Voters were asked to decide the fate of a local measure on the April 28 Special
Election proposing a Regional Fire Authority (RFA) for those inside the city of Woodland, Clark County Fire Protection District 2 and the other areas covered by Clark County Fire and Rescue.
A few of you have expressed a desire for more analysis of the proposed RFA. It is too late for that, and it’s rarely my intention to attempt to influence the outcome of an election, of any kind. That may change on occasion, if I feel that I possess insight and perspective that is vital to our readers.
The fact is, there is very little analysis available about RFAs. It’s a relatively new concept in the state of Washington and has only been established in a handful of areas, including Kent, South King County, North Snohomish County and Auburn.
In an article I wrote and The Reflector published on April 8, Clark County Fire & Rescue (CCFR) spokesman Tim Dawdy talked about how the RFA would tidy up the funding and planning for the department because instead of having multiple contracts of varying lengths, it would provide budgeting stability for the department. He also said that there is little or no impact for area residents. I agree with some who have expressed the idea if that’s the only benefit, then why establish more bureaucracy, larger government?
I don’t think the RFA’s fate is the most compelling issue facing CCFR and its residents at this time. The story I find more interesting is what’s going to happen to the city of Battle Ground, which opted out of its contract with CCFR late last year, effective Jan. 1, 2016. As a result, Battle Ground was not a part of the proposed RFA and its residents weren’t asked to vote on the issue in the Special Election.
I guess it could be debated, but I don’t believe Battle Ground’s decision to opt-out of its contract with CCFR had anything to do with the proposed RFA, which is why I deliberately did not want to confuse the two issues. Some of the issues certainly came to light as RFAs were researched in Clark County. But, Battle Ground’s individual situation boiled down to what it currently costs the city for fire service and how that service is defined.
The city of Battle Ground has contracted with Clark County (or Fire District 11) since 1992. The Request For Quotation (RFQ) that it sent out after opting-out of its current contract with CCFR was it’s first in 24 years.
It’s safe to say some tension exists between Battle Ground officials and their counterparts at CCFR over the city’s decision. There shouldn’t be. This is strictly something that’s just about dollars and cents and what’s best for the city’s residents.
The city of Battle Ground agreed to incrementally pay CCFR more for its fire service during the current contract, increasing from $1,385,254 in 2011 to $2,252,097 in 2015. The city agreed to those increases when it entered into the new contact, which also gave them the right to opt-out one year early. Still, how can you blame the city’s leaders for wanting to see if they can save Battle Ground a few dollars and possibly improve service at the same time?
There are a few different paths this story could follow in the next six months. Battle Ground could find someone who is willing to provide fire service for less, that could presumably even be CCFR. The city could find out that what CCFR has been providing is the best deal that is out there. Or, the city could decide to keep it’s $2.25 million and the station and equipment it owns and start its own fire department.
Maybe I’m naive, but I’m convinced no one has a pre-determined outcome here. The process will lead those involved to the logical result. Every dollar the city of Battle Ground saves on its fire service is a dollar that can go to roads, police or other services.
Once again, I ask you to stay tuned. We will continue to follow this story.
Ken Vance
Editor
