Policy: Sparks Fire First Responder Fee
Sparks Fire Chief Walt White presents at a neighborhood meeting on November 13th, 2025.
The proposed Sparks Fire Department First Responder Fee is one of the most controversial ideas the City of Sparks has put forward - arguably more controversial than the closure of Station 5. I’ve held back from making a public statement until now because I genuinely needed more information. I attended both the online meeting and the in-person meeting at Station 1 on Thursday, November 13th, 2025.
I want to acknowledge the Sparks Fire Department and Chief Walt White for their transparency. Much of the outreach they’ve done goes beyond what the law requires, and seeing so many firefighters present at the in-person meeting shows their pride in our city and in their department.
I have two key positions on this proposal, and both can be true at the same time.
First, this is clearly an exploratory process. I want to see the language of the ordinance - in writing, not in broad ideas or verbal explanations. It’s difficult to support something without knowing exactly what will be presented to the Council. So at this stage, I recognize that we are still exploring options, and I need to see the final language before I can fully commit.
Second, I recognize the financial reality Sparks is facing and the significant cost of maintaining emergency medical capability within the Sparks Fire Department. With the conditions listed below, I support the concept of a First Responder Fee.
My conditions for supporting the fee:
No-balance billing for Sparks residents;
Explicit no-balance billing language included in the ordinance;
No-balance billing for anyone enrolled full-time in a post-secondary program (UNR, TMCC, or trade schools);
A Compassionate Billing Clause that includes visitors and commuters included in the ordinance.
I also want to be transparent about why this matters to me personally. In July 2024, I was dragged by a car down Pyramid Way. Sparks Firefighters from Station 1 responded and provided emergency medical care. They applied a c-collar, an air splint, medications, and more. One firefighter even rode with me in the REMSA ambulance and continued caring for me until I was transferred to the trauma team at Renown.
REMSA billed me about $2,200. Sparks Fire billed me $0.
At the neighborhood meeting, I asked Chief White directly whether Sparks Fire received any reimbursement from REMSA for my care. The answer was no. In other words, the taxpayers of Sparks subsidized my emergency medical treatment.
This fee is not about charging people for calling 911 or for firefighters checking someone out. It is meant to recover the cost of medical supplies and medications used on patients - and to make sure fire engines stay stocked and firefighters stay trained. The real world is not a perfect computer model - sometimes the fire engine arrives first, not the ambulance.
Do I like the idea of another fee? Absolutely not. I hate it. Sewer rates are going up, trash is going up, internet is going up, insurance is going up - everything is going up. But decades-old state laws broken by policymakers in the 1960s and beyond have strangled property tax revenue to the point where many of us simply are not paying the true cost of the services we receive. My own property taxes are absurdly low. Multiply that across the entire city, add depressed sales tax revenue, and the budget gap becomes painfully clear.
We’re discussing this fee because it may be necessary to maintain even our current level of service - which I already believe is not enough, especially with Station 5 closed.
So in short: I support this fee, with conditions, and I will remain cautious until I see the actual ordinance language presented to the Sparks City Council.
