At its July 2 meeting, the Pagosa Fire Protection District (PFPD) Board of Directors voted to table consideration of charging fees for out-of-district responses to its August meeting following board concerns about public confusion and a lack of public comments on the proposal.
Before discussing and voting on the proposed fees, the board held a public hearing on the issue where it heard one comment from resident Wayne Bryant, who expressed concerns about if the fees would be double taxation on those who live in the PFPD and already pay taxes to it, as well as if they would cause poorer residents of the community to not call in fires due to concerns about being charged fees for a response by PFPD.
PFPD Chief Robert Bertram clarified that the fees would only be charged for fire responses to locations outside of the fire district boundaries and that no fees would be charged for those living in the district.
Concerning the fees, Bertram added that, although the district would have the ability to impose property liens to collect the fees for fire response, he did not believe the district intends to do this now or in the future.
He also stated that the potential for residents to not report fires is an issue to consider and noted that the fees are being considered primarily as an educational tool to highlight that certain regions of Archuleta County are not within the PFPD and thus do not pay taxes to support it, although the PFPD still responds to calls and incurs costs serving those areas.
PFPD board member Wayne Hooper opened the board discussion on the fees, stating that he had spoken with a range of community members about the out-of-district fees and that he had observed a large degree of confusion about the fees, including concerns about double taxation and confusion about if the people live within the district or not.
He added that he also heard statements that community members would not call the fire district due to concerns about being charged, which he commented are concerning.
Hooper concluded that he was weighing the potential damage to public goodwill for the district that the fees would incur with their financial benefits and that he is not against the overall proposal, but is against implementing it at this time.
He proposed that the district could hold an election to allow those living outside the district to choose if they wanted to be included in the district, with implementing fees only occurring if the election failed.
In response to a question from PFPD board chair LeRoy Lattin, Hooper stated that most of the people he spoke to live in the district, but were unsure about whether they lived in the district or not and if the fees would apply to them.
“It’s just a matter of, the education isn’t there. I don’t know how to get there at this point, but I think we need to somehow do that,” Hooper said.
He added that most people, once they understood where the fees would apply and the reasons for them, saw the reasoning for why fees would be imposed.
Bertram commented that the district is looking at fees primarily as an educational tool, not as a revenue stream.
Hooper indicated agreement with Bertram that he would not want to use property liens to extract payment for out-of-district fire responses and asked if the board is interested in a referendum to those living in the county but outside of the district on if they wanted to be included in the district.
He added that people want a “choice.”
PFPD board member Ronald Beckman asked how postponing a vote on implementing fees would impact planning for the district’s 2025 budget.
Bertram stated it would have no impact since the district does not expect substantial income from fees and does not plan to include any in the budget.
Beckman asked if the district could attempt to provide additional information through The SUN on the proposed fees, the impacts of being included or excluded from the district and which parts of the county are in the district prior to holding another public hearing.
PFPD Business Manager Tomi Bliss stated that the district received a significant number of calls about the fees and that most callers were confused about if they are in the district or not.
She added that she had no callers who are not in the district and that those in the district typically expressed support for the fees once they understood the situation.
Bertram commented that the impact of changing when the district would adopt the fees would be minimal.
Beckman stated that he feels doing further outreach would be valuable to gather more community input and reduce confusion about the proposal.
Lattin proposed that the board table the issue for one month and put an article in The SUN to reduce confusion about the issue.
Beckman added that the district should provide more information about the Colorado Resource Rate Form fees and how much responses would cost, as well.
PFPD legal counsel Dino Ross commented that he feels this is a useful proposal and noted that the cost of paying for a fire response may be less for many properties than the costs of paying taxes to the district for many years.
He added that there appears to be a misunderstanding of the purpose of fees and that the district should put out an article further explaining the fees.
Bryant expressed support for including a map of the district with the article and for a referendum on if properties outside the district want to join the district or not.
Beckman asked Bertram if assembling an article would be too difficult.
Bertram stated it would not be.
Ross asked Bertram how many properties might be outside the district.
Bertram stated that there are approximately 300 square miles of the county outside the district and potentially 200 to 300 structures.
Ross pointed out that properties could enter the district both through an individual landowner petitioning to join the district or through a resolution to include all properties in a certain area adopted by the district board, which must then be voted on by the property owners in the area.
If the vote is successful, Ross stated, all the properties will be included in the district, including those whose owners did not vote to join the district.
Beckman commented that the difference between being included and paying fees for responses needed to be clearly explained to the public so they can understand the choice.
Hooper asked Beckman if he favors individual inclusion or a resolution to expand the district.
Beckman commented that, if he was a landowner outside the district, he would petition for inclusion, but that a resolution and vote on inclusion could also be a successful approach.
He added that he supports distributing more information about the issue and might be ready to vote on the fees at the next board meeting.
Hooper asked Bertram if being included in the district would have any impact on home insurance for property owners.
Bertram stated that being in the district would potentially have a positive impact on insurance for property owners.
He added that individual inclusions could create a “checkerboard effect” and that there are substantial fees for inclusion, which could be a burden on property owners or on the district if it decided to pay them.
He also commented that a resolution for inclusion would allow the district more control over which properties to include since the district might not want to include some extremely remote properties.
Hooper indicated support for Beckman’s and Lattin’s proposal to delay the vote on the fees and seek to distribute more public information.
“I think people just want to be heard and want to have a choice, especially with what happened the last couple years with property values and our taxes. I think it’s still raw,” Hooper said.
The board then discussed the logistics of placing an article in The SUN and what contents to include in it.
Following this discussion, the board voted to table the consideration of the fees until its Aug. 6 meeting and to work on implementing the educational steps discussed at the meeting.
josh@pagosasun.com
