Tri

Tri-District Planning Group

The Tri-District Planning Group was called to order at 1800 hours, at Benton County Fire District #4, 2604 Bombing Range Road, West Richland, Washington, on February 15, 2007. The Fire Chief’s from Benton County Fire District #1, #2, and #4 lead the meeting.

Introductions

There were individuals at this meeting who did not make it to the first meeting, so everyone was asked to introduce themselves. The following individuals were in attendance:

Ron Bush, Career Representative, Benton #1

Ken Dobbin, West Richland Council Liaison

Ron Duncan, Fire Chief, Benton #2

Bob Gear, Fire Chief, Benton #1

AJ Hill, Commissioner, Benton #4

Kye Lorenzen, Volunteer Association Representative, Benton #4

Ryan Nicholls, Career Representative Alternate, Benton #1

Barry Orth, Volunteer Representative, Benton #2

Darrin Pettis, Career Representative, Benton #2

Arliss Redekopp, Administrative Representative, Benton #1

Mike Spring, Fire Chief, Benton #4

Joe Tea, Career Representative, Benton #4

Phil Rosenkranz, Volunteer Representative, Benton #1

Absent were:

Jenn Daugherty, Volunteer Association Representative Alternate, Benton #4

Bill Houchin, Commissioner, Benton #1

Ray Newton, Career Representative Alternate, Benton #4

DeWayne Smith, Commissioner, Benton #2

Bob Trainor, Volunteer Representative Alternate, Benton #1

Benton City Council Liaison

Nathan Isaacs, Media

Minutes of February 3, 2007, Meeting

The February 3 minutes state commissioner representatives will not vote in this work group, rather they will vote when issues are presented to the Commissioner Boards. The consensus of the group was each representative (or their alternate) has one vote, so commissioners will be allowed a vote. Phil Rosenkranz made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Ron Duncan seconded the motion and the motion passes with everyone in favor.

Roundtable Discussion on Peer Group Meetings

At the last meeting, planning group individuals were asked to meet with the group they represent and come back with a list of items that were deal breakers for working together.

Career Bargaining Unit Representatives

The three career bargaining group representatives reported the follow items:

· No deal breakers were identified. There are a lot of uncertainties and questions.

· Not sure where we are going yet.

· Will everyone keep their existing rank and pay grade?

· What will be the working hours (24 hour shifts versus day shift).

· Will there be rotation from station to station (additional travel time)?

· How will vehicle maintenance work? How will current maintenance personnel be affected?

· Contract alignments will be needed.

· Moral impacts need to be addressed.

· Who is chief?

The concept of “Everyone comes home” was discussed. The goal would be everyone keeps their job. Wages, working conditions, and hours are negotiable items and will need to be worked out. The three Fire Chiefs have agreed they will have the joint board make the final decision on the chief positions.

The career bargaining group stated that several months ago an organization chart for a joint organization was circulated. Rumor is a volunteer chief created the organizational chart. This chart has not been seen by much of the work group and some of the chiefs. The org chart is simply one person’s perspective of how an organization could be put together. This chart should not be given much power or attention, because it was not created or authorized by any official group. This work group stated they do not recognize this chart as an official document and it will not affect how this group moves forward.

The work group recognized that more of this type of thing will come out as the group moves forward.

Benton County Fire District #2 Volunteer Representative

This group met and has a lot of concerns and the representative received a number of phone calls after the meeting. Items discussed include:

· What is the tax payer getting?

· There is currently loyalty to their Fire Chief. Loyalty would have to be built for a new organization.

· Currently have good moral.

· Benton 2 has the only ambulance response system. How would response areas be affected?

· Many operational concerns.

Deal breakers include:

· Volunteers are proud of their agency, equipment and family atmosphere. They feel they have a lot to lose.

· Take pride in building trucks, can they do this in a joint organization?

· Would they lose the EMS medic service?

· Rank and organizational structure could be a deal breaker.

Benton County Fire District #1 Volunteer Representative

Benton 1 volunteers have not met yet. Their representative will take this topic to the next volunteer association meeting. Chief Gear stated Fire District #1 volunteers may not have as many concerns right now because District 1 has started down the path of a joint organization several times before. The concept is no longer new to the volunteers. As specific details are presented, questions and issues will come up.

Benton County Fire District #4 Volunteer Representative

Benton 4 held a volunteer association meeting. Many of the questions that came up were answered through the notes that were taken. No deal breakers were listed.

The Fire Chiefs stated that during the meetings a lot of questions were asked that currently do not have answers. Are people willing to get a toe wet and try the waters? Many items are minute in comparison to the bigger picture. We need to overcome the small stuff and look at how we service our customer.

Many of the current questions are operational, such as are we going to walk alongside the truck or ride on the truck. This group needs to be sympathetic to concerns and focus on cost centers so more people can be put on the street. Try to look at the big picture, on where we can save money. There are two types of people; people who are frustrated with change and those who are frustrated by the slow pace of change.

Administrative and Logistics Group Representative

The administrative staff from the three agencies met together and discussed concerns. A deal breaker identified was if job positions are lost. Concerns include:

· Lack of communications when not at that the same location.

· Workloads are heavy now, how would work be divided in a joint organization? Is there adequate staff to support the three districts?

· Where will offices be? Stay in current locations? One joint facility? Will chief’s and administrative staff reside in the same building?

· How will job duties change?

Logistics concerns include:

· Acquisition and distribution

Would the new organization use single point ordering and distribution (ICS model)?

What are the current policy and procedures in the three agencies? Are practices similar?

See problems tracking who ordered what? Where will items be delivered, checked in, inventoried, etc.?

· Are systems for facility PMs similar?

· Is there adequate personnel?

· What budget is paying for individual purchases?

Tri County Commissioner Meeting

At the Tri County Commissioner meeting in February, no strong statements were made for or against this process.

During discussion following the listing of concerns, it was pointed out that the career and volunteer chiefs should meet and go through this same process. The three agencies have a total of 11 chiefs. Bill Cherwin was asked to lead the effort to get the chief’s group together. A chief officer representative should be added to this planning group.

Brainstorm Areas of Opportunity

Brainstorming took place to list suggested areas where the three agencies can start working together. Items listed on the board include:

· Purchasing

· Central equipment maintenance

· Special Operations

· Finance/Administration

· Training

· Fire

· EMS

· Special Rescue

· Haz Mat

· Officers

· Develop one EMS service district

Joint board would have to ask county commissioners to form a service district, and then there could be one service district with one EMS levy.

· Budget

Because we are not merging into one district, each entity must have a budget to maintain capital assets. There could also be a joint budget to manage joint purchases and/or staff.

· Political advantages

More clout as a bigger agency

· Fire prevention and investigation

· Code enforcements

· Plans review

· Public information and education

· Recruit and retain public information officers

· Safety

· Compliance

· Share qualified staff/management

· Incident support resources

· Rehab

· Grant applications

· Boundaries

Eliminate response boundaries

Eliminate training boundaries

· Automatic aid

How “deep” do we go into another district? During week days CAD could be programmed to share resources farther from home station than on nights and weekends—depending on the resources available.

· Washington State Survey and Rating Bureau

Goal of a Class 5 rating across the board

· Each of the listed areas could be broken down into more detail.

To help visualize how this list could be organized, the following chart was provided:

Fire

Haz Mat

Technical Rescue

Rescue

Rehab

Medical

ALS

ILS

BLS

Transport/non transport

Administration

Training

Public Education

Investigation

Budget Codes

Standardization

During this brainstorming, the work group stated the agencies have more depth working together. It was also suggested the group get a wall map of the three agencies showing the boundaries and ambulance service areas.

The chiefs reminded the group to always keep in mind, “What are the advantages to the citizens of each agency.” To help stay on track, the group discussed having a vision statement that input could be judged against. An interim work statement could include,

“An organization that maximizes the service delivery, while maintaining community connection and support. Build a team whose members are effective, empowered, and enthusiastic in their service.”

Something about building trust could be added to the work statement. The group was asked to get input on a vision statement and bring back comments.

The Fire Chiefs will put today’s brainstorming into a bullet outline that can be used to formulate an interlocal agreement. An outline will be created and then substance can be placed into the outline.

So the group does not lose sight of concerns, it was suggested that a table be built of the concerns and how and when the concerns are addressed.

The joint board resolution this group looked at during the last meeting was sent to Attorney Hultgrenn for review. The revised version of the resolution was handed out. Minor changes were made, but the concept stayed the same. There was a blank to insert dates, times and place for the joint board meetings. For starters, the group suggested the third Saturday of each month at 0900 hours at Station 420.

Due to scheduling conflicts, the next meeting of this group was scheduled for March 26, 1800 hours, at Station 420.

Chief Gear stated he recently participated on a Tri-City Forum put together by the Tri-City Herald. The topic of the forum was consolidation of the area cities. Overwhelmingly, the participants said police and fire needs to be consolidated. Citizens don’t care which truck shows up in an emergency, just how quickly help arrives.