As we approach the two-year anniversary of Flin Flon city council’s decision to end cottage country fire protection, a query is in order.
Council neither had nor needed the support of cottagers in making this move. The real question is whether council enjoyed the backing of Flin Flon taxpayers who foot the bill for the fire department.
For years, Flin Flon deployed firefighters to blazes at nearby cabin subdivisions as something of a goodwill gesture. The hope was that the cabin owners and or their insurance companies would reimburse the associated costs in full.
That didn’t always happen, however, meaning Flin Flon was subsidizing the service, albeit by an insignificant amount. Council then sought yearly fees from cottagers, but the two sides could never agree on a fair price.
Before instructing firefighters to disregard calls from cabin subdivisions as of July 1, 2013, council engaged cottage association representatives on the issue.
Unfortunately, council did not consult the Flin Flon public in the same way. They seemed to assume that all Flin Flon taxpayers felt cheated by the status quo and acted accordingly.
Trouble is, a number of Flin Flonners – perhaps a good number of them – weren’t quite as distressed as council.
I first became aware of that sentiment back in 2013, just hours before cottage fire service ended, when a reader, a Flin Flon homeowner, asked me how much the city had spent on cabin blazes.
At the time, city records showed Flin Flon was owed $5,215 from cottage fires dating back to 2006, an average of about $695 a year.
When I shared this figure, the reader wondered why Flin Flon couldn’t spend such a small amount to help neighbours who support our businesses and services.
Another reader, also a Flin Flon homeowner, later pointed out that many Flin Flonners have family and friends who live at the lake. For under $700 a year, he wondered, what’s the big deal?
I have since heard similar comments on the issue, but without the aid of a scientific poll, it is impossible to know where the Flin Flon public as a whole stands.
In fairness to council’s position, the $695 yearly figure includes only on-site firefighting expenses, such as wages, not vehicle wear and tear and equipment upgrades.
Moreover, the City of Flin Flon should not have to use its limited resources to try and track down funds owing from cottagers or insurance companies that are dealing with fire-damaged property.
Had the city been reimbursed for all firefighting costs in cottage country, perhaps council would have felt comfortable continuing the previous arrangement.
Then there’s the fact that Flin Flon taxpayers want council to spend dollars with efficiency. Deploying firefighters to outlying areas with no guarantee of financial reimbursement does not necessarily fit into that philosophy.
At this point, the prime concern for a number of cabin owners is regaining fire protection not so much for the service itself – a fire department so far away probably won’t save your cottage – but so that cottage country can obtain 911 service.
Emergency officials will not make 911 available to cottagers unless they have year-round access to the three major emergency services of police (yes), ambulance (yes) and fire protection (not yet).
With Mayor Cal Huntley promising a gentler approach to negotiations, let’s hope the city and cottagers can at last come to terms on an agreement. Safety – and fairness for everyone – depends on it.
Local Angle runs Fridays.
