Council rejects mayor's proposal to join Paint EMS/Fire district

After months of debate but little real negotiation, Hillsboro City Council voted 4-2 to reject the plan to join the Paint Creek Joint EMS/Fire District during a special meeting Wednesday evening at the Highland County Justice Center.

Council had a resolution, No. 12-20, "to authorize entering into an agreement for fire protection and emergency medical services by and between the city of Hillsboro and the Paint Creek Joint EMS/Fire District."

Wednesday's special meeting was the third reading of the controversial resolution.

Council members Dave Shoemaker, Mary Brown Turner, Brian Waller and Bonnie Parr voted "no," while council members Bill Alexander and Peter Pence voted in the affirmative.

During a Hillsboro City Council meeting earlier this month, Hillsboro Mayor Drew Hastings said that instead of "Save The Hillsboro Fire Department," the residents should be saying, "Save Our City" because of the fiscal situation the city is in.

Hillsboro Auditor Gary Lewis reported that the financial outlook of the city was "not good" as it enters its "fifth consecutive year" of deficit spending. Lewis said that because of the city's fiscal issues, the responsible course of action for council would be to approve the mayor's proposal to contract with the Paint Creek Joint EMS and Fire District.

Hastings also accused the employees of the Hillsboro Fire Department of "uncivilized" and "unprofessional" behavior through the negotiation process.

Others said the "negotiation process" was at best a minimal effort from the city.

Hastings said a fire district is really "just one large fire department" which has a larger service area and utilizes shared services to keep costs down.

"It's the prudent, fiscally responsible way to go. Any other choice is irresponsible in serving the overall needs of our citizens," Hastings said.

Hillsboro Safety and Service Director Rick Giroux has stated that if the city does not approve the mayor's plan for EMS and fire services, they could be looking at "draconian cuts, fiscally, that will have to be made. Is that really necessary when we have a viable solution, which solves the problem and saves money at the same time?"