North Kitsap-Poulsbo efficiency study

8/4/2019 North Kitsap-Poulsbo efficiency study

1/369

Opportunities for Collaborative Efforts

Feasibility Study

August 2011

Emergency Services ConsultingInternational25200 SW Parkway Ave. Suite 3 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070

www.ESCI.us 800-757-3724


2/369

North Kitsap Fire & Rescue andKitsap County Fire District #18, WA

Opportunities for Collaborative EffortsFeasibility Study

Prepared By:

Jack Snook, President & Chief Operating OfficerMartin Goughnour, Senior Vice President

Lane Wintermute, Senior AssociateDon Stewart, Associate

Steve Trunck, AssociateDon Bivins, AssociateRob Strong, Associate


3/369


4/369

North Kitsap Fire & Rescue Kitsap County Fire District #18, WAFeasibility Study

i

Table of Contents

Letter of Transmittal .................................................................................................................... v

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... vii

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose and Methodology ...................................................................................................... 10

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges (SWOC) .......................................... 10

Organizational Strengths ...................................................................................................... 10Organizational Weaknesses ................................................................................................. 11Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 12Challenges ........................................................................................................................... 13

Evaluation of Current Conditions ............................................................................................... 17

Survey Table 1: Organization Overview .................................................................................. 17

Survey Table 2: Management Components ............................................................................ 27

Survey Table 3: Staffing and Personnel Management ............................................................ 44

Survey Table 4: Service Delivery and Performance ................................................................ 55Survey Table 5: Support Programs Emergency Services Training ....................................... 58

Survey Table 6: Support Programs Life Safety Service Fire Prevention ............................... 63

Survey Table 7: Support Programs Emergency Communications ........................................ 68

Survey Table 8: Emergency Medical Services Support and System Oversight ....................... 74

Survey Table 9: Haz-Mat Services Support and Response Capability .................................... 77

Survey Table 10: Capital Assets, Capital Improvement, and Replacement Programs ............. 79

Analysis of Emergency Service Delivery and Performance ..................................................... 96

Service Distribution, Demand, and Concentration ................................................................ 96Comparable ........................................................................................................................ 125

Fiscal Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 131Economic Indicators ........................................................................................................... 131Historical Financial Review of Kitsap County Fire District #18 ............................................ 136Forecast Financial Future of Kitsap County Fire District #18 .............................................. 138Historical Financial Review of North Kitsap Fire & Rescue ................................................. 140Forecast Financial Future of North Kitsap Fire & Rescue ................................................... 143

Processes for Collaboration .................................................................................................... 147

General Partnering Strategies .............................................................................................. 147

Status Quo ......................................................................................................................... 147Administrative Consolidation .............................................................................................. 148Functional Consolidation .................................................................................................... 148

Operational Consolidation .................................................................................................. 149Full Merger ......................................................................................................................... 150Regional Fire Authority ....................................................................................................... 151

Strategies for Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 155

Overarching Strategy 1 Administrative Consolidation ...................................................... 165Overarching Strategy 2 Functional Consolidation ............................................................ 172Overarching Strategy 3 Operational Consolidation .......................................................... 180Overarching Strategy 4 Full Merger ................................................................................. 186


5/369


ii

Overarching Strategy 5 Regional Fire Authority ............................................................... 196Strategy A Develop a Joint Support and Logistics Services Division ............................... 207Strategy B Develop Uniform Pre-Incident Plans .............................................................. 213Strategy C Provide for Joint Staffing of Fire Stations and Apparatus ............................... 217Strategy D Provide Regional Incident Command and Operations Supervision ................ 221Strategy E Purchase and Implement an Electronic Staffing Program .............................. 224

Strategy F Develop Standard Operating Guidelines ........................................................ 227Strategy G Shared Specialty Teams ................................................................................ 229Strategy H Provide Joint Standards for Service Delivery ................................................. 231Strategy I Implement the Use of Peak Activity Units (PAUs) ............................................ 236Strategy J Develop Deployment Standards ..................................................................... 239Strategy K Shared Public Education/Public Information ................................................... 241Strategy L Shared or Common Records Management System ........................................ 242Strategy M Shared Intern Program .................................................................................. 244Strategy N Combine Volunteer Services .......................................................................... 246Strategy O Combine Administrative Services .................................................................. 248Strategy P Implement North Kitsap Benefit Package ....................................................... 250Strategy Q Align Operational Staffing Schedules ............................................................. 252

Strategy R Adopt Dropped Border Response .................................................................. 255Strategy S Adopt Criteria-Based Dispatch ....................................................................... 256Strategy T Implement a Computerized Training Records Management System .............. 258Strategy U Develop Mutual Training Strategies ............................................................... 261Strategy V Develop an Annual Shared Training Plan ....................................................... 264Strategy W Consolidate Training into a Single Training Division ...................................... 267Strategy X Develop and Adopt Training Standards .......................................................... 270Strategy Y Create a Shared Training Manual .................................................................. 272Strategy Z Develop a Shared Fire and EMS Training Facility .......................................... 275Strategy AA Implement and Cooperatively Use a Video Conferencing System ............... 278Strategy BB Develop a Single Apparatus Refurbishment/Replacement Plan ................... 281Strategy CC Continue with the County AVL and MDC or MDT Project ............................ 284

Strategy DD Develop a Regional Fire Safety Education Coalition.................................... 289Strategy EE Develop a Regional Juvenile Fire Setter Intervention Network ..................... 291Strategy FF Create a Unified Occupational Medicine Program ........................................ 293Strategy GG Create a Unified Wellness and Fitness Program ......................................... 296Strategy HH Develop Uniform Fees for Service ............................................................... 299Strategy II Develop a Model Labor Agreement for Both Departments .............................. 302Strategy JJ Provide for Shared EMS Supervision ............................................................ 306Strategy KK Provide Joint EMS Supply Purchasing and Logistics Services ..................... 309Strategy LL Provide for Medic Unit Surge Capacity During Major Incidents ..................... 312Strategy MM Establish System-Wide Guidelines for EMS Response .............................. 314Strategy NN Establish System-Wide Deployment of Paramedics .................................... 316Strategy OO Implement Centralize EMS Billing Practices................................................ 318

Strategy PP Relocate Fire Station No. 73 ........................................................................ 320Strategy QQ Future Joint Staffed Fire Station Location ................................................... 323

Findings and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 327

Findings ................................................................................................................................ 327

Strategic Recommendations ................................................................................................. 330

Moving Forward .................................................................................................................. 331Overarching Recommendation ........................................................................................... 331Functional Cooperation Recommendations ........................................................................ 335


6/369


iii

Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 339

Appendix A: Table of Figures ................................................................................................ 339

Appendix B: Summary Table of Organizational Kudos .......................................................... 343

Appendix C: Summary of Recommended Actions (Current Conditions) ................................ 344

Appendix D: Cost Allocation ................................................................................................. 347

Cost Allocation Options ...................................................................................................... 347

Appendix E: Summary Table of Stakeholder Interviews ........................................................ 357


7/369


8/369


v

Letter of Transmittal

August 29, 2011

Commissioner Steve Neupert Commissioner James A. IngallsBoard Chair Board ChairNorth Kitsap Fire & Rescue Kitsap County Fire District #1826642 Miller Bay Road 911 Liberty RoadKingston, WA 98346 Poulsbo, WA 98370-8573

Dear Commissioners:

Enclosed please find the final report in response to your request to conduct anOpportunities for Collaboration Feasibility Study for Kitsap County Fire District #18 andNorth Kitsap Fire & Rescue. The associates of ESCI have appreciated the opportunity to

work with the communities, the employees and staff of both districts in preparing thisstudy.

We have presented this report in five major sections: current conditions, deployment andperformance of each agency, comparison with similar agencies and best practices,external customers expectations, and processes for collaboration with fiscal analysis.Contained within the processes for collaboration section are 43 individual strategies toconsider. A number of appendices are also attached that will provide helpful informationfor the two agencies. Two are particularly noteworthy. Appendix B: Summary Table ofOrganizational Kudos summarizes the many positive attributes of the districts. AppendixC: Summary of Recommended Actions provides items to consider as part of evaluatingcollaboration opportunities with and between the agencies.

It is our intent to meet and exceed your expectations and to be available to you after theproject is complete. Should you have questions do not hesitate to contact me at ourheadquarters office in Wilsonville, Oregon, at (503) 570-7778. It has been our pleasureto work with the professional and highly dedicated staffs of Kitsap County Fire District#18 and North Kitsap Fire & Rescue.

Sincerely,

Jack W. SnookPresident, COO


9/369


10/369


vii

Acknowledgements

Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI) would like to acknowledge that without the

assistance and support of the administrative staff and personnel of Kitsap County Fire District#18 and North Kitsap Fire & Rescue this project could not have been completed.

Board of Fire Commissioners

For North Kitsap Fire & Rescue:

Steve Neupert, Board ChairWill Stewart, Commissioner

Gillian Gregory, CommissionerFernando Espinosa, Commissioner

Patrick Pearson, Commissioner

For Kitsap County Fire District #18:James A. Ingalls, Board Chair

C. Conrad Green, CommissionerMartin D. Sullivan, CommissionerDavid Ellingson, Commissioner

Darryl Milton, Commissioner

Fire Chiefs

Dan Olson, Kitsap County Fire District #18Dan Smith, North Kitsap Fire & Rescue

Steering Committee

C. Conrad Green, KCFD #18Gillian Gregory, NKFR

Martin D. Sullivan, KCFD #18Steve Neupert, NKFRDan Olson, KCFD #18

Dan Smith, NKFR

Fire Department Command Staff

Assistant Fire Chief Wayne Kier, NKFR

Administrative Services Manager Lise Alkire, KCFD #18

Professional Fire Fighters of Kitsap County, Local 2819

Scott Trueblood, NKFR Unit Vice-PresidentCraig Becker, Poulsbo Unit Vice-President


11/369


12/369


1

Executive Summary

Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI) was engaged by Kitsap County Fire

District #18 (KCFD #18) and North Kitsap Fire & Rescue (NKFR) to evaluate the feasibility ofmore efficient cooperation between the two agencies, up to and including strategies of

consolidation. This report is the culmination of that evaluation.

ESCI thanks the staff of both KCFD #18 and NKFR for their outstanding cooperation in the

preparation of this report. All involved were candid in their comments and provided an

enormous amount of information.

The study took into account the critical issues facing the two fire districts and how such matters

affect the effort to construct a model for efficient service. Those issues identified were analyzedand specific recommendations can be found in the section titled, Appendix C: Summary of

Recommended Actions.

Evaluation of Current Conditions

An analysis of current conditions of the two fire districts is catalogued in ten survey tables

presented in a side-by-side table for simplicity of comparison. Each of the tables provides the

reader with general information about that element as well as specific observations and an

analysis of any significant issues or conditions that are pertinent to the topic discussed.

Observations are supported by data collected during the information gathering process, through

analysis of the collected data, and from the collective emergency services experience of the

ESCI project team. Current conditions also encompassed emergency service delivery and

performance and fiscal analysis. This snapshot in time was the basis for developing the

collaborative strategies for the two Districts.

Current conditions are presented in survey tables. Tables include an evaluation of each

organizations management, governance, staffing and personnel management, service delivery

and performance, training programs, fire prevention programs, communications, Emergency

Medical Services (EMS), hazardous materials, capital facilities and apparatus, and fiscal health

and practices.

Criterion used to evaluate the Districts has been developed over many years. These gauges

include relevant guidelines from national accreditation criteria, the National Fire Protection


13/369


2

Association (NFPA) standards, federal and state mandates for fire and EMS systems,

recommendations by various organizations such as the Center for Public Safety Excellence

(CPSE), and generally accepted best practices within the Fire and EMS industry.

LeadershipBoth fire districts have a customer service ethic that stands out in the eyes of the consulting

team. This ethos pervades the culture of both districts; although the two agencies approach

service delivery differently, they do so with a sharp focus on doing the right thing for their

respective constituents. The leaders of the two districts, the fire chiefs, are resolute in their

desire to serve the community with distinction and have leveraged their resources to the

greatest benefit of the community. The administrative teams of both districts are stretched thin,

with KCFD #18 holding administrative vacancies open to act as a fiscal buffer for current and

forecast projected economic challenges. While these efforts at fiscal prudence are a laudable

effort for legitimate reasons, it is not sustainable long term.

Agency Comparisons

In general, ESCIs review found that the districts are performing comparably to other fire

departments of similar size, population served, and character. In some cases, KCFD #18 and

NKFR exceed what one would expect for the area served and tax levy rate. The number of

calls for service experienced by KCFD #18 and NKFR is nearly identical to the average (132

incidents per 1,000 population) of the eight fire districts in Washington that ESCI used as

comparable. The population served by KCFD #18 is 96 percent of the eight-district average of

24,511. Both districts are near the average of fire stations (0.269) and pumpers (0.197) per

1,000 population. KCFD #18 and NKFR have a greater number of career firefighters per 1,000

residents than the eight comparator districts. This is expected given that KCFD #18 and NKFR

provide advanced life support (ALS) and EMS transport services.

Service Delivery

KCFD #18 has established response time standards for the various emergency services it

provides. In 2010, all emergency response time standards were met for suburban areas withthe exception of turnout time. Turnout time is the interval, measured in minutes and seconds,

between alarm notification and actual response of the appropriate response unit(s). Rural

response time standards were met with the exceptions of turnout time, arrival of the first

response unit to a Priority 1 or 2 event, and response time to a medical incident with the

appropriate medically certified personnel (advanced life support paramedics).


14/369


3

NKFR has informal performance objectives that its personnel measure themselves against;

however, the District is in the process of developing a formalized standards of cover (SOC) at

the time of this report. Results will be published and reported to the board and the community

annually, pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 52.33.

The population distribution of the area served by the agencies is predominantly rural (less than

500 persons per square mile over 65 percent of the combined service area), with pockets of

suburban (between 500 and 1,000 persons per square mile), and few urban pockets (over 1,000

persons per square mile). Urban pockets are located in the City of Poulsbo (Fire Station No.

71), with smaller clusters in Kingston (Fire Station No. 82) and Suquamish (Fire Station No. 84).

Sizeable suburban clusters exist in the Indianola area (between Fire Station Nos. 84 and 85)

and in Fire Station No. 77s area. Predictably, call volumes tend to follow population density, so

the urban and suburban areas have a higher frequency of emergency service demand.

Fire stations are well located to provide reasonable response time intervals. GIS analysis

indicates that 85 percent of KCFD #18 incidents and 75 percent of NKFR incidents are within six

minutes travel time of an existing fire station. There is a noticeable donut hole on the

northeastern edge of KCFD #18 where it butts up against the southwestern boundary of NKFR.

This gap is typical, since a facility investment by either agency would have significant overlap in

service area to the other agency. Additionally, there is the recognized need to adjust the

location of Fire Station No. 73 (Keyport). Originally built in 1944, it is poorly located to serve the

District, has a significant coverage overlap with the Naval Installation fire station, is non-ADA

compliant, and has very limited space. KCFD #18 is aware of the need and has planned for its

relocation in 2017 or when financially feasible.

Emergency apparatus were found to be modern and well maintained. The Districts have

apparatus replacement plans but lack adequate reserve funds to replace apparatus according to

the schedule but have identified potential funding mechanisms. Between the two agencies, they

maintain three reserve ambulances for eight front line ambulances and three reserve engines

for a fleet of eight front line engines. This is more than is required by the Washington Surveyand Ratings Bureau (WSRB). WSRB requires a 5:1 ratio of reserve to front line to receive full

credit. Efficiency can be recognized by a shared fleet of reserve apparatus.

Staffing levels and distribution of resources in the districts is very similar. Each uses two-person

companies, with some fire stations cross-staffing an engine and a medic unit. Both rely on


15/369


4

volunteers to supplant career personnel. KCFD #18 and NKFR use volunteers in a variety of

configurations, traditionally responding to the station, resident volunteers who live at some

stations, and interns who pull shifts alongside career firefighters. Expansion of the intern

concept is an excellent opportunity to augment existing staffing levels without appreciably

increasing costs.

KCFD #18 and NKFR respond to EMS calls for service differently in one significant way. KCFD

#18 sends a medic unit with paramedic staffing to all EMS call types while NKFR sends either

an ALS or a BLS unit based on Criteria-Based Dispatch protocols. While there can be no

argument that sending an ALS unit to all EMS calls is the safest response configuration, it is not

viewed as the most effective given a finite number of resources. Using Criteria-Based Dispatch

protocols, there is a better fit between demand and resource. ESCI recommends that Criteria-

Based Dispatch protocols be adopted and used by KCFD #18.

Financial Status

Given that the Districts receive the majority of their revenue through property taxes (both regular

property taxes and the voter-approved EMS Levy), there is a direct correlation between their

financial health and the growth or decline of the TAV (taxable assessed value). As the taxable

assessed value of property goes down, the tax rate per $1,000 goes up in an effort to maintain

the revenue at historic levels, subject to the 1 percent growth cap (Initiative 747) and the $1.50

per $1,000 junior taxing district maximum cap (not including any proration). Both Districts have

seen their taxable assessed value plateau in 2009, drop in 2010, and drop again in 2011. The

tax rate adjusts upward until it hits the $1.50 cap, which it did for KCFD #18 this year and will

likely for NKFR next year.

The Districts have prudently curtailed expenditures to the extent possible and are maintaining a

fund balance in anticipation of leaner economic times. The fund balances will dwindle if current

spending rates are continued as they are used to bridge the gap between property tax revenue

and expenditures. This strategy is not sustainable long term. KCFD #18 is projected to have a

64.5 percent reduction of its ending fund balance by 2016. NKFR is projected to have anegative ending fund balance of approximately $500,000 in 2016.


16/369


5

Opportunities for Collaboration

This section of the report evaluated the resources, services, proximity, demand, and

opportunities for KCFD #18 and NKFR to reduce costs, increase efficiency, or enhance service

delivery through collaboration.

This report cites 43 separate strategies through increased collaboration to generally build an

improved system by more closely aligning the Districts. Some of the strategies require strategic

investments to implement. There is an assumption that the Districts are able to fund the

investments that later pay-back economically, through service improvement or efficiencies

gained in internal operations. For KCFD #18 and NKFR it is not a safe assumption that monies

will be available to finance or invest in any new activities. In fact, both agencies face significant

fiscal challenges in the near term with no return to normal expected over the next several

years, if ever. Thus, the first order of business has to be to establish a fiscal equilibrium beforeconsidering many of the strategic investment opportunities.

Individual Strategies not requiring an investment beyond soft costs and yielding economic or

operational efficiencies can and should be considered for implementation. Those strategies

include:

Strategy B Develop Uniform Pre-Incident Plans

Strategy D Provide Regional Incident Command and Operations Supervision

Strategy F Develop Standard Operating Guidelines

Strategy K Shared Public Education/Public Information

Strategy N Combine Volunteer Services

Strategy O Combine Administrative Services

Strategy P Implement North Kitsap Benefit Package

Strategy Q Align Operational Staffing Schedules*

Strategy R Adopt Dropped Border Response

Strategy S Adopt Criteria-Based Dispatch

Strategy U Develop Mutual Training Strategies

Strategy V Develop an Annual Shared Training Plan

Strategy X Develop and Adopt Training Standards

Strategy Y Create a Shared Training Manual

Strategy BB Develop a Single Apparatus Refurbishment/Replacement Plan

Strategy HH Develop Uniform Fees for Service


17/369


6

Strategy II Develop a Model Labor Agreement for Both Departments*

Strategy LL Provide for Medic Unit Surge Capacity During Major Incidents**

Strategy MM Establish System-Wide Guidelines for EMS Response

Strategy NN Establish System-Wide Deployment of Paramedics*

Strategy OO Implement Centralize EMS Billing Practices

Strategy PP Relocate Fire Station No. 73

*Impact bargaining is required, thus the fiscal effect is subject to the results of negotiations**Some elements of this recommendation are implementable without cost, but the strategy would have to bemodified to make it cost neutral.

In addition to the above strategies, there are five overarching strategies that address

organizational structure and governance:

Administrative Consolidation

Functional Consolidation

Operational Consolidation

Full Merger

Regional Fire Authority

An administrative consolidation has a net first year cost avoidance of $20,000, and a functional

consolidation shows a net cost avoidance of $15,000 in the baseline year. As proposed, an

operational consolidation would have an increased annual cost of $70,000. The full mergerstrategy reduces the revenue shortfall of both agencies by a combined $500,000 by 2016 when

compared with their separate fiscal trajectories. This is reduction in their individual shortfalls

from $6.4 million to $5.9 million. A regional fire authority strategy essentially has the same

economic effect as a merger.

The exception with an RFA (Regional Fire Authority) is the authoritys ability to establish a

benefit charge as its funding mechanism. With a benefit charge, the effective revenue can go

as high a $1.60 per $1,000 of taxable assessed value. This would generate $9,676,216 from

fire levies and benefit charges for the combined agencies. Coupled with the current EMS levies

(which would also have to be part of the RFA formation), an RFA generates a combined

$12,700,033 in EMS levies and benefit charges, or approximately $1 million more in revenue

than the two agencies take in currently from fire and EMS levies.


18/369


7

Formation of an RFA with a benefit charge may be a difficult obstacle in the current economic

environment. This funding mechanism would increase costs to sometaxpayers of both Districts

(based on a complicated formula of risk versus benefit for each property in the service area). A

supermajority of 60 percent voter approval is required for passage of a benefit charge initiative.

This voter threshold would exist anyway because an EMS levy would have to be part of the

economic equation, which also requires a supermajority voter approval of 60 percent.

Recommendations and Conclusions

Options for the Districts are somewhat limited given the forecast financial future under the

current funding model. As stated earlier, many of the strategies presented in this report require

a strategic investment to implement with a return on investment longer than the Districts likely

can afford. This does not mean that there arent opportunities. The opportunities require

difficult and even painful choices. However, for the long-term viability of the Districts, ESCIprovides the following recommendations.

Reduction in Force (RIF)

ESCI recommends an RIF to stop the downward fiscal trajectory of the Districts. Reductions of

the Districts combined work force, includes:

Three shift battalion chief positions

One fleet maintenance supervisor

One public information officerOne administrative services manager/director

One receptionist

These combined cuts result in a cost avoidance is approximately $725,500 in the first year.

Administratively Merge and Reorganize

ESCI recommends that KCFD #18 and NKFR enter into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement

that combines the two administrations. Upon implementation of the Interlocal Agreement, anRIF must be implemented. Recommended reduction and changes include:

Reassign one of the two incumbent fire chiefs to the position of assistant chief ofadministration and support.

Reassign the incumbent assistant chief to operations with responsibility for duties oftraining chief.


19/369


8

Reassign the current training battalion chief to a position as the administrative battalionchief (40-hour workweek). It is envisioned that this position would superviseadministrative duties presently handled by the shift battalion chiefs.

A single public information officer would become responsible for the community outreachand marketing for both Districts.

A single fleet manager would supervise the fleet maintenance mechanics at NKFR.Maintenance and repair of KCFD #18s fleet is incorporated into their responsibilities andabsorption of the associated work.

A single administrative services manager/director would have responsibility for humanresources, outsourced IT services, and supervision of clerical support staff.

A single receptionist would provide services at the headquarters station.

A sample organizational chart can be found in the Findings and Recommendations section of

this report.

Suquamish Tribal Partnership

ESCI recommends that the Districts partner with the Suquamish Tribe. While the Suquamish

Tribe does not own fire suppression assets, it has access to financial opportunities not available

to either fire district. Exploration of the formation of a fire authority that includes the tribe is

considered a viable alternative to the current system. Additionally, the formation of a port

district by the tribe could provide revenue that could be beneficial for the entire region. Further,

the tribe is anxious to play a larger role in regional services and is approachable on the subject

of partnering. State statutes allow tribal governments to join regional fire authorities as a full

partner, and intergovernmental agreements could also be negotiated between the parties.

Form an RFA (Regional Fire Authority)

ESCI recommends that KCFD #18, NKFR, and the Suquamish Tribe pursue the formation of an

RFA with an EMS levy and benefit charge as the funding mechanism. Establish an exploratory

committee made up of internal and external stakeholders who determine the plausibility of such

an endeavor by determining the level of community support. If the committee reports back

favorably on the RFA concept, the two boards and tribe formally establish a planning committee

to set service level standards, funding mechanisms, governance, and the remaining obligations

as listed in RCW 52.26. Formation of an RFA will be an extended process, likely taking up to

two years to complete. The preceding actions will provide temporary financial relief until this

long-term solution is implemented.


20/369


9

The option of a merger also has the option of a benefit charge; however, since neither District

has a benefit charge in place, a merger would need to occur before the charge can be

implemented. If the benefit charge is rejected by voters subsequent to a merger vote, the

Districts would need to grapple with a lower tax base than is necessary to support the current

operations.


21/369


10

Purpose and Methodology

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges (SWOC)

The study takes into account the many shared critical issues that face the two fire departments

and how such matters affect the effort to construct a model for efficient service. These issueswere identified and analysis and specific recommendations are offered in the section titled,

Appendix C: Summary of Recommended Actions.

Organizational Strengths

It is important for any organization to identify its strengths in order to assure it is capable of

providing the services requested by customers and to ensure that strengths are consistent with

the issues facing the organization. Often, identification of organizational strengths leads to the

channeling of efforts toward primary community needs that match those strengths. Programs

that do not match organizational strengths or the primary function of the business should be

seriously reviewed to evaluate the rate of return on precious staff time. In the course of ESCIs

stakeholder interviews, the strengths of the Kitsap County Fire District #18 (KCFD #18) and

North Kitsap Fire & Rescue (NKFR) were identified. They are listed below, as stated by those

interviewed.


Kitsap County Fire District #18 North Kitsap FR

Good facilities Good community outreach

Chief is well respected Strong chief, respected

Thinks about what is best for the community Positive relationships with neighbors

Pride in facilities and equipment Honesty and integrity of the fire chief

Good communications, but room for improvementCulture and mindset toward doing the best for the

public

Recent training improvements Effective fire station locations

Strong, capable administrative support Positive labor/management relationships

Same EMS (emergency medical service)protocols as neighbors

Resident program is valuable

Strong EMS program Labor and administration work well together

Good incident review practices Strong, respected resident/volunteer program

Strong board with good relationships, staysfocused at the policy level

Family oriented organization

Good numbers of well trained personnel High morale, positive attitudes

Strong medic program Positive leadership

Excellent training officer Professionalism

Diverse and experienced workforce Service above self ethic


22/369


11



Not resident/volunteer dependent Good medic program

Chief is focused on administrative needs Good relations between paid and volunteers

Were a family, though less so recently People are flexible, accommodating to needs

Strong volunteer program

Management commitment to the citizens andservice

Visibility, school programs

Resident program = hiring pool

Good training program

Organizational Weaknesses

Performance or lack of performance within an organization depends greatly on the identification

of weaknesses and how they are confronted. While it is not unusual for these issues to be at

the heart of the organizations overall problems, it is unusual for organizations to be able to

identify and deal with these issues effectively on their own.

For any organization to either begin or to continue to move progressively forward, it must not

only be able to identify its strengths but also those areas where it does not function well. These

areas of needed enhancements are not the same as challenges, but rather those day-to-day

issues and concerns that may slow or inhibit progress. As with the strengths (listed previously),

ESCI asked stakeholders to list organizational weaknesses in their respective organizations.

They are listed below, as reported by the interviewees.



Too few personnel in administration Internal communications could improve

No impact fees charged by KCFD #18 Not adequately staffed

KCFD #18 equipment maintenance is lacking Lacking administrative staffing, support

Loss of fire marshal resulting in piece mealapproach to prevention

High ratio of officers to line personnel

Not enough boots on the street Lower population densities

Union is demanding Lack of commercial property (development)

Most hiring has been lateral in recent years, aneed to bring in outside people

Need more career personnel

Running out of money, bargaining unit isholding to maintenance/increases

Succession planning future replacement for firechief and assistant chief will be difficult

Low staffing levels on engines Financial vulnerability

Weak volunteer program Lack of focus on long range planning


23/369


12



Loss of positions, concern about job loss Spread thin due to vow to not close a station

Disconnect with elected officials recently Treating service like a business is difficult

Declining finances Minimum operational staffing adjustment

Declining morale Enforcement of policies, procedures is casual

Union has to protect jobs Lack of support for outside training

We tend not to finish a project Reduced manpower due to EMS transport

Training was poor, improving some Need to plan better, be more proactive

Sense of family and purpose declining

People are out for themselves

Minimum staffing levels

Attitudes

Officer assignments

Opportunities

The opportunities for an organization depend on the identification of strengths and how they are

built upon and in what way weaknesses are diminished. The focus of opportunities is not solely

on existing service but on expanding and developing new possibilities both inside and beyond

the traditional boundaries of business as usual.

Because the questions posed to stakeholders by ESCI were presented in the context of a

cooperative efforts feasibility study, most responses were provided in that frame of reference.Because of the collaborative focus of answers, the opportunities identified are applicable to both

Districts.


24/369


13

Opportunities

Opportunity to work together between the two agencies

Finding ways to work more closely together will serving the community better

To share the mature resident firefighter program

To share training programs

To continue and enhance EMS program management

To strengthen volunteer and resident programs

To work more closely, cooperatively with Central Kitsap F&R

To reopen fire station on the south end

To share facilities and vehicle maintenance

To share training

To contract some non-emergency KCFD #18 services out to NKFR

To share resources between neighboring agencies

To reduce dependence on residents that is perceived to be too high

To address low minimum staffing

To accommodate regional training delivery

Challenges

To draw the strong suit and gain full benefit of any opportunity, the challenges to the

organization, with their new risks and threats, must also be identified. By recognizing potential

challenges, an organization can greatly reduce the potential for future setbacks.

As with opportunities and the context in which the questions were posed to the interviewees,

responses tended to be in effect applicable to both organizations. In some instances the

challenges may affect the outcome of collaborative efforts between KCFD #18 and NKFR.


25/369


14

Challenges

May be fewer commissioners and senior staff/administrative positions if consolidated

Large differences in Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) between the two agencies

Differences in staffing methodologies between the two agencies

Acceptance of NKFR resident personnel by KCFD #18 personnel

Labor issues between very different bargaining units

It will be difficult to replace Chief Smiths financial skills and AC Kiers training abilities when they retire

Keeping up with increasing call volumes

Maintaining financial stability, sustainability

Maintaining high morale in the future

Fire-based transport is a significant manpower drain

Apparatus is aging and replacement funds are not available

Union differences

Cultures differ greatly

Meeting service demands with dwindling financial resources

Addressing the impending retirement of the operations chief

After discussing core services, organizational strengths and weaknesses, and the opportunities

and challenges posed by the current environs, ESCI asked stakeholders to identify the critical

issues they perceive each Fire District is facing. The following reflect the critical issues that the

respondents felt pose the greatest risk today, as well as on the success of cooperative service

delivery initiatives.


26/369


15

Critical Issues

First Critical Issue:Financial Needs

Financial needs and declining fiscal resources were the most frequentlylisted issue, mentioned 14 times by stakeholder interviewees. Many

respondents expressed concerns about declining taxable assessed value,declining revenue, and increasing expenditures.

Second Critical Issue:Cultural Differences

The second most frequently identified issue (in nine instances), was thesignificant cultural and functional differences between the two collectivebargaining units. In the context of future cooperative efforts, this was viewed

to be a major obstacle.

Third Critical Issue:Collective Bargaining

Issues

Seven of those interviewed discussed CBAs (labor agreements),labor/management relations, and pay and benefit issues as critical. Concernwas articulated that in some cases, labor is not on the same page as policy

makers and administration. Uneasiness was expressed regarding combiningtwo very different CBAs under a consolidation.

Additional issues raisedby interviewees

The following were listed by one or more stakeholders:

KCFD #18 needs to fully utilize volunteers, value residents

There are too many officers

Staffing shortages

Keeping stations open

Communications with management

Maintaining the value of the volunteers

Balancing politics and egos internally

Staffing levels

Labor/management differences

Differing management styles

Loss of identity


27/369


28/369


17

Evaluation of Current Conditions

Survey Table 1: Organization Overview

The feasibility study involves North Kitsap Fire & Rescue (NKFR) and Kitsap County Fire District #18 (KCFD #18). The service area

of KCFD #18 includes the incorporated city of Poulsbo, Washington.

Data provided by the participating fire agencies was combined with information collected in the course of ESCIs field work and used

to develop an overview of the subject organizations. The purpose of the following organizational overview is two-fold; first, it verifies

the accuracy of the baseline information and ESCIs understanding of each agencys composition the foundation from which the

feasibility analysis is developed. Secondly, the overview serves as a reference for the reader who may not be familiar with the

details of each agencys operations.

Survey ComponentOrganization Overview Observations

Kitsap County Fire District #18 North Kitsap Fire & Rescue Recommended Action

1. Responsibilities and Lines ofAuthority

A. Governance

Five-member board of firecommissioners serve a six-year

term. Board member positions areelected in staggered order in oddyears

Five-member board of firecommissioners serve a six-year term.

Board member positions are elected instaggered order in odd years

i) head of governing body Commissioner Jim Ingalls, Chair Commissioner Steve Neupert, Chairii) key employee of governing

bodyLise Alkire (Board Secretary) Cindy Moran (Board Secretary)


29/369


18



iii) meetings

2nd & 4th Wednesdays of eachmonth plus special meetings withNorth Kitsap Fire & Rescue andBainbridge Island FD quarterly

2nd & 4th Mondays of each month plusspecial board meetings with KCFD #18and Bainbridge Island FD boards on a

quarterly basis

Both Agencies: Considersetting regular meeting dateson the same cycle to facilitatejoint meetings without calling

for a special meeting1

B. Elected official authoritydefined

RCW 52.14 RCW 52.14

C. Fire chief position Chief Dan Olson Chief Dan Smithi) hired by contract Yes Yes

ii) term of contract Continuous, at will contractThree year contract, termination forcause only, wages and benefits are

negotiable

iii) periodic performanceevaluation

Annual by board (oral conducted inexecutive session)

Annual by boardKCFD #18: Reduce fire chiefperformance evaluations to

written form2

D. Fire chief/authority defined Yes, policy and job description Yes, in job descriptionE. Policy and administrative rolesdefined

Yes, governance policies are inplace for board

Yes, governance policies are in placefor board

2. Attributes of SuccessfulOrganizations

A. Rules and regulationsmaintained

Code of conduct and table ofoffenses only

Yes, ERS (Emergency ReportingSystem) on-line fire and EMS RMS

(records management system)

KCFD #18: Establish rules &regulations

i) process for revision provided No Schedule identified in policies

KCFD #18: Develop schedulefor review and revision toensure conformity with

legal/organizational changesB. Legal counsel maintained Yes, Brian Snure Yes, Brian Snure & Joe Quinn

1With regular board meetings of both agencies coinciding with each other, joint meetings are facilitated more easily without incurring the expense

or cost with calling for a special meeting or additional meeting. These simultaneous but separate meetings can then be easily converted to jointmeetings as the need arises to allow for better dialogue at the policy level as the two agencies continue to explore efficiencies by working moreclosely together.2

By creating a written performance evaluation, complete with explicit goals, the board and the fire chief are clear on expectations, areas ofexcellence or needing improvement, and future oriented expectations of the board. This provides continuity as changes occur within the board orwith the fire chief.


30/369


19



i) consultation available Yes Yes

ii) labor counselSummit Law Group, Rod Yonkers &

Kristin AngerJohn Silk

C. Financial controls Yes Yes

i) financial control system

The District uses the Countysfinancial system (JD Edwards). TheDistrict has the authorization to enter

data and run reports. No on-linereview for department. County

generates payroll and AP checks.County doesnt charge for services

The District uses the Countys financialsystem (JD Edwards). The District hasthe authorization to enter data and run

reports. On-line review for financialreporting (finance only). County

generates payroll and AP checks.County doesnt charge for services

KCFD #18: Review the merit

of having on-line access tofinancial reporting

ii) financial review

Financial review monthly with boardat a summarized level. Detail

reviews are completed by the chiefand the individual responsible for the

specific line item. CommissionerGreen is the board financial

representative. In this capacity hereviews/approves all payment

vouchers.

Financial review to the board ofcommissioners is during the first

meeting of the month. Report showscash and investment, revenue andsummary expenses. District staffreceives a detailed monthly report.

Commissioner Patrick Pearson is theboard financial representative. In thiscapacity he reviews and pre-approves

all payment vouchers.

iii) auditor

Audits are conducted by the Stateauditors every two years on the oddyears. The last audit was for 2007

and 2008. The report generated wasissued on November 4, 2009. No

material weaknesses were identifiedin the audit. The audit of 2009 and

2010 is scheduled for 2011.

Audits are conducted by the Stateauditors every two years on the odd

years. The last audit was for 2007 and

2008. The report generated wasissued on December14, 2009. No

material weaknesses were identified inthe audit. The audit of 2009 and 2010

is scheduled for 2011.iv) frequency of review Every two years on odd years Every two years on odd years


31/369


20



D. Governing body minutesmaintained

Yes Yes

i) availability of minutesYes, electronic and on District

websiteYes, electronic and in a binder

NKFR: Consider postingboard minutes on website for

better transparency toconstituency

3

3. Organizational Structure

A. Structure type Very flat hierarchical Very flat hierarchical with significantempowerment to positions

B. Descriptions of all jobsmaintained

Yes, in 2005 (need to be updated) Yes, non-uniform might need review

Both Agencies: Consider ajoint committee to review/

update job descriptionstogether, aligning functions

where possible, andfacilitating future integration4

i) job descriptions updated In 2012 operational plan Yes, recently reviewed

C. Employment agreementsNon-represented contractsRepresented have CBAs

Yes, non-uniformed CBA; uniformedCBA; Administrative Contract (7)

4. Chain of Command

A. Unity of command Yes Yes

B. Span of control

5:1 administrative2:1 for operations

Appropriate for staffing and EMStransport

5:1 administrative1:1 for operations

Appropriate given two person staffingand EMS transport services

C. Hiring/Firing authority Fire chief Fire chief5. Formation and History

A. Organization formed 1936 1948

B. History maintainedYes, preparing for 75th anniversary

celebrationYes

i) individual or groupresponsible

Appointed committee, ChairCommissioner Sullivan

Michele Laboda

3Uploading board meeting minutes, once approved, provides for greater transparency for interested citizens.

4 By working together to align job descriptions as much as possible, especially when the need for review and revision are recognized andimminent, opportunities for efficiency can be discovered.


32/369


21



6. Fire Department Overview

A. Agency type Fire District Fire District

B. Area, square miles 54 square miles

45 square miles (District) plus twosquare miles by contract with Port

Gamble SKlallam (renegotiated everysix years)

C. Headquarters

911 Liberty Rd NE

Poulsbo, WA 98370Station 71

Paul T. Nichol Headquarters:

26642 Miller Bay Rd NEStation 81

D. Fire stationsFour, two manned and one flexibly

manned and one unmanned atKeyport

Four manned and one unmanned

E. Other facilitiesTraining facility connected to Fire

Station No. 7733787 NE Eglon Rd (storage)

F. Emergency vehiclesi) engine 4 4ii) engine, reserve 1 2iii) ladder truck 0 0iv) ambulance 4 4

v) ambulance, reserve 2 1

Both Agencies: Considerpooling reserve ambulances

between the agencies,potentially reducing the needfor one reserve (maintenance

record verification ofreliability)

5

vi) command 1 (4 staff & support vehicles)1 (2 staff vehicles 3 fleet maintenance,1 facilities maintenance, 4 motor pool)

NKFR: Evaluate need for fourmotor pool vehicles, verify

reliability throughmaintenance records

6

vii) boat 1 (17 foot SafeBoat) 1 (29 foot LifeTimer)

5Maintenance records may reveal an opportunity for a pooled fleet of reserve ambulances to reduce the need for three units, thus reducing costs.

6 Evaluate the cost effectiveness of a motor pool versus reimbursement for required travel by district personnel performing non-emergencyservices work.


33/369


22



viii) tenders 2 (3,000 gal.) 3, 1@3500 gal., 1@3000, 1@1000ix) brush 0 1

G. WSRB rating4 in the city of Poulsbo, 5 in the

District, (7 for unhydranted areas)5 (6 for unhydranted areas)

Both Agencies: Considerconducting an informal re-rateanalysis to determine whethera Class 4 is possible for both

agencies7

i) date of most recent rating 1991 1991ii) maximum fire department

deficiency points possible5,000 5,000

iii) relative classification n/a n/aiv) divergent reduction n/a n/av) total deficiency points 2,236 2,068

H. Total fire departmentpersonnel, uniformed and civilian

43.33(Includes 0.33 FTE facilities

maintenance position. NKFR is theemployer of the position shared

equally with KCFD #18 and BFD)

45.00(Includes 1.0 FTE facilities

maintenance position. NKFR is theemployer of the position shared

equally with KCFD #18 and BFD)

i) administrative and supportpersonnel, full-time

7 1/3 fulltime filled positions, 5approved positions are vacant.

Facility maintenance position is split1/3 each for KCFD #18, NKFR and

Bainbridge Island.

12

ii) operational personnel, full-time

36 33

KCFD #18: Considerexpanding the administrative

and support volunteerprogram

iii) operational personnel,volunteer

2518

14 to 16 interns and 2 tender operators

7Training and Large Fire Operation are the two areas of greatest deficiency within the fire department, according to the Washington Surveying &

Rating Bureau in 1991. While this evaluation is 20 years old for both departments, they are also areas where the fire districts have significantcontrol. An informal evaluation of the circumstances today might reveal an opportunity to drop a rate classification for both agencies. Waterdistribution is the single greatest number of total deficiency. Active involvement with the local water departments and developers in improvingmain distribution, hydrant placement, pumps, and looped systems provide significant benefit to the fire districts from a rate classificationperspective.


34/369


23



7. Finance Overview

A. Designated fiscal yearCalendar year January 1st through

December 31st

Calendar year January 1st throughDecember 31

st

B. Assessed property value, FY2011

Fire $3,303,787,872EMS $3,308,285,482

Fire $2,743,847,365EMS $2,745,732,697

C. Revised 2011 generaloperating fund budget, fire

department

The 2011 budget is $6,983,674. This

includes EMS costs.

The 2011 budget is $6,042,161.

This includes EMS costs.D. General fund property tax,District levy FY 2011

Fire $4,955,681EMS $1,654,142

Fire $3,923,070EMS $1,372,866

i) levy rate (FY 2007 through2010)

Fire2010 1.4573692009 1.3367842008 1.3048882007 0.886593

EMS2010 0.5000002009 0.5000002008 0.3022672007 0.321288

Fire2010 1.3094302009 1.1864192008 1.1588632007 1.285388

EMS2010 0.5000002009 0.5000002008 0.5000002007 0.338834

ii) general fund levy collectionrate FY 2010

Property taxes collected in 2010were $6,806,626. This amount

represents 100.003% of thebudgeted amount.

Property taxes collected in 2010 were$5,334,795. This amount represents

99.91% of the budgeted amount.

E. Bonds, fire department Annual $189,407.50 Annual $490,000

i) levy rate$2,040,000 @ average interest rate

of 4.572373%Bond levy rate $0.248095

F. Other tax levy, public safety EMS EMS

i) levy rate$0.50/1,000 of the assessed value

(AV)$0.50/1,000 of the assessed value

(AV)8. Demographics

A. Population, 201023,500

(client provided)18,418 plus 682 by contract

(client provided)i) population history (2000

2010)Not requested Not requested

ii) percent urban/suburban 35% Not provided


35/369


24



iii) percent rural 65% Not providedB. Total residential units, 2010 Not provided 8,000C. Businesses, 2010 Not provided 400

9. Alarms, Calendar YearA. Fire 60 54

i) value of property exposed tofire, 2010

Not tracked Not tracked

Both Agencies: Considerobtaining property value from

county assessor on line, addcontents estimate for total

value of property exposed tofire

ii) value of property lost to fire,2010

$538,992 Not tracked

Both Agencies: Consideramending NFIRS report withinsurance information once

claim is settledB. Rupture or explosion n/a 7C. EMS/rescue 2,052 1,586D. Number of EMS transports 1,567 (740 BLS, 827 ALS) 1,015 (536 BLS, 479 ALS)E. Hazardous condition 85 164F. Service call 410 115G. Good intent call 372 342H. False call 169 163I. Severe weather n/a 5

J. Other 30 44K. Total 3,178 2,480

Comments:

43 percent of the mutual aid responses KCFD #18 receives are from NKFR (43 percent NKFR, 32 percent NRNW, 21 percent CKFR, 3percent BIFD, and 1 percent JCFR#3).

With approximately 17 percent of all calls for service being classified as good intent or false calls, KCFD #18 and NKFR should considerthe causes and implementing a public education campaign aimed at reducing the number of these incidents. As a second proactive ideato reduce the frequency of nuance calls, the Districts should adopt and enforce the Kitsap County false alarm ordinance that gives fireservice agencies an enforcement tool (Kitsap County Code Chapter 6.10 Emergency Communications Systems).


36/369


25

Figure 1: NKFR Organizational Chart

Citizens

Board of

Commissioners

Fire Chief

Operations

Section

EmergencyServices

Support

Services

Training &

Safety

CommunityServices

Fleet Services

Administration

Section

Finance

Administrative

Support

Human

Resources

Planning

Section

StrategicPlanning

Labor

Management

Budget &

Finance

Healthcare


37/369


26

Figure 2: KCFD #18 Organizational Chart

Pub Ed/PIO

Fleet/Facil i t ies

Training/Safety

Fire Marshal

Deputy Chief Adm in

Volunteer BC

B C C

B C B

B C A

Deputy Chief O perat ions/EMS

Finance

H R

IS

Off ice Mgt

Adm instrat ive S erv ices Mgr

Fire Chief

Board of Fi re Com missioners

Cit izens of Kitsap Co unty Fire District 18


38/369


27

Survey Table 2: Management Components

Fire department management coupled with organizational growth is a common challenge for fire service leaders. NKFR and KCFD

#18 are not immune to having adequate management to meet current conditions. The modern fire department must address

management complexities in areas that include the consistency and adequacy of response, maintenance of competencies, and

recruitment of a qualified and diverse workforce. A forecast of continued population growth and response activity workload will

necessitate changes in staffing to meet anticipated service demand. A correlated increase in organizational infrastructure is required

to support operational personnel. This section examines each departments efforts to manage the organization and measures that

are being taken for the future.

Survey ComponentManagement Components Observations


1. Mission, Vision, StrategicPlanning, Goals andObjectives

A. Mission statement adopted Yes (needs to be updated) Yes

i) displayedNot currently, when updated, it will

be displayedOn website and in annual report

ii) periodic review Due in 2012 No set schedule

B. Vision established andcommunicated

Due in 2012(Strategic goals adopted by the

Board)

Both Agencies: Adoptorganizational guiding principles

or values for all personnel8C. Values of staff established Due in 2012 No

i) organizational focal points Due in 2012 No

D. Strategic or master plan Due in 2012 NoBoth Agencies: Establish a

synchronous five-year strategicplanning cycle for both agencies

i) adopted by elected officials n/a n/aii) published and available n/a n/aiii) periodic review n/a n/a

8 Personnel who exercise independent decision making naturally make better decisions when they understand the principles and values of theorganization. Decisions are then made with the leaders intent clearly understood.


39/369


28



E. Agency goals and objectivesestablished

Operational goals and objectivesare drawn from strategic goals

directed annually by thecommission.

Yes

i) date developedFirst developed in 2009, annual

review and adjustment2008

ii) periodic review Annually Annually

iii) tied to division/personnelperformance statements/plans Yes Yes

iv) objectives linked toprograms

Yes Yes

v) performance objectivesestablished

Yes Yes

F. Code of ethics established Yes, in policy manual Yes, in policy manual2. Availability of SOPs, Rules

and Regulations, Policies

A. Copies of rules provided On server, hard copy in office In ERS libraryi) last date reviewed n/a Schedule on ERS library

B. Copies of SOGs or guidelinesavailable

Outdated, being revised Yes

i) regular update n/a

As needed, changed by WAC(Washington Administrative Code),

L&I rulings, county-widestandardizations

KCFD #18: Establish an SOGduring the revision that

establishes a review/reviseinterval9

ii) process for development ofnew SOGs

Prioritized risks, program managerand training chief develops draft,presents to leadership team, chief

adopts

See above, process underdevelopment

iii) SOGs used in trainingevolutions

Yes Yes

C. Policy manual available Yes Yes

9Current Standard Operating Guidelines are important for continuity of action by crews in the field. As the SOGs are revised, establishing a new

SOG that sets the review/revision frequency of the entire set of SOGs helps the organization police itself in terms of changing practices or newtechnologies/processes.


40/369


29



i) reviewed for consistency Yes, annuallyYes enhanced procedure under

developmentii) reviewed for legal mandates Sent for legal review When reviewed for revision needsiii) training on policies provided Yes Yes

3. Critical Issues

A. Critical issues are identified Not formally identified Yes, identified in annual reporti) first critical issue n/a See annual report

ii) second critical issue n/a See annual reportiii) third critical issue n/a See annual report

4. Challenges of the Future

A. Challenges are identified Not formally identified Yes, identified in annual reporti) first challenge n/a See annual reportii) second challenge n/a See annual reportiii) second challenge n/a See annual report

5. Internal and ExternalCommunications

A. Internal communicationsFace to face, quarterly with crews,meeting with an individual monthly,

weekly updates via e-mail

E-mail, weekly flash (electronicnewsletter), Twitter, Facebook

KCFD #18: Consider adding aregular electronic internal

department newsletterdistributed to all personnel.

NKFR: Consider face-to-facecrew meetings

i) regularly scheduled staffmeetings (fire department)

Yes, leadership team meetingstwice a month

Yes, monthly B/C, quarterly alluniformed officers. Admin. Staff as

needed

ii) written staff meeting minutesNot lately (personnel reductionshave minimized staff availability.

Yes, of B/C and uniformed officermeetings

iii) memosDirectives and administrative

memorandumsAs needed

iv) member newsletter Yes Yes, weekly flash

v) member forums YesYes, electronically and

anonymouslyvi) open door policy Yes Yes

vii) bulletin board Yes, not used regularlyYes, electronically and

anonymously


41/369


30



viii) vertical communicationpath clearly identified

No YesKCFD #18: Consider clarifying

communication path via chain ofcommand

ix) e-mail Yes Yesx) employee mail boxes Yes Yes

xi) voice mailAnyone with an extension has a

voicemailAnyone with an extension has a

voicemail

xii) issues taskforce Yes, stakeholders pulled together toaddress problem As needed if appropriate, not inwritingB. External communications

i) community newsletterYes, annually, exploring a quarterlycolumn written by fire chief, seeking

neighborhood associations

Yes, monthly articles in communitynewsletters

ii) website Yes Yes

iii) advisory committee(s)Yes, budget and flex staffing for

Fire Station No. 72As needed

Both Agencies: Consider jointcitizen advisory committee in

this feasibility effort10

iv) complaint process No, outdated policy on complaints Yes, in policiesKCFD #18: Establish a written

citizen complaint process

vi) emailFacebook and e-mail follow up from

community meetingsFacebook updates and/or e-mail as

neededvii) community survey No As needed

viii) local community planning

organizationsYes, city of Poulsbo

Yes, county citizen advisorycommittees in Kingston, Hansville,

and Suquamish communities

ix) focus groupsCommunity Budget Review

Committee (CBRC)As needed

10The policy makers of KCFD #18 and NKFR have taken a huge step toward discovering efficiencies with a closer working relationship. The next

logical step is to include community leaders (external stakeholders) to listen to concepts and provide guidance and feedback for the policy makersto consider.


42/369


31



6. Decision Making Process

A. Preferred managementmethodology of the fire chief

Decisions made at the lowestappropriate level (if they are

prepared and equipped to). Seekdivergence of opinion, and then

make a decision.

Seek input, empower asappropriate

B. Management process identified

Decisions made at the lowest

appropriate level (if they areprepared and equipped to). If theyarent, training provided.

Decisions at the lowest appropriatelevel

C. Decision making processestablished

See above See above

7. Document Control

A. Process for public recordsaccess established

Yes Yes

B. Hard copy files protected Yes YesC. Computer files backed up Yes Yes8. Security

A. Building security Yes YesB. Office security Yes YesC. Computer security Yes YesD. Vehicle security Yes YesE. Capital inventory maintained Yes Yes

i) asset security system used Yes Yes

ii) inventory interval Yes, annuallyYes, annual for small and attractive

assetsF. Monetary controls used Yes Yes

i) cash access controls No petty cash

No petty cash; however, thedepartment does maintain a small

balance checking account foremergency payments


43/369


32



ii) credit card controls

Fire chief and office manager withcredit limits. Three generic cardsare available to be signed out to

personnel if needed. Assigned cardholders must sign an agreement to

be responsible for unauthorizedcharges.

NKFR has issued many creditcards to various individuals.

Control on these transactions isthrough the use of approved POS(point of sale) and the review byCommissioner Pearson, the fire

chief and the administrative

services manager.iii) purchasing controls

Department procedure #2003current date is 12/28/2010

Audited by Cindy and Kathy

9. Reporting and Records

A. Records kept by computer Yes Yesi) type of platform IBM IBM

ii) operating system Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft compatible Windows; if

data base it is on Sequel with ERSmanaging incident reports

B. Periodic report to electedofficials

i) financial report Yes, monthly Yes, monthlyii) management report Yes, chiefs report Yes, verbal and written as needediii) operational report Yes, contained in chiefs report Yes, contained in chiefs reportiv) distributed to others No No

C. Annual report produced Yes, most recent is 2009 Yes, most recent is 2009

i) distributed to others Yes, on website

Yes, on website, in stations and in

local public librariesii) analysis of data provided Yes Yes

D. Required records maintainedi) incident reports Yes Yesii) patient care reports Yes Yes

iii) exposure recordsYes, separated medical records in

personnel fileYes, separated medical records in

medical fileiv) SCBA testing Yes Yes, internally performedv) hose Yes Yes, internally performedvi) ladder Yes Yes, contractedvii) pump Yes Yes, contractedviii) breathing air Yes Yes, contracted


44/369


33



ix) vehicles YesYes, (also provide contract

maintenance for other agencies,37% of 86 vehicles are NKFRs)

x) gas monitors Yes Yes10. Budgetary Controls

A. Designated fiscal year Calendar year Calendar yeari) budget cycle Annual Annual

B. Budget officerAdministrative services manager

oversees the budgets in conjunctionwith fire chief in the review process

Director of administrative servicesoversees the budget in conjunction

with the fire chief in the reviewprocess

C. Budget development processBudget process is established in

department procedure #4004issued 9/23/2009

No written budget procedure hasbeen established.

NKFR: Establish a writtenbudget process

i) governance

Process starts in early June withLine Item Managers submitting

requests. Requests collated by mid-July. Leadership Team reviews all

requests and prioritizes draftapprovals. In September, first

Commissioner review withadjustments. October-Community

Budget Review Committee reviewsand provides strategic direction.

Budget finalized and adopted byBOFC in November.

NKFR budget committee consists ofthe fire chief assistant chief and two

commissioners. The budgetcommittee reviews the budget

requests submitted from informationcollective and summarized by staff.Reports are submitted to the entire

board for review and approval.

ii) administrationAdministrative services prepare

worksheets for review.Administrative services prepare

worksheets for review.

iii) managementStaff and administrative service

managerStaff, budget committee and

administrative service directoriv) staff Only responsible line item holders Only responsible line item holders


45/369


34



v) community

Public hearing first board meeting inNovember. In 2010, communitybudget review committee was

established to providerecommendations for the budget

process.

Public hearing first board meeting inNovember.

No community involvement otherthan at board meeting todiscuss/approve budget

D. Budget adoption process

Public hearing is the first

commission meeting in November.Budget is adopted at the second

meeting in November.

Open hearing for revenue sources

as soon as information is receivedfrom KC Assessor and documentsare prepared (no later than second

meeting in November)

i) budget approval Last meeting in NovemberNo later than last meeting in

Novemberii) funding approval Last meeting in November Last meeting in November

E. Financial control officer Administrative Services Manager Administrative Services Director

i) financial reportReporting is provided by hard copyto the fire commissioners monthly

for review at a high level

Reporting is provided by hard copyto the fire commissioners monthly

for review at a high level

ii) financial review

The financial review/control ismonitored by the fire chief,

administrative service manager andFire Commissioner Green

The financial review/control ismonitored by the fire chief,

administrative service director andFire Commissioner Pearson

F. Basis of accounting Cash basis Cash basis

G. PurchasingDepartment procedure #2003

current date is 12/28/2010.

NKFR follows the RCW (Revised

Code of Washington) and DistrictSOP 601

i) purchasing policy Yes Yes

ii) credit cards

Chief and office manager with creditlimits. Three generic cards are

available to be signed out topersonal if needed. Assigned cardholders must sign an agreement to

be responsible for unauthorizedcharges.

NKFR has issued many credit cardsto various individuals. Control onthese transactions is through the

use of approved POS (point of sale)and the review by Commissioner

Pearson, the fire chief and theadministrative services manager.


46/369


35



iii) purchase orders Used for non-credit card purchasesAll items except overhead items

(electricity, water, natural gas etc.)must have a PO (purchase order)

iv) open accounts Yes, office supplies, vehicles Gasoline (on vehicles), Costcov) petty cash accounts No petty cash Checking petty cash account

vi) central supplies/logistics

Yes, supplies are purchased and

maintain at headquarters. Stationsmust come to headquarters to pick

up from general supply.

Yes, supplies are purchased andmaintain at HQ. Stations requisition

supplies from HQ.

Both Agencies: Considerestablishing a centralized

warehouse, staffed by aninventory control specialist whoorders, receives and deliverssupplies for both agencies

11

vii) joint agreements/venturesState co-op for state contracts.

Kitsap County vendor listState co-op for state contracts.

Kitsap County vendor listviii) JPAs Currently none open now. Currently none open now

ix) biddingAdvertise for bid over $10K. Three

bids.Follow state guidelines.

x) leasesCopier for headquarters and Fire

Station No. 77Four copier leases

11. Planning

A. Strategic/Master planning No Noi) plan period n/a n/aii) periodic review n/a n/aiii) goals n/a n/aiv) funding n/a n/a

B. CIP Capital improvement plan Yes, for apparatus and facilities Yes, for apparatus

i) plan periodFleet through 2022, facilities

through 2024Fleet through 2024

ii) periodic review Annually Annuallyiii) projects 0 0

11Inventory management can be an expensive, time-consuming, and tedious responsibility; and both agencies are managing the function

independently. The Washington State Auditors Office routinely checks for such controls in its annual or bi-annual audits. Establishing a centralwarehouse for small equipment, uniforms, and supplies makes inventory control a focused task, frees up expensive space being utilized for thatpurpose in fire stations, and lends itself to just -in-time delivery of supplies and equipment. A requisition process allows for easy tracking ofusage and replenishment of inventory. These tracking systems facilitate easy identification of over-use situations, where remedial action may betaken. Expense of this program can be partially offset by the savings that may be realized in inventory usage and storage.


47/369


36



iv) funding

Community budget reviewcommittee recommends multiple

strategies, external funding soughtfor improvements above $300,000.Not funded in 2011. Budget only

when needed. Example budget re-chassis of medic unit in 2011

budget.

Capital fund ($1 million), mayborrow if interest rate

advantageous.NKFR has decided to finance the

purchase of all vehicles.

12. Budget

A. Service level defined Yes, Policy #1004

The Board of Commissioners ofNorth Kitsap Fire & Re

Documents

North Kitsap-Poulsbo efficiency study