Laserfiche WebLink
Lino Lakes, Minnesota – Fire Department Analysis Page 16 <br /> <br />IV. Identify Different Options and Models for Organizing a Fire Department <br />In January of 2014, the City of Lino Lakes withdrew from the Centennial Fire District. The details of the <br />withdrawal process are a work in progress and include a two-year transition timeline. <br /> <br />It is important to note in this analysis that regardless of the option selected by the City, fire service is <br />becoming more and more collaborative and Lino Lakes will want to partner with other fire service <br />agencies to provide successful fire service to the community. In our analysis, we believe there are six <br />distinct options for providing fire service to the Lino Lakes community. They are, in no particular order: <br /> <br />1. Stay with current Fire Protection District <br />2. Create a new Lino Lakes Fire Department <br />3. Contract for fire service with another department(s) <br />4. Establish a new district with additional jurisdictions <br />5. New city department but contract services with Centerville and Circle Pines <br />6. Create a Public Safety Department combining Police and Fire functions <br /> <br />In practice, organizational leaders design or redesign their organizational structure to increase <br />coordination and integration of services, to combine similar functions, and/or to alter the present span of <br />control environment. Cost savings can be an important outcome, but should not be the sole determinant <br />or consideration. It is also very important to note that in some instances, there may be an up-front <br />investment of resources required to create or change a structure; this is clearly the case with starting a new <br />fire department. Each of these considerations – and more – should be included in any deliberations on the <br />structure of a department or an organization. <br /> <br />Previous experiences in reorganization efforts have identified five specific rationales for when <br />reorganization may be a positive outcome: <br />• To improve integration and coordination of work in units that share functional areas. <br />• To rectify situations where span of control is spread too thin and not efficient. <br />• To provide focus on organizational and strategic issues. <br />• To repair existing structures which do not meet current expectations, standards or trends. <br />• To enhance the level of organizational consistency in policy, operations and culture. <br /> <br />Similarly, we identify five pitfalls to avoid in a potential reorganization: <br />• Reorganizing around current personalities. <br />• Reorganizing out of convenience, as opposed to logic and anticipated outcomes. <br />• Reorganizing around historical conflicts or problems. <br />• Reorganizing to consolidate control and power (or to take it away). <br />• Reorganizing believing that restructuring by itself will fix all organizational issues. <br /> <br />Catalysts to changing structures often come in several forms: a change in personnel (generally when a top <br />administrator leaves or retires); a facility/space change (a new or renovated building); a change in policy <br />from the City Council; and/or a change in client service philosophy (a city seeks to gain efficiencies <br />through integration and improved client coordination and access to services). It is not uncommon for <br />local governments to have several motivations at work at the same time. <br /> <br />22