Petitioners ask commissioners to invalidate opposition
Editor’s Note: Due to the emotional and controversial nature of this issue, The Western News did not edit the remarks quoted from the submitted letter, the remarks were quoted verbatim.
By BOB HENLINE
The Western News
Three proponents of the Cabinet View Fire Service Area have asked the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners to invalidate their earlier decision to deny the formation of a fire service area and to better inform the public regarding the options of a fire service area and the recently-suggested alternative of annexation into the Lincoln Rural Fire District.
In a letter dated Feb. 2, 2016, proponents Robert Mast, John Rios and Patty Rambo alleged the commissioners failed to follow a process previously agreed upon by petitioner John Rios and Commissioner Mark Peck regarding the fire service area petition and the commissioners’ decision.
“On January 13, 2016, John Rios asked on what criteria previously agreed on were BoC going to base their decision,” the trio wrote. “None was given. Mark Peck stated that on what the citizens’ desire would be good enough for him. This seems inconsistent with his previous decision to follow an agreed process. The process was never fully implemented as he and John Rios agreed. Although this agreement is non-binding, the integrity of the process was denied and the decision to allow a majority of those who wrote-in or emailed etc... not necessarily consistent as per MCA 7-33-2125 becomes suspect. The Public Hearing numbers were diminished in contrast to the suspect counting of what appears to be solicited non supporters. If the popularity support for or against would have been communicated at the public hearing, the results would have been significantly different. The lack of integrity in the process allowed seeds of doubt and suspicion to further fuel division within the community.”
Based upon those claims, the signers asked the commissioners to override the expressed public opposition to the formation of the fire service area.
“It is therefore proposed that the BoC declare the non-support against the CVFSA petition to be invalid,” they wrote. “We propose the public be informed as to the options of a CVFSA or the present petition of annexation. The results of a properly communicated criteria will go a long way to put the issue to rest and have the citizens feel that local government is responsive the their needs and has educated the people on this highly emotional and technical issue – on what is in their best interest. This is the process that Commissioner Peck agreed that he would do and bring the results to the BoC and the citizens. This can still be accomplished in a variety of ways. We stand willing to help and request LCRFD to be involved in this process to promote healing and unity on this most divisive issue.”
Commissioner Peck denied there was any process to which he and Rios agreed regarding the Cabinet View Fire Service Area petition. Instead, Peck said, he and Rios discussed a number of alternatives to determine the best way to provide fire protection for the residents of the area, beginning in June 2015. The conversation, he said, was sidetracked by the fires of 2015, and then again derailed when the organizers of the petition decided to move forward with the push to re-form the old fire service area.
Once the decision was made by the petitioners to move forward on the fire service area, the process was determined by Montana code, Peck said. The process for creation of a fire service area is delineated in Montana Code Annotated 7-33-2401, not 7-33-2125, which specifies the process for annexing property into a fire district.
“We never had an agreed-upon process,” Peck said. “The criteria we talked about was hiring a consultant to evaluate the best way to deliver service to those residents, not how to establish a fire service area. They’re comparing apples to oranges here.”
Peck also denied the allegations made by the petitioners that the numbers were misrepresented.
“They keep throwing these accusations out there that is suspect, but we’ve been shown no data to substantiate those claims,” Peck said. “I’m not going to respond to this without data. I’ve heard nothing except innuendo and accusations.”
Peck said he was unwilling to comment on the positions of the other commissioners, but as far as he is concerned, the issue of the Cabinet View Fire Service area is “absolutely” dead.