benchmarks and pre-determine desirable outcomes, and have a chance to monitor the results and
receive periodic feedback on how well the contract is working.
A contract for services can also encounter inherent administrative inflexibility resulting from political
complexities of the arrangement. These challenges underscore the importance of the founding political
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
138
relationship, the contractual agreement and the skills of management to ensure success. Depending on
the form of the agreement, employees may remain with the original employer or transfer to another
employer. ESCI recommends that the IGA address unity of command regarding the fire chief’s reporting
and establish the organizational structure so that the chief reports to a single policy board and/or
oversight council (IGC).
The social impacts to this strategy are significant internally and possibly externally. The operational
element represents the largest visible component of the fire departments to the community. Apparatus
and personnel from both agencies routinely working on incidents together will make the strategy very
visible to the community and to the line personnel. While this is already occurring on a smaller scale, the
magnitude of this change will be much larger.
Policy actions
The two jurisdictions will need to develop, approve, and implement an intergovernmental agreement.
The City of Medford will need to ensure that the MRFPD2 Board of Directors is involved in the process as
a major stakeholder.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
139
Fiscal considerations
Figure 125 list all the current year budgeted personnel and their associated Wages and Benefits
(Personnel Services) totaled by JCFD3 and MFR individually, and the “Combined” totals by position. Note
that for the consolidated scenario salaries, ESCI used the highest total wages for the position.
Additionally the total wages for Operational Staff include all budgeted over-time. All the positions listed
include all associated calculated benefits (health care, insurance, pension, taxes, etc.). The table also
shows the proposed consolidated FTE counts and the total wages and benefits based on the reduced
FTE. The Variance column shows the estimated savings by position.
Figure 125: Comparison of Existing FTE and Cost Combined and Consolidated



FTE Total FTE Total FTE Total FTE Total FTE Total
Fi re Chi ef 1.00 212,800 1.00 184,274 2.00 397,074 1.00 212,800 (1.00) (184,274)
Deputy Chi ef 1.00 180,000 2.00 344,248 3.00 524,248 2.00 377,752 (1.00) (146,496)
Fi re Marshal l 1.00 180,000 1.00 151,123 2.00 331,123 1.00 180,514 (1.00) (150,609)
Chi ef of Trai ni ng 1.00 170,000 1.00 154,809 2.00 324,809 2.00 348,483 - 23,674
Deputy Fi re Marshal 2.00 330,800 4.00 503,932 6.00 834,732 6.00 992,583 - 157,850
Battal i on Chi ef (Admi n) 1.00 170,000 - - 1.00 170,000 1.00 169,161 - (839)
Chi ef Fi nanci al Offi cer 1.00 170,000 - - 1.00 170,000 1.00 169,328 - (672)
IT Techni ci an 1.00 125,800 - - 1.00 125,800 1.00 125,844 - 44
Faci l i ti es/Logi sti cs Manager 1.00 93,300 - - 1.00 93,300 1.00 93,332 - 32
Cl eri cal 5.00 360,500 4.50 326,620 9.50 687,120 8.00 587,877 (1.50) (99,242)
PIO 0.15 16,733 - - 0.15 16,733 0.15 16,733 - -
Admi n. and Support Staff 15.15 2,009,933 13.50 1,665,006 28.65 3,674,938 24.15 3,274,406 (4.50) (400,533)
Battal i on Chi ef 3.00 608,700 3.00 479,169 6.00 1,087,869
Captai n 12.00 2,047,396 16.00 2,285,328 28.00 4,332,724
Engi neer/Apparatus Offi cer 12.00 1,757,870 15.00 1,966,462 27.00 3,724,331
Fi refi ghter 18.00 2,444,888 35.00 4,012,716 53.00 6,457,604
Operati onal Staff 45.00 6,858,853 69.00 8,743,675 114.00 15,602,528
Total Career Staff 60.15 8,868,786 82.50 10,408,680 142.65 19,277,466
JCFD3 MFR Consolidated Combined Total Variance
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
140
Figure 126 is based on the actual current budgeted amounts by position which were laid out in Figure
125 and shows potential reductions of FTE and how the changes affect the yearly and cumulative
savings. Each year of the model the wages and benefits have been increased by 3.0 percent annually. By
the end of the third year of the Admin IGA the potential savings are projected to be $2,299,285 due to
the reduction of the 4.5 FTE over the three year period.
Figure 126: Admin and Support Staff Combined, Year 1 through 3

Figure 127 continues the model from Figure 126 over the years 4 through 10 of the forecast. Over these
years there is no change in number of FTE and the wages and benefits have been increased by 3.0 each
year. At year ten of the forecast the potential cumulative savings total ~$11,562,964.

Figure 127: Admin and Support Staff Combined, Year 4 through 10



FTE Total +/- FTE FTE Total +/- FTE FTE Total +/- FTE FTE Total
Fi re Chi ef 2.00 397,074 (1.00) 1.00 217,346 - 1.00 222,029 - 1.00 226,853
Deputy Chi ef 3.00 524,248 (1.00) 2.00 359,454 - 2.00 367,101 - 2.00 374,977
Fi re Marshal l 2.00 331,123 - 2.00 338,457 - 2.00 345,481 (1.00) 1.00 214,972
Chi ef of Trai ni ng 2.00 324,809 - 2.00 330,778 - 2.00 337,790 - 2.00 345,013
Deputy Fi re Marshal 6.00 834,732 - 6.00 851,993 - 6.00 869,709 - 6.00 887,956
Battal i on Chi ef 1.00 170,000 - 1.00 172,856 - 1.00 176,663 - 1.00 180,583
Chi ef Fi nanci al Offi cer 1.00 170,000 - 1.00 173,046 - 1.00 176,877 - 1.00 180,822
IT Techni ci an 1.00 125,800 - 1.00 128,760 - 1.00 131,763 - 1.00 134,857
Faci l i ti es/Logi sti cs MNGR 1.00 93,300 - 1.00 95,401 - 1.00 97,533 - 1.00 99,729
Cl eri cal 9.50 687,120 (0.50) 9.00 664,171 - 9.00 677,839 (1.00) 8.00 637,775
PIO 0.15 16,733 - 0.15 17,070 - 0.15 17,417 - 0.15 17,774
Admi ni strati ve Staff 28.65 3,674,938 (2.50) 26.15 3,349,332 - 26.15 3,420,201 (2.00) 24.15 3,301,310
Stand-Al one Total 28.65 3,674,938 - 28.65 3,961,086 - 28.65 4,120,945 - 28.65 4,288,098
Di fference - - - (2.50) (611,754) - (2.50) (700,744) - (4.50) (986,788)
Cummul i ti ve Savi ngs (611,754) (1,312,498) (2,299,285)
Consolidated Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
Fi re Chi ef 231,821 236,939 242,209 247,639 253,231 258,990 264,923
Deputy Chi ef 383,089 391,445 400,051 408,916 418,047 427,451 437,138
Fi re Marshal l 163,835 167,254 170,777 174,405 178,142 181,991 185,955
Chi ef of Trai ni ng 352,452 360,115 368,007 376,136 384,510 393,134 402,017
Deputy Fi re Marshal 906,751 926,109 946,048 966,585 987,739 1,009,527 1,031,969
Battal i on Chi ef 184,622 188,781 193,065 197,478 202,023 206,704 211,526
Chi ef Fi nanci al Offi cer 184,885 189,071 193,382 197,822 202,395 207,106 211,958
IT Techni ci an 138,043 141,325 144,706 148,188 151,774 155,468 159,272
Faci l i ti es/Logi sti cs MNGR 101,990 104,320 106,719 109,190 111,736 114,358 117,058
Cl eri cal 678,860 727,384 785,122 854,289 937,652 1,038,668 1,161,654
PIO 18,143 18,522 18,913 19,315 19,729 20,156 20,596
Admi ni strati ve Staff 3,344,491 3,451,264 3,568,999 3,699,963 3,846,976 4,013,553 4,204,066
Stand-Al one Total 4,462,916 4,645,791 4,837,135 5,037,385 5,247,000 5,466,466 5,696,295
Di fference (1,118,425) (1,194,527) (1,268,137) (1,337,423) (1,400,024) (1,452,914) (1,492,230)
Cummul i ti ve Savi ngs (3,417,710) (4,612,237) (5,880,374) (7,217,796) (8,617,820) (10,070,734) (11,562,964)
Year 5 Year 4 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
141
Issues & Impacts
 No permanent organizational commitment is made.
 Decision-making power is transferred to JCFD3 according to the terms of the IGA.
 Requires alignment of virtually all fire department functions.
 Independence and autonomy in core mission activities (emergency operations) have been
subordinated in favor of a combined operation with a single organizational purpose.
 There would be universal policies, procedures, and standards.
 Does not require public approval at the ballot box.
 Existing governing entities are preserved.
 Level of unilateral control is decreased as identified in the IGA.
 Conflicting non-operational policy directives may sometimes create complexities in an
operationally unified agency.
 Employees may remain with the original employer or transfer to the other employer based on
the terms of the IGA.
 There would be a reduction in administration FTEs.
 Impact bargaining with labor may be required.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
142
Strategy D: Legal Integration – Annexation
Level of cooperation
Full Integration of the agencies is accomplished via annexation. In the case of JCFD3 and MFR,
complete annexation can only occur in one direction; JCFD3 annexing the City of Medford into the
fire district. In addition, MRFPD2 would need to be an active partner in this strategy.
Estimated timeline for completion
This timeline is very dependent upon the number and complexity of identified issues arising from
the planning process. Generally, this strategy could be accomplished in as little as a year; however,
ESCI recommends that contract for services be a prerequisite to legal integration. ESCI recommends
the operational IGA (contract) be for a three to five year period. A legal integration could be
considered beyond the expiration date of the operational IGA.
Affected sections
All sections, all functions
Affected stakeholders
The local communities and all agency members are all affected. The policy makers are profoundly
impacted, as an existing board must take the bold step of dissolving their fire department in order
to facilitate annexation into the remaining organization. Timing of the dissolution and annexation is
critical. The agency staff and agency supervisors will also realize significant effects.
Summary/Objective of strategy
The objective should be to seamlessly annex the MFR into JCFD3.
ESCI guidance
This process is provided for in statute, and is common.
23

Special/Social considerations
As with merger and consolidation, legal counsel involvement at the early stages of planning is an
important component of annexation discussions. Timelines and obligations to the county clerk, the
department of revenue and the county assessor’s office are critical process issues.
Legal integration will have the most profound impact to the internal and external stakeholders
socially. The two agencies become one in this strategy, and while it is often believed that the one
organizations’ culture replaces the other, most frequently the “surviving” culture also changes as a
result of the integration. This should be encouraged since it causes the two cultures to go through a
re-validation of the way each has always done business.


23
ORS 198.720(2) and (a), Boundaries; filing boundary change with county assessor and Department of Revenue,
2011.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
143
Policy actions
ESCI’s review and discussion of Oregon State Law on this topic has been necessarily brief; only
sufficient to ensure that basic provisions for legal integration exist. As always, we emphasize that
we are not qualified to give legal advice. ESCI recommends that the City of Medford and JCFD3
consult with legal counsel experienced in such matters before undertaking any integration strategy.
Fiscal considerations
When considering integrating JCFD3 and MFR, through an annexation of the City of Medford and
possibly MRFPD2 into JCFD3, the JCFD3 tax rate would apply to the City of Medford and MRFPD2
property being annexed. As shown in the following figure, the newly expanded JCFD3 would remain
at the current rate. This would mean the tax rate for property in the City of Medford (for fire
protection) and MRFPD2 would increase to $3.1194 per $1,000 of assessed value. At the existing
rate of $3.1194 the revenues out-weigh the existing expenses and capital funding needs of the
combined organization. Because of this the model has scaled down the levy rate over the five years
to right-side itself with the revenue needs of the combined District.
Figure 128: Forecast Taxable Assessed Value for 2013/14 through 2017/18

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Assessed Valuation 10,137,447,360 10,533,356,501 10,938,305,701 11,352,630,671 11,778,354,321

Growth / (Loss) 3.7% 3.9% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8%

Levy Rate 3.1194 3.0000 2.9000 2.8000 2.7000

Total Levy Amount 31,622,753 31,600,070 31,721,087 31,787,366 31,801,557
Fire Revenue
When considering combined revenue and expenditures, the following factors are taken into
consideration.
 The budgetary impacts of annexation are reflected beginning in the 2013/14 budget year. Actual
completion of the annexation will take longer to implement.
 The overall TAV forecasts remain the same, but the tax revenue based on that TAV is being
calculated at MFR’s rate of $2.4012 per $1,000 of assessed value.

Any possible inter-agency revenue exchanges have been eliminated with the exception of the MRFPD2
contract amount which has been continued through the five years at the existing 2013-14 contract
amount.
Figure 129: Combined JCFD3 General Fund Revenues, 2013/14 through 2017/18
General Fund 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Property Tax 30,357,843 30,336,067 30,452,243 30,515,871 30,529,494
Investment Earnings 50,000 51,189 52,405 53,651 54,926
Miscellaneous 31,200 31,942 32,701 33,478 34,274
Grants/Contributions - - - - -
Charges Service 1,410,513 1,410,513 1,410,513 1,410,513 1,410,513
Sale of Assets - - - - -
Transfers In - - - - -
Total Revenue 31,849,556 31,829,710 31,947,862 32,013,513 32,029,208

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
144
Fire Expenditures
For purposes of developing a conceptual budget, certain assumptions must be made. In this scenario,
the assumptions are that the MFR acting chief position is eliminated and the person filling that role
would resume their normal duties within the City of Medford. The JCFD3 Fire Marshal position is
transitioned to the equivalent of a MFR Deputy Fire Marshal. The JCFD3 Interim Division Chief position is
transitioned into the equivalent of a MFR Captain position and the currently budgeted (but vacant)
JCFD3 Deputy Chief position would be eliminated. All other operational positions are added to the
composite personnel staffing configuration at their roughly equivalent positions. Additional savings
could be realized through the reduction in support and/or clerical positions.
After the integration of the two separate staffing configurations into a single staffing plan in the budget
year 2013/14, that staffing configuration is maintained throughout the forecast period, the cost of which
is adjusted up each year by 3.0 percent. Benefit costs are adjusted each subsequent year of the forecast
period by three percent as well. Materials and Supplies are adjusted each subsequent year of the
forecast period b 2.38 percent. Inter-fund transfer-out represents a single transfer to the Capital
Projects fund and have been kept flat at $1.5M through the five years.
Figure 130: JCFD3 Combined Expenses, 2014/15 through 2018/19
General Fund 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Personnel Services 20,303,842 20,912,958 21,540,346 22,186,557 22,852,154
Materials & Services 5,903,926 6,044,263 6,187,935 6,335,023 6,485,606

Debt Service

Principal 342,995 225,338 230,808 236,456 242,196
Interest 50,554 36,422 31,041 25,349 19,608
Capital Outlay - - - - -
Transfers Out 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Total Expenditures 28,101,317 28,718,981 29,490,131 30,283,384 31,099,564
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
145
Figure 131: Combined General Fund Summary for 2013/14 through 2017/18
General Fund 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Beginning Fund Balance 3,596,585 7,344,824 10,455,554 12,913,285 14,643,415
Revenues 31,849,556 31,829,710 31,947,862 32,013,513 32,029,208
Expenditures

Personnel Services 20,303,842 20,912,958 21,540,346 22,186,557 22,852,154
Materials & Services 5,903,926 6,044,263 6,187,935 6,335,023 6,485,606

Debt Service - - - - -
Principal 342,995 225,338 230,808 236,456 242,196
Interest 50,554 36,422 31,041 25,349 19,608
Capital Outlay - - - - -
Transfers Out 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Total Expenditures 28,101,317 28,718,981 29,490,131 30,283,384 31,099,564

Ending Fund Balance 7,344,824 10,455,554 12,913,285 14,643,415 15,573,058

Months of EFB 3.1 4.4 5.3 5.8 6.0
The substantial increase in total AV teamed with the existing JCFD3 levy rate of $3.11 easily would allow
the combined District to continue to support 100.0 of existing services and personnel. Even with the levy
rate lower by $0.10 per year over the last four year of the forecast the combined district has the ability
to fund Capital projects at $1.5M per year, pay existing debt, retain 100 percent of existing staff, and
build an ending General Fund balance of $15.5M or the equivalent of 6.0 months of expenditure
reserves.
Figure 132: JCFD3 Forecast Combined Capital Projects Fund
Capital Projects Fund 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Beginning Fund Balance 1,341,525 2,195,625 2,437,540 2,649,550 2,830,945

Revenues

Investment Earnings 100

Miscellaneous 100

Grants/Contributions 100,100

Charges For Service

Transfers In 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Total Revenue 1,600,300 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000

Expenditures

Materials & Services

Capital Outlay 746,200 1,258,085 1,287,990 1,318,605 1,349,949
Transfers Out

Total Expenditures 746,200 1,258,085 1,287,990 1,318,605 1,349,949

Ending Fund Balance 2,195,625 2,437,540 2,649,550 2,830,945 2,980,996

Issues & Impacts
 Annexation is only available, in this context, by JCFD3. The City of Medford would need to agree
to be annexed.
 Legal analysis and review prior to implementation is highly advised.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
146
 Timelines and obligations to the county clerk, the department of revenue and the county
assessor’s office are critical process issues.
 Assuming JCFD3 annexes MFR, the JCFD3 tax rate would apply to property within the City of
Medford. As a result, the newly expanded JCFD3 would remain at the $3.11 rate. This would
mean the tax rate for property in the MFR area would increase from $5.29 to $8.41 per $1,000
of assessed value. MFR’s tax rate remains unchanged.
 This process may be perceived by the Medford community as a hostile take-over with none of
the Medford elected representatives remaining on the board coupled with a slight tax increase.
 The inclusion of MRFPD2 would need to be solidified prior to moving forward. All associated
impacts related to tax rate, equipment ownership, funding and participation would be affected.
 This will require bargaining with labor groups.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
147
Findings
Based on evaluation of current conditions, fiscal analysis, and our experience with other projects of
similar character and scope, ESCI draws certain conclusions regarding JCFD3, MFR, and the opportunities
for collaboration. A summary of those findings follow.
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 ESCI’s experience, a new
culture will emerge with integration, and no individual agency’s 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: MFR’s staffing levels (per 1,000 populations served) are below 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

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
148
• 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.
Finding #12: Each agency strives to meet the expectations of its customers. The fire departments
both make considerable effort to assure that they provide acceptable levels of service to their
communities.
Finding #13: Each agency needs infrastructure improvements. Although the need varies, important
gaps were identified in each organization.
Finding #14: Agency policymakers should convene to consider study recommendations. The two
policy boards and their administrations have created a foundation for partnerships through the
existing IGAs and by conducting this study. Without a clear commitment from policymakers,
momentum and progress on valuable initiatives may eventually falter. Policymakers should adopt a
plan, similar to the one outlined in this report, to evaluate each of the recommendations contained
herein, aligning the processes, services, and operations of the agencies wherever possible. If the
policymakers desire to move forward with collaborative effort initiatives they would most likely
declare their intent by way of a formal resolution in the case of JCFD3 and by a city ordinance in the
case of the City of Medford. MRFPD2 and the City of Medford would most likely need to modify
their current agreement to acknowledge any arrangement(s) made between JCFD3 and Medford
that would affect them.
Finding #15: A contract for services and annexation are both feasible. Despite close collaboration on
numerous operational and administrative issues as contained in the IGAs, combining JCFD3 and MFR
is feasible. All strategies listed in this report are feasible. The strategies move across the spectrum of
partnership options from maintaining or enhancing the current IGAs short-term, to contract for
services in the mid-term, to full integration via annexation as a consideration long-term. Each
strategy requires independent decisions from the other and would typically be triggered by
experiencing success in the previous strategy. The most efficient and effective collaboration is that
strategy which provides the highest levels of service to both jurisdictions at a reasonable cost. This
could ultimately be any one of the proposed strategies identified in the report. Policymakers will
need to determine the level of cooperation that they are comfortable with supporting.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
149
Recommendations
STEP 1: IMPLEMENT STRATEGY B – FUNCTIONAL UNIFICATION (ADMINISTRATION)
MFR and JCFD3 should pursue a strategy to unify the two agencies in an incremental manner. The two
agencies should initially implement Strategy B – Functional Unification. The fire chief of JCFD3 should
become the fire chief over both agencies, and MFR operations division chief should become the
operations chief for both agencies. The two agencies must honor existing contracts and agreements
each agency has in place, including regional mutual and automatic aid agreements, and the MRFPD2
agreement with MFR. Specifically, the agencies should implement a two-stage IGA. The first stage is
formal authority conferred to the fire chief of JCFD3 to manage the process and the affairs of both
organizations going forward. Once the fire chief has that authority, he should form an executive team,
ensuring balanced representation between the two agencies. The executive team make-up is
determined by the fire chief, but ESCI recommends a small and nimble group. Together, the executive
team develops the initial process to bring the rest of the administrative team of both organizations
together, forming task forces. The initial process includes establishing the parameters for the task forces
and the expected outcomes, as well as the recommended organizational structure of each major
division (being responsive to the directive of reducing personnel where possible, but in no circumstance
exceeding the existing FTE count). Once the criteria are created, stage two of the IGA is implemented.
Stage two includes the task forces being commissioned by the executive team with the criteria,
constraints, performance metrics, preferred outcomes, divisional structure, and timelines identified that
will act as the basis for additional functional IGAs. The task forces report back to the executive team
according to the established timeline. Specifically, stage two of the IGA creates the following task forces
at a minimum:
 Administration and Support Services – including HR, finance, IT, and support staff
 Shared Operations oversight
 Fire Prevention/Code Enforcement – including standardized codes, public education, public
information, fire cause determination, plans review, and a “one-stop permitting center” concept
 Logistics – including joint supply purchasing, joint supply warehouse, joint apparatus
maintenance, joint apparatus specifications, and standardized small tools and equipment
 Training – including unified training plan, training manual, training curriculum development,
field training delivery, and periodic competency evaluation
The functional unification of the two agencies is intended as an interim step toward broader and deeper
unification initiatives. The life cycle of this IGA should be six to eighteen months, allowing sufficient time
for the usual forming, storming, norming, and performing process to occur. All incumbents should be
maintained to address the predictable transitional workload, but all vacant administrative and support
positions should be kept vacant to preserve future opportunities to streamline functions and reduce
overall costs to both agencies. Periodically, the two agencies should assess the success of the IGAs effort
and determine whether to continue, discontinue, or if the agencies are ready for the next step in the
unifying process.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
150
STEP 2: IMPLEMENT STRATEGY C – CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
If satisfied with functional unification, the agencies would consider the next step and enter into an IGA –
contracting for fire department services. In this case, JCFD3 would provide all fire and EMS services for
the combined agency. As in step one above, JCFD3 must honor existing contracts and agreements each
separate agency has with the other and with neighboring agencies, including regional mutual and
automatic aid agreements and the agreement MRFPD2 has with MFR. The contract for services should
be a three to five year agreement.
In this stage of the partnership, each of the major divisions will have a defined hierarchy and will
function as one. Medford employees become conditionally transferred to JCFD3 for the duration of the
contract for services. The terms and conditions under which the employees are transferred are
mandatory subjects of bargaining and must be negotiated along with the contract for services. Long
range planning should be conducted at this point, including the development of a strategic plan and the
establishment of a unified Standards of Cover document.
All fire department activities should be included in the contract for services and JCFD3 is responsible for
providing any and all support functions to ensure smooth and efficient operations of the combined fire
agencies. Any support functions provided by the City of Medford must be mutually agreed upon (i.e, HR,
IT, finance) and should be negotiated or factored into the cost allocation formula chosen.
STEP 3: IMPLEMENT STRATEGY D – ANNEXATION OF THE CITY OF MEDFORD INTO JCFD3
With successful implementation of the contract for services and efficiencies gained, the agencies could
be ready for the third and final step, annexation of the City of Medford into JCFD3. This makes
permanent the legal integration of the two agencies. It is important to note that MRFPD2 is a contract
partner with Medford and must be consulted and included in these discussions. While Medford can be
annexed into JCFD3, MRFPD2 cannot. They can, however, contract with the surviving entity; in this case,
JCFD3, or they could consider merger.
The timeline for an annexation effort is estimated at one to two years. This should be done in advance
of the expiration of the contract for services (a three to five year period) to ensure uninterrupted service
to the combined agencies.
By following the steps listed in these recommendations, the agencies can take intermediate steps
toward legal integration, essentially implementing progressive trial unification.
Example of Timeline
Initiative 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Beyond
Administrative/Functional IGA
Contract for Fire Service
Annexation


Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
151
Implementation
Many studies and reports have been published and presented to clients over the years by ESCI. Many
times, clients are overwhelmed with information and options. It takes time to digest the report and then
figure out what to do next. ESCI finds it helpful to offer a process whereby the clients can break the
process down into smaller segments. Those smaller pieces allow policy-makers, fire chiefs and
communities to examine details and have discussions about what is possible. The following is offered as
a framework to consider in the initial stages of evaluation. It is a strategic planning approach to
partnerships.
The process flowchart starts with the policymakers convening a series of meetings to discuss and
develop a shared vision of both agencies. Key external stakeholders are often invited into the process to
lend their expertise and perspective, ensuring that the community at large is represented in these
important deliberations. Often, internal stakeholders have difficulty with “possibilities thinking” because
of their close association with the status quo, which is human nature. The external stakeholders add
valuable perspective by asking key questions and challenging the status quo.
ESTABLISH IMPLEMENTATION WORKING GROUPS
As the flowchart indicates, various Implementation Working Groups should be established that will be
charged with the responsibility of performing the necessary detailed work involved in analyzing and
weighing critical issues and identifying specific tasks. Membership for these Implementation Working
Groups should be identified as part of that process as well.
The number and titles of the working groups will vary depending on the type and complexity of the
strategies begin pursued. The following list provides some key recommended working groups used in
most collaboration processes and a description of some of their primary assigned functions and
responsibilities.
Joint Implementation Committee (Task Force)
This committee is typically made up of the fire chiefs or chief executives of each of the participating
agencies but may also include internal stakeholder groups, function specific experts, and outside
stakeholders such as business and community interests. The responsibilities of this group are to:
 Develop goals and objectives which flow from the joint vision statement approved by the
policymakers’ vision sessions.
 Include recommendations contained in this report where appropriate.
 Establish the work groups and commission their work.
 Identify anticipated critical issues the work groups may face and develop contingencies to
address these.
 Establish timelines to keep the work groups and the processes on task.
 Receive regular updates from the work group chairs.
 Provide regular status reports to the policymakers as a committee.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
152
Governance Working Group
This group will be assigned to examine and evaluate various options for the cooperative service effort. A
recommendation and the proposed process steps will be provided back to the Joint Implementation
Committee and the Policy-Maker Group. Once approved, this working group is typically assigned the
task of shepherding the processes through to completion. The membership of this group typically
involves one or more elected officials and senior management from each participating agency. Equality
of representation is a key premise.
Finance Working Group
This group will be assigned to review the financial projections contained in the feasibility study and
complete any refinements or updating necessary. The group will look at all possible funding mechanisms
and will work in partnership with the Governance Working Group to determine impact on local revenue
sources and options. Where revenue is to be determined by formula rather than a property tax rate,
such as in an contract for services, this group will evaluate various formula components and model the
outcomes, resulting in recommendations for a final funding methodology and cost distribution formula.
The membership of this group typically involves senior financial managers and staff analysts, and may
also include representatives from the agencies’ administrative staffs.
Administration Working Group
Working in partnership with the Governance Working Group, this group will study all of the
administrative and legal aspects of the selected strategies they are assigned and will identify steps to
ensure the process meets all administrative best practices and the law. Where necessary, this group will
oversee the preparation and presentation of policy actions such as proposed ordinances, joint
resolutions, dissolutions, and needed legislation to the policymakers. The membership of this group
typically involves senior management staff from the entities involved and may also include legal counsel.
Operations Working Group
This group will be responsible for an extensive amount of work and may need to establish multiple sub-
groups to accommodate its workload. The group will work out all of the details necessary to make
operational changes required by the strategies. This involves detailed analysis of assets, processes,
procedures, service delivery methods, deployment, and operational staffing. Detailed integration plans,
steps, and timelines will be developed. The group will coordinate closely with the Logistics/Support
Services Working Group. The membership of this group typically involves senior management, mid-level
officers, training staff, labor representatives, and volunteer leadership.
Logistics/Support Services Working Group
This group will be responsible for any required blending of capital assets, disposition of surplus,
upgrades necessary to accommodate operational changes, and the preparation for ongoing
administration and logistics of the cooperative effort. The membership of this group typically involves
mid-level agency management, administrative, and support staffs. Where involved, support functions
such as Maintenance or Fire Prevention may also be represented.
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
153
Labor Working Group
This group will have the responsibility, where necessary, for blending the workforces involved. This
often includes the analysis of differences between collective bargaining agreements, shifts schedules,
policies, and working conditions. The process also includes work toward developing a consensus
between the bargaining units on any unified agreement that would be proposed. Often, once the future
vision is articulated by the policy-makers, labor representatives are willing to step up and work together
as a team to identify challenges presented by differing labor agreements and offer potential consensus
solutions. The membership of this group typically involves labor representatives from each bargaining
unit, senior management and, as needed, legal counsel.
Volunteer Working Group
This group will be responsible for developing proposals and practices of the volunteers into the
integrated agency. This often includes review of existing volunteer response patterns, training activities,
recognition activities, recruitment and retention programs, rank structure, authority, roles, and
responsibilities. This group typically is made up of volunteer leadership and may also include senior
management staff. Since this function is already integrated in the existing IGA, minimal work will be
necessary for this working group, but review of existing practices is nonetheless recommended.
Communication Working Group
Perhaps one of the most important, this group will be charged with developing an internal and external
communication policy and procedure to ensure consistent, reliable, and timely distribution of
information related exclusively to the cooperative effort. The group will develop public information
releases to the media and will select one or more spokespersons to represent the communities in their
communication with the public on this particular process. The importance of speaking with a common
voice and theme both internally and externally cannot be overemphasized. Fear of change can be a
strong force in motivating a group of people to oppose that which they do not clearly understand. A well
informed workforce and public will reduce conflict. The membership of the group typically involves
public information officers and senior management.
Meet, Identify, Challenge, Refine, and Overcome
Once the working groups are established, they will set their meeting schedules and begin their various
responsibilities and assignments. It will be important to maintain organized communication up and
down the chain of command. The working group chairs should also report regularly to the Joint
Implementation Committee. When new challenges, issues, impediments, or opportunities are identified
by the working groups, this needs to be communicated to the Joint Implementation Committee right
away so that the information can be coordinated with findings and processes of the other working
groups. Where necessary, the Joint Implementation Committee and a working group chairperson can
meet with the policy-makers to discuss significant issues that may require a refinement of the original
joint vision.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
154
The process is continual as the objectives of the strategic plan are accomplished one by one. When
sufficient objectives have been met, the Joint Implementation Committee can declare various goals as
having been fully met, subject to implementation approval by the policy bodies. This formal “flipping of
the switch” will mark the point at which implementation ends and integration of the agencies, to
whatever extent has been recommended, begins.

Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
155
Conclusion
The timing for JCFD3 and MFR to enhance their cooperative efforts is excellent. By moving forward with
various initiatives outlined in this report, JCFD3 and MFR have the potential opportunity to reduce costs
for each agency, maximize limited resources, and to better utilize people skills, and expertise,
particularly in specialty areas.
Moving forward the focus should be on what is in the best interest of the public. The vision and
execution of a plan should ultimately accomplish three things: provide a means to increase efficiency
through elimination of redundancies and duplication in both agencies; contain and potentially reduce
costs to each agency; and enhance the quality of programs and services delivered internally and
externally on behalf of both agencies.
The expansion of IGAs will afford the agencies the opportunity to evaluate their programs, practices,
and methodologies which should result in their enhancement. There are synergies that can be ensured
through these efforts. The process of combining functions will force the evaluation of practices and
should result in taking the best both organizations have to offer and ultimately improve what is
currently done independently. Best practices from both organizations should be adopted through the
normalization process. Reduced liability and the elimination of duplication would provide additional
benefits expected through the expansion of cooperative efforts initiatives.
A planning process to implement the recommendations contained within this report is vital. The
planning process would identify the who, what, when, where, and how the vision and direction
determined by the policy makers would be implemented. Specific attention would have to be given to
community issues and questions, political and policy decisions, internal and external stakeholders, and
communication.
As stated in the Findings section of this report, all strategies listed are feasible. However, it should be
stated that as an organization moves along the continuum of cooperative service initiatives, the process
becomes more difficult and fraught with challenges. ESCI’s experience in doing similar projects leads us
to believe that the initiatives up to and including contract for services can be accomplished without
either agency experiencing what we consider extreme risk. The annexation of the City of Medford into
JCFD3 would be the most challenging and difficult to execute due to complexities and differences in
cultures, governance, and finance considerations (ie differences in the amounts of money currently paid
for fire protection and the challenges in determining any General Fund reductions in the City of Medford
that would offset the increase required by the District as a taxing authority). That is not to say this
option is not feasible or manageable.
Moving forward with the expansion of cooperative effort initiatives will be difficult for the organizations
and their people. Oversight and leadership will be necessary to monitor workloads, progress, and to
identify areas that need special attention or are problematic. Initiatives must be implemented in a
timely manner. If too much is implemented too quickly, an initiative could collapse. If implementation is
too slow, initiatives can lose momentum and risk the chance of falling out of favor with the membership,
Jackson County Fire District 3 Cooperative Services
City of Medford Feasibility Study
156
policy makers, and the communities served. Careful thought and preparation in determining the
sequence of executing change is critical.
As the agencies execute the initiatives proposed in this report they must focus on the vision, be patient,
project stability, and provide leadership at all times.
ESCI has identified the following four strategies to systematically consider:
Strategy A is essentially a "do-nothing" strategy, which may be seen by some as a safe path to follow.
However, taxpayers are increasingly demanding of their elected officials to find cost-effective and
efficient ways to delivery services. With the efficiencies identified in this report and the opportune
timing given the complementary vacancies which exist, this strategy may be the most risky to implement
(no action).
Strategy B takes advantage of the complementary vacancies by combining administrations and
consolidating functions of the combined agencies. This is a short-term, initial step toward greater
collaboration.
Strategy C unifies both agencies at all levels of the organization via a contract for services. In this
strategy, the agencies operate as one agency, with JCFD3 as the lead agency. This strategy has the
opportunity to incorporate all of the efficiencies identified in this report, creating a trial period of joint
operations.
Strategy D legally integrates the two agencies, with JCFD3 annexing the City of Medford for fire and EMS
services. This process makes permanent the unification envisioned in a contract for service in Strategy C.
This also requires approval of the voters in both jurisdictions.