The Pagosa Fire Protection District (PFPD) Board of Directors voted to implement fees for responses outside the PFPD at its Aug. 6 meeting.
Fire Chief Robert Bertram opened the meeting by explaining to the board that the fees before them were tabled at the board’s last meeting.
At the July 2 PFPD board meeting, the district held a public hearing on the topic of putting in place fees for responses outside the district.
However, after the public hearing only attracted one commenter, the board discussed the issue and decided to hold an additional hearing prior to implementing the fees and to circulate additional information about the proposed fees to the public.
Bertram explained that the district circulated additional information, including two articles in The SUN, but had “not heard much feedback from the public” since the last hearing.
PFPD board chairman LeRoy Lattin moved to approve the changes to the fee schedule to implement the out-of-district response fees.
PFPD board member Wayne Hooper noted that Bertram previously stated that the goal of the fees is to increase awareness of the district’s boundaries and commented that he would like to see the board take the issue of expanding the district’s boundaries to a vote by next year’s election.
He added that he would like to give those outside the district a choice in whether to join the district or not.
Hooper commented that he could not support implementing the fees unless the district moves forward with “something else.”
In response to a question from Lattin about how the proposal relates to the fee schedule, Hooper stated that the district would be charging people outside its boundaries without giving them a choice if it did not move forward with an approach to include more of the county into the district.
He also proposed that the district only bill the out-of-district fees to insurance companies and not personally bill residents.
PFPD board member Ronald Beckman and PFPD legal counsel Dino Ross stated that only billing insurance would violate federal laws concerning kickbacks.
The board then discussed other districts’ success with billing insurance for various claims, with Ross explaining that new Colorado laws will now allow districts to charge for responses to emergencies in their district that are outside of a “basic fire response” and can charge fees out of district for any fire services.
Hooper commented that he feels imposing the fees for out-of-district responses is “putting the cart before the horse” and that he would prefer to give citizens outside the district an opportunity to choose if they wish to join the district before imposing fees for responses outside of it.
He added that, if those outside the district rejected joining it, then fees could be necessary.
Hooper and Ross noted that a vote on including new areas of the county into the district would require the approval of 51 percent of the residents of the area the district is attempting to include.
Hooper reiterated his desire to offer residents outside the district a “choice” on whether to join it or not.
Bertram explained that, currently, anyone outside the district can petition to be included in the district and that the board’s job would be to decide if such an inclusion makes sense.
He added that such individual inclusions would be a “piecemeal” approach to expanding the district as opposed to taking the issue to a vote where a large portion of the county outside the district could potentially be included at once.
Bertram commented that imposing fees is intended to be an educational tool to raise awareness of the boundaries of the district and the issue of the district providing services to those living outside its boundaries who do not pay taxes to it.
Beckman commented that the district already responds to calls outside of the district and that he would favor including these areas into the district.
PFPD board member James Martin added that there is “no benefit” to those outside the district joining it currently since they receive full service and do not have to pay taxes or fees to it.
The fees would create an “incentive” for those outside the district to want to join it, he commented.
Bertram noted that the district would not be including the income from out-of-district response fees in its 2025 budget.
“We’re not looking at it as a revenue source,” Bertram said. “It’s trying to solve a problem that’s been around for many years.”
He added that the district has previously considered imposing fees for out-of-district responses.
“There’s a number of ways to approach it, I’m sure. The question is what’s the easiest one,” Martin said.
Hooper commented that the board discussed the topic extensively at its last meeting and that he did not need to go over the concerns expressed at that meeting again.
“I understand your concerns, but, at this point, how do you get past the fact that this service is being provided now and there’s no incentive for them to move forward?” Martin asked.
Hooper replied that one of his major concerns was that, when talking to residents about the fees, he heard a substantial number state that they would not call the PFPD if a fire occurred due to the potential costs.
“You can’t force people to call,” Lattin said.
Hooper commented that he has a “moral” issue with this potentially occurring and that he would “vote my conscience.”
Martin expressed hope that implementing the out-of-district response fees would create an incentive for those outside the district to join.
Beckman commented that Bertram and Ross stated that the district was not obliged to hold any public hearings on imposing the fees and that he felt that it had been sufficiently communicated to the public.
“We went above and beyond two times,” Beckman said, referring to the district’s outreach efforts.
Hooper commented that PFPD staff did a “good job” in performing outreach to the public concerning the fees.
“I hope this may be a stepping stone to a solution,” Martin said.
The board then voted on the fee schedule changes, with Beckman, Lattin, Foster and Martin voting in support and Hooper opposing the changes.
In an interview, Bertram explained that the out-of-district response fees are based on the Colorado Resource Rate Form (CRRF) and Colorado Fire Billing System fees.
He stated that the CRRF and the Colorado Fire Billing System are frequently changing sets of rates for equipment and staff time that are used across the state to bill expenses when one fire district provides resources to another district, such as during a wildfire response or other large emergency.
According to the fee schedule approved by the board, apparatus used in out-of-district responses will be billed following CRRF rates, while staff time will be billed according to the rates used in the Colorado Fire Billing System.
josh@pagosasun.com
