Agenda - Council - 08/13/2013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ramsey, hlowthen, St. Francis, Oak Grove, and Bethel, Minnesota Feasibility Study for Shared or Cooperative Fire and Emergency Services five members, each with an equal vote. However, it should be recognized that the City of Ramsey represents the highest percentage of assessed value (therefore risk) as well as service demand and population (another factor of risk). As a result, representation of Ramsey, and perhaps others, may be modified to achieve an appropriate balance. Many governing bodies find it difficult to reach consensus on a majority of issues when the membership of the board surpasses five to seven members. This is not to say that larger boards cannot be productive but rather to urge that smaller boards are more efficient at dealing with public safety issues. In the case of the Ramsey region, ESCI recommends a board of no more than seven individuals with representation based on a similar weighting as will be discussed in the following section of this report regarding funding. Prior to discussing alternative assessments, fees, or other increases to the current revenue stream, the governing boards of the participating agencies and municipalities should clearly define the level of community emergency service in measurable terms. For example, the boards should specify the service (fire protection), the quantity (a fire pumper and four firefighters), the quality (within six minutes of dispatch), and the accuracy (80 percent of the time). Once service is defined in specific and measurable terms, the tasks of determining cost and the consideration of funding alternatives become more focused. Potential funding alternatives can be grouped into two general categories: untapped revenues and redirected funds. Untapped revenue is represented by existing funding alternatives that are not fully used, like a tax increase or the implementation of a new tax, and by the identification of fees that do not fully recoup service costs. Redirected funds are existing revenue identified as not contributing toward the essential goals of the organization and, therefore, may be more efficiently allocated to other programs or functions. There are essentially three methods that can be used to redirect public funding: 1) proving that money could be spent more effectively, 2) showing that a population or area is not receiving its fair share of service, and 3) changing a policy so that a program can access a funding stream that currently exists.i' In order to redirect funding, leadership researches what funding is there, who controls the funding, what the policies are, and whether or not allocation patterns can be changed. " Sustainobe Funding for Program Strategies, Lessons Learned from an Ambitious Community Change Effort, June 2005, Urban Health Initiative, Seattle, WA. page 86 gcnry Services Co nsulung