Rural fire board looks at forming new fire district

Negotiations between the city of Whitefish and the Whitefish Fire Service Area's board of trustees appear to have bogged down, leaving both sides facing expensive and unwanted consequences.

For the city, not renewing the interlocal agreement could mean losing the $225,000 it now receives for providing firefighting service to the surrounding rural area.

For homeowners in the rural service area, it could mean having to start their own fire district, including buying equipment and manning it with volunteers.

Further complicating the problem is that the rural service area has a station on Hodgson Road but would need to service homes as far away as the east side of Whitefish Lake.

Contentious negotiations in 2006 ended with the WFSA board agreeing to increase payments to the city from $110,000 to $220,616 by calendar year 2008. The amount increased to $225,000 last year due to growth.

The city argued at the time that city taxpayers paid more for fire protection than rural taxpayers, and it was trying to address the disparity caused by an old agreement that hadn't changed in 10 years. The city also noted that the increased charge would help pay for the additional firefighters needed for providing 24/7 emergency service.

The WFSA board pointed out at the time — and still claims today — that it's unlawful for the city to base the service agreement on a proportionate cost of the entire fire department. Fee for service should be based on the actual cost of service, they said in April, which should be 'very low because the cost of labor and equipment is already paid so that the fire and ambulance department is available 24/7 for calls within the city."

As explained by WFSA board representative Dud Mahler at a June 21 work session with the city council, the cost to Whitefish to respond to fires in the rural area is practically zero — just the cost of fuel and wear and tear on trucks. The city has "excess capacity," he said, so "if done correctly," the city would not need to hire more personnel or purchase more equipment to handle rural fire calls.

The WFSA board also claims doubling the cost from 2006 to 2008 covered the cost of implementing 24/7 service in the rural service area.

Lengthy negotiations

With the interlocal agreement set to expire Dec. 31 last year, city manager Chuck Stearns, financial director Rich Knapp and fire chief Thomas Kennelly prepared an analysis based on service calls. They concluded that increasing the fee per home in the rural fire area from $90 to $137 was justified.

The WFSA board in February rejected the city's figure and questioned the need for a third-party mediator.

With the interlocal agreement extended to April 30, the city took another look at the numbers. This included reducing ambulance costs, because WFSA only pays for fire and rescue service, and updating the call numbers for 2009. The rural service area actually had more calls than the city, Stearns, Knapp and Kennelly found, but they pared down the per home figure to $133.

Sensing continuing opposition and wanting to seal a deal at a March 19 meeting, Stearns lowered the city's request to $122 per home for full 24/7 fire response. He also provided three alternatives:

¥ WFSA could pay a "cost per call" of $2,748 for a three-person engine to respond.

¥ The WFSA board could propose its own level of service alternatives.

¥ The city could maintain the $90 per home cost but at the past level of service. The city's professional firefighters would respond to fires only from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. At night, volunteers would respond to the WFSA fire station on Hodgson Road for calls in the rural area. City firefighters would respond to a mutual aid request after the volunteer incident commander arrived at the scene.

Offer and counteroffer

But at an April 8 meeting, the WFSA board wouldn't budge from its $90 per home figure. In addition to their earlier arguments, the board said that "increases in taxes or assessment should be avoided now in the Flathead because of the economy and the fact that many people are suffering because of the very large increases in property tax."

Suggesting that "this whole exercise is a mistake," the board noted that none of the city's negotiating team were around in 2006 and said it "has a hard time believing the city of Whitefish can justify walking away from $250,000 per year because WFSA will not give them $100,000 more."

Saying they "had no choice but to let our agreement terminate," the WFSA board told the Flathead County Commissioners on April 27 that it intended to create a volunteer fire department. The city agreed to provide fire service to the rural service area for five years while the volunteer fire department is established.

The WFSA board also said it was 'shocked" by the city's proposal to offer the past level of service at $90 per home "knowing that the people and equipment are in place, there is no additional cost to WFD, and a neighbor member of our agreement is in trouble."

In a May 30 e-mail to the city, the WFSA board offered to increase their contribution to the city from $225,000 to $228,987, which works out to $97 per home. They also agreed to let the assessment increase by 1.5 percent per year for inflation and to create a common reserve fund for the city and rural fire areas.

Mahler told the council at its work session that the reserve fund would start out this fiscal year with $300,000 and should be used to benefit rural residents. The board wants a fire boat that can provide water to fire engines at locations around Whitefish Lake, a tanker truck for remote locations and equipment that can refill fire engines from lakes or creeks in rural areas.

While mayor Mike Jenson cautioned the council not to jump to any conclusions about what direction the talks were heading, he said he liked the idea of creating a reserve fund and purchasing the equipment mentioned by Mahler. He also emphasized that the both the city and the rural fire service area benefit by working together, and continued negotiations were needed to find common ground.