Homeowners again press to keep fire service with city, while rural board gives little detail on future plans

About 50 people showed up to the Whitefish Fire Service Area board meeting last week with many again asking the board to keep fire service for the rural area outside Whitefish in the hands of the City of Whitefish. The rural fire board offered little details on the matter, however, except to say they are still in negotiations with the city.

“We’re negotiating with the city and we will continue that way,” board chair Mark Carlson said.

Though later in the meeting when pressed about whether the board’s plan is to hire its own fire chief with the intention of setting up a volunteer fire department in three years, Carlson replied “yes, that’s true.”

The two parties at the end of June signed a document signaling their intent to negotiate a new contact for a minimum of a two year term.

Whitefish City Manager Dana Smith and Fire Chief Joe Page sent a letter to the rural fire board last week that was also mailed out to homeowners in the district. The city says in the letter that a recent proposal from the rural board sent to the city is significantly different than expected based upon negotiation sessions.

“While we intend to continue to negotiate in good faith, we request the same from the WFSA board,” the letter says. “We ask that the WFSA board is open and candid about its intent to either continuing to contract for services or creating its own volunteer fire department.”

In March the city sent a proposal to the rural board, as part of negotiating a new contract, seeking to increase the district’s payment to $325,000 in 2021 and then to $426,000 in 2026, in order to pay increased operating and equipment costs. The rural district’s most recent payment was $296,500.

In turn, the rural board in May sent a letter out to households in the district saying it was considering whether to renew its contact with the city that expires in June 2021 or operate its own volunteer fire department.

The chief sticking point for the board appears to be that renewing the city contract would mean increasing the household rates for service from $90 to $144, under the original proposal.

Carlson has maintained that the rural board needs the money it has in its reserves to begin its own volunteer fire department rather than paying an increase to the city.

“We think they want too much money,” Carlson said last week. “They want to take all of our money and they want us to just build fire halls.”

At several rural board meetings since last spring, homeowners in the district have filled the rural fire hall saying they want fire service to stay with the city and they’d be willing to paying an increase in taxes to make that happen.

Many of those homeowners again last week returned to stand in the fire hall where no chairs were provided for the meeting. The board attempted to limit public comment to 15 minutes, but comments and questions kept going for more than 30 minutes.

During public comment, Ted Morton told the board the decision should be to remain with the city.

“We overwhelming oppose ending the agreement with the city,” he said. “We appreciate that you want to get the best value for our money, but the sentiment is overwhelming that we should continue with the city.”

Betsy Cox was among several homeowners who told the board that increased response times for fire service as a result of ending the contract with the city is unacceptable.

“The response time is way more important than the cost,” she said. “We are willing to pay more rather than loose service.”

Though the board has been tight-lipped about what it is seeking in negotiations, the city’s letter does shed some light on the issue noting that the rural board’s proposal appears to be a hybrid of a mutual aid agreement and a contract for service.

It says the rural board expects to establish its own firefighting personnel and equipment before Whitefish becomes a first class city based upon population, and that the rural board “may hire a chief and/or establish their volunteer force and equipment fleet” during the contract with the city. Whitefish officials said it’s important to note it is unlikely the city will reach a population of 10,000 in the 2020 Census, which would designate it as a first class city in Montana.

Rural board members have said that once that happens, the city would no longer be able to provide service to the rural district. However, the city says that when Whitefish does reach the designation it would still be able to and would want to continue to provide contracted fire service to the rural area, the only change would be that the fire department could no longer use volunteers.

The rural board’s proposal also describes a unified command approach that when responding to calls located in the rural district, the rural chief would have the authority to direct Whitefish personnel and its own personnel.

City officials said Whitefish will not respond in a unified command approach as proposed and that if the rural board create its own fire department, Whitefish fire would then respond as mutual aid though that can’t be guaranteed because the city says it must ensure its fire hall is always manned for calls that occur within city limits.

“If we continue to provide service to the WFSA, the city will always retain command and will operate with our personnel, and our automatic and mutual-aid partners as we are today,” the letter says. “A split operation as proposed is prone to problems and a true safety issue on emergency scenes.”

In its letter, the city says it wants to continue to serve the rural district, but at a rate that is equitable for all who receive service.

“Our proposal was based on a rate for service and uses a reasonable and acceptable standard to determine the rates by analyzing personnel, operating, and capital costs,” the letter says.

Rural board member Dennis Oliver, who attended the meeting by phone, maintained that the rural board needs to have service that matches what the rural district is paying to the city.

“We want a contract for service that is for a fair price or reduce the amount of money we are paying,” he said. “We need a solution that is equitable to all the parties and hopefully we can land in a place that is beneficial for all of us.”

The rural board’s next regular meeting is scheduled for Oct. 20 at 6:30 p.m. at the rural fire hall at 1345 Hodgson Road. Agendas for the meeting are posted in the window of the fire hall.