Agenda Date: 11/28/2017
Subject:
Title
Fire and Emergency Medical Services Discussion
Body
|
Presented By: |
Mark Relph, City Manager |
PURPOSE:
The Littleton Fire Protection District (LFPD) served a termination notice (Exhibit A) to the city of Littleton and the Highlands Ranch Metropolitan District (HRMD) on November 16th, thereby ending their participation in the Inter-local Agreement (IGA) for providing fire and emergency medical services to the three entities. Per the IGA, and specifically with LFPD departure, the existing partnership will effectively end on January 1, 2019.
This study session will discuss the options and timeline for the city of Littleton to pursue in order to maintain an appropriate level of service for fire and emergency medical services (EMS) to our citizens of Littleton. More specifically, this study session is intended to prepare the city council for a broader discussion with the policy makers from LFPD and HRMD scheduled for November 30th. The intent of November 30 the meeting is to discuss options on how the three entities transition out of the existing partnership and perhaps jointly pursue options for fire and EMS.
This November 28th study session is not intended to set any firm direction, but such direction would come later after the joint meeting on November 30th.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
With the termination notice from LFPD, the existing partnership will end on January 1, 2019; therefore, the city will have to consider other service options in order to maintain an appropriate level of fire and EMS to our citizens. Those service models generally consist of three different types; 1) unify fire and EMS with another fire district, 2) contract for the service with another entity, 3) standalone city department.
The challenge will be to find the most cost effective service option that can be financially maintained over time and balanced against the remaining priorities of the city’s services (e.g. Police, Public Works, etc).
BACKGROUND:
The City of Littleton has provided fire and emergency medical services (EMS) to LFPD and HRMD on a contractual basis for over 35 years (Map - Exhibit B). The city supports the fire departments essential functions for human resources, fleet maintenance, building maintenance and finance under the fee structure of our current IGA.
One of the service options is to unify with another entity, specifically a fire district. Unification is not a new topic and over the years there have been discussions with city of Englewood, Louviers Fire Protection, Roxborough Fire Protection and South Metro Fire Rescue (SMFR) for potential unification opportunities. The fire partners and city have completed several efficiency studies over the past 10 years and currently operate under a master, or strategic plan developed by Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI) in 2013.
In the fall of 2016, the Fire Chiefs from SMFR, Cunningham Fire Protection District, and City of Littleton approached their respective governing officials for policy direction as to continuing an effort to investigate the opportunities and challenges of a unified organization focusing on service delivery, safety, financial sustainability, and governance. A technical task force of staff was established from all three agencies to evaluate all current divisions; training, operations, fire prevention, communications, administrative, support services and information services. A draft proposal was submitted by SMFR in late spring of 2017, to all four governing boards with the intent of responding to additional questions and possibly to begin negotiations.
Since that submittal of the original proposal, LFPD had pursued negotiations for unification with SMFR independent of the city. This process led to the LFPD decision on November 16 to leave the existing partnership. Staff is aware that some level of discussion for unification has occurred between SMFR and HRMD, with a decision likely from HRMD in the near term.
A contract for service is another option; much like LFPD and HRMD currently contracts with the city of Littleton. The field of service providers narrows and is probably limited to SMFR, City and County of Denver and West Metro Fire District. There are advantages and disadvantages for each of the entities. When approaching a contract of this nature, the scope of services or level of service along with performance standards becomes critical.
The third option is for the city to purse a standalone department. A variation of this approach is to decide whether or not to contract for EMS. There are several issues to consider when evaluating this alternative and they include capital resources for equipment and buildings, balancing the size and type of the fleet against options (and cost) for mutual aid, setting an acceptable level of service (e.g. response times) and a department that is financially sustainable over time.
Under this third model, the EMS becomes an issue that requires detailed analysis, especially if the city decides to maintain the service. The costs are expected to exceed the revenue under the current partnership and an option to contract EMS should be considered, but the financial impacts to our residents will need to be quantified.
Finally, the Insurance Service Office (ISO) rating for all of the alternatives needs to be understood. ISO is a for profit organization that provides statistical information on fire risk for communities. Changing the level of service will affect the IOS rating and will translate into what insurance companies change for fire insurance. This may or may not be an issue, but commercial properties are more likely to see the differences.
Staff anticipates the joint meeting on November 30th to be a discussion by at least LFPD on not only how we transition out of this existing partnership, but whether or not there is a better opportunity for all three entities to pursue together the unification option with SMFR. If there is a collective approach to SMFR, this may minimize some of the challenges with splitting the assets. Even if the city decided to approach the issue from this perspective, it does not mean it would be the only alternative the city council could consider.
FUTURE ANALYSIS:
Over the years, growth within the service area have led to numerous collaborations to include the construction of fire station 16 and 19, purchase of aerial apparatus, adding personnel to increase services and programs, plus the day-to-day costs under the current IGA creating a highly interlaced operating and financial system.
The departure of LFPD will dramatically impact how the city will operate financially and the level of service we can provide in the future to our citizens. All of the partners must take into consideration multiple factors for delivering fire and EMS services to our community with the separation of one of our partners. The following are just a few of those considerations:
• Dividing assets - fire apparatus, personnel, and cost of future capital. The city has a draft list of capital equipment, but expects a thorough analysis to confirm all capital within the stations.
• Fire stations - Station 16 is owned equally by all of the partners.
• Administrative fee - both the LFPD and HRMD pay a fee to the city to administer the costs of human resources, fleet maintenance, finance, etc.
• Future financial sustainability for both the operating as well as the long-term capital needs (fleet and buildings).
In order to thoroughly and objectively analyze all of the alternatives, staff recommends hiring a consultant to assemble the information from multiple departments and agencies, critique the information and provide recommendations.
The timeline for completing the alternatives analysis, decision making and the transition to another service model is set by the departure of LFPD - January 1, 2019. In addition, the city begins our 2019 budget process in July. Some of that decision making, if not all, will need to occur in late spring or early summer.
Staff would suggest another study session after the joint meeting of November 30th to discuss the scope of services for the consultant, public participation and communication, details of the service options and the timeline for decision making.