Long-simmering Wetmore EMS issue coming to a head

The Board of the West Custer County Hospital District (WCCHD) held its regular meeting on October 30. After Board and staff reports, there were three other items on the agenda: a report from attorney Emily Powell on legal issues related to the inclusion of Wetmore into the District’s service area; an update on by-law revisions; and a discussion of a finalized job description for a “Health and Wellness Resource Navigator”, as discussed in previous meetings.

Board Chairman Ron Terry reported that he was going to be making a presentation to the November 19 meeting of the Custer Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) regarding the Wetmore inclusion, in order to ask for their support for the measure. Cindy Alvarado gave the Treasurer’s report, saying that total assets were “pretty much what they were last year,” and that the most recent profit and loss statement showed that the District was “a little over on income and a little under on expenses” compared to the previous year.

Clinic Manager Isaac Asbury reported that Dr. Stephens has officially returned from his medical leave, and that in December, he will go back to full-time. New Nurse Practitioner Kate Tremblay has started at three days per week, and will go to four days per week in January, and long-time registration specialist Maria Aulich will be retiring on December 17.

Powell, an attorney with a firm that works with special districts such as the WCCHD, explained the process by which boundary readjustments, or inclusions, work. “The inclusion of property is similar in concept to municipal annexations. There are several different ways [to do this] by statute. Individual householders can ask for inclusion, but it’s not the most efficient way. The second process is inclusion by resolution. If the Board decides to go ahead, that’s the way we would recommend. The first step is drafting the resolution. Once that is passed, you then have to tell the property owners – you can post in the paper and/or send property owners a letter, to tell them you will have a public hearing on the subject. At the conclusion of the public hearing, if you want to go ahead, you can then pass the resolution, and then the lawyers file it with the district court. The court looks at the process to see if it has been done properly, and then it would go to the ballot either in November 2026 or May 2027. Then the property owners vote, and if it’s passed, the courts issue an order of inclusion.”

Powell said that the Board “doesn’t have to commit until May 28 – that would be when the public hearing would happen.”

The Board had questions. “What happens if the election fails?” was the first. “The Board then has to decide what – and whether – services would still be provided to the Wetmore area,” Powell answered. “How do we talk to our citizens?” was the next question. “There are limited exceptions to what you can say under the Fair Elections Act,” Powell replied: “You need to think about voter education and feedback, like this: Part One: ‘We have a problem – we can’t afford to keep providing services.’ Part Two: ‘We have a proposed solution – inclusion – that gives us more funding to maintain and improve service.’ Part Three: ‘We want to hear from you [citizens].’

“In reality, you have at least two to three options: continue to serve the area, don’t continue to serve the area, or serve the area in a limited way. Between now and May is when you can start having that dialogue. Town halls are a popular way to do it, even Zoom town halls. You can create a dedicated email for [responses] – publicize it on your website – or have a dedicated call line. You can then consider all the feedback you have received before you decide to go ahead with the election.”

“We probably need to do a town hall down in Wetmore,” Terry commented.

“I would definitely recommend doing it in person,” Powell agreed: “Do it before the [notice] letter goes out.”

“Back in 2010, the BOCC approached us to agree that the ambulance service would cover the entire county,” said Board member Tom Shepard: “We agreed in principle – does that have bearing on this at all?” Powell said that if there had been no contract, that agreement would not have any legal bearing on the matter currently. “We can certainly look at it – engage the BOCC now and explain that it’s not that we don’t want to serve the area, it’s that we can’t – we have to find a way to fund this. The property tax landscape we had ten years ago has gone – it has put a lot of special districts in a bind.”

After some further discussion related to legal and election costs, the Board went on to discussion of the by-laws revisions and the navigator job description. Shana McKellip pointed out that there was an allowance in the revisions for increasing the number of Directors to “no more than seven but no fewer than five.” “My personal feeling is that this Board is too small [currently],” said Terry: “if a couple of people are gone, then we don’t have a quorum.”

On the navigator job description, Terry said that “we agreed that we would look at this and if it’s approved, we send it on to Public Health.” He likened the position to that of a reference librarian, in that it would deal with making referrals for information and services. “Public Health would be an ideal place for this if they can make it work,” he concluded, asking that the Board look it over by the following week with any feedback or changes.

The Board’s next regular meeting will be on December 4.

– Elliot Jackon