Whitefish — The City of Whitefish on Jan. 5 adopted a package of fee changes that raises ambulance charges and establishes new fees for certain fire responses, prompting an extended council discussion about the effects on uninsured and underinsured residents.

City staff and the Whitefish Fire Department recommended a roughly 22% increase to the city’s basic ambulance, ALS and mileage fees, and proposed new recoverable charges for fire-rescue responses. Dana (city manager/staff presenter) told council the recommendation tracked an inflationary approach rather than the larger consultant proposals; staff said consultants’ cost-of-service analysis would have raised fees as much as 21%–67% depending on the line item, but city staff recommended a lower, CPI-linked increase and a narrower set of new fees.

The new fire-response fees include an hourly mobilization/response charge for incidents where a fire apparatus provides medical services or responds to an automobile accident (city staff described an hourly rate of $350) and a separate flat charge for contractor-caused gas-line responses (staff cited a resident rate figure in the packet). The city contrasted its approach with the consultant’s recommendation for a single flat automobile-response fee of $1,124.

Councilors debated multiple practical and equity concerns: Councilor Ben Davis said he could not support the vote on principle, arguing the current U.S. medical-billing system shifts costs to uninsured residents and those with high deductibles; he registered the lone vote against the resolution. Other councilors urged staff to increase outreach about the city’s rescue-care membership program (a $59-per-year plan that, when active, staff said generally covers medically necessary ambulance transport originated in the Whitefish response area) and to examine collection and write-off practices. Dana explained that the city bills insurers first, may pursue time-payment plans and that Medicaid/Medicare billing rules limit the council’s ability to set differential retail prices for those payors.

Council also pressed staff for additional statistics and follow-up: several members asked for data on how many ambulance bills are referred to collections, typical write-off amounts, and whether an internal hardship or foundation fund could be used to help underinsured residents. Staff said those practices — payment plans, case-by-case hardship consideration and collections only if arrangements are not reached — are already used but recommended a deeper policy review.

After more than an hour of public comment and council discussion, the council voted to adopt Resolution 26-01 approving the fee adjustments and new fire-response charges by a 5–1 vote (Councilor Ben Davis opposed). Supporters of the motion said the modest, phased increase helps cover rising personnel, equipment and supply costs that have gone unchanged since 2019 and is consistent with peer jurisdictions when adjusted over multiple years.

The resolution takes effect per the language in the adopted document; staff said billing and program outreach (rescue-care enrollment information and time-pay options) would be updated to reflect the new rates and that the city will continue to offer case-by-case assistance for residents with hardship.