EDITORIAL: Baker City Council exaggerates challenge with county’s ambulance request

Published 2:00 pm Friday, May 13, 2022

If you attended or watched a recording of the Baker City Council’s work session on Wednesday night, May 11, you might reasonably have concluded that Baker County is solely responsible for putting in jeopardy the city’s ambulance service and forcing the city to propose to lay off six firefighter/paramedics.

It was if councilors didn’t, on their own, notify the county on March 22 that the city intended to stop ambulance service on Sept. 30, 2022.

But they did do that.

And by doing so the City Council forced the county, which is responsible under Oregon law for ensuring ambulance coverage, to prepare for the possibility — if not the likelihood, considering the city’s budget for the fiscal year starting July 1 doesn’t include ambulance service — that it would need to replace the city fire department as the ambulance provider.

Having received that ultimatum from the City Council, and with just six months to act, it’s hardly surprising that county commissioners have sent out a request for proposals for operating ambulances in a service area that includes Baker City and about two-thirds of the rest of the county — what’s known as the Baker Ambulance Service Area. To not make such preparations would be negligent, considering the obvious necessity of ambulances.

That request for proposals (RFP) was the focus of the City Council’s two-hour work session Wednesday. City Manager Jonathan Cannon and councilors spent much of the time talking about how onerous they believe some of the RFP requirements are. Cannon told councilors the city can’t comply with some of the county’s standards, or that it would have to hire several new firefighter/paramedics and buy or lease at least a couple new ambulances to do so. That would cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The implication seemed to be that the county had written an RFP intended to make things as difficult, or expensive, as possible for the city.

Yet County Commissioners Mark Bennett and Bruce Nichols, neither of who attended the work session, both said on Thursday, May 12, that they’re mystified by councilors’ and Cannon’s assessment of the county’s intention with the RFP. Bennett and Nichols both said they don’t believe the city needs to meet every standard in the RFP — indeed, the commissioners contend that these aren’t true “requirements,” in the sense that the city’s proposal, if it doesn’t comply with everything listed in the RFP, would either be disqualified or would rate very poorly. Bennett said the RFP is designed to address all types of providers that might respond, including private firms that operate ambulances only, as well as dual-purpose public agencies such as the Baker City Fire Department.

Both Bennett and Nichols said they would welcome a proposal from the city that offers to continue the same ambulance service the city has today. Although that wouldn’t meet every item listed in the RFP, Nichols said there’s no reason commissioners, if they choose the city’s proposal, couldn’t draft a contract with the city that reflects not every detail in the RFP, but the level of service the city is capable of meeting. And that’s a high level — much higher than the city would be able to supply if it drops ambulance service and has to lay off firefighters.

The city probably could have avoided this situation altogether. The City Council didn’t need to send the county the Sept. 30 ultimatum. Nor have councilors expressed much skepticism about Cannon’s implication that the city can’t keep its current dual-role fire department intact, for even one more fiscal year, without wrecking the city’s budget. This despite the city’s own financial records suggesting that the situation, over the next fiscal year, is not nearly so dire as that.

The city and county could have negotiated a contract that maintains the city fire department as the provider for the Baker Ambulance Service Area. The county would not then have needed to put out the RFP, leading to Wednesday’s unnecessarily negative work session. Even a one-year contract would give the county time to set up a proposed ambulance service district to take to voters, probably in May 2023. Both city and county officials seem to generally agree that a district, which would require voters to agree to raise their property taxes, both inside the city and in the rest of the ambulance service area, is the best long-term solution to the challenge of paying for a professional ambulance service. Cannon and city councilors have made the reasonable contention that city taxpayers should not have to continue to shoulder the burden of paying for a service that benefits most of the county.

Fortunately the City Council, despite the litany of complaints it leveled during Wednesday’s work session, intends to respond to the county’s RFP before the June 3 deadline. Based on Bennett’s and Nichols’ comments, it seems likely that a proposal for the city to retain what’s basically a status quo ambulance service would be the solid basis for negotiating a contract. Councilors also discussed including with their proposal an estimate of how much it would cost to meet every standard in the RFP, but that doesn’t seem to be necessary.

The people who packed into City Hall on Tuesday, May 10, for the City Council meeting made it abundantly clear that they want the city fire department to remain what it has been for decades — a dual-purpose department that responds with fire trucks and ambulances.

The City Council can still accomplish that vital task.

— Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor