What Does “Nearly $500,000 More for Fire” Actually Buy

For months, Livingston City Manager Grant Gager has pushed back against concerns that Livingston Fire & Rescue is being defunded, diminished, or positioned for a major change. He has said the department is well funded and well resourced, and he has pointed to an increase of nearly $500,000 in Fire and Ambulance spending as evidence that the City is continuing to invest in Livingston Fire & Rescue.

At the September 1 City Commission meeting, Gager again tried to reassure both the public and LFR employees about the department’s future. But this is one of those moments where the exact words matter. Gager chooses his words carefully, and if you are listening closely, he will tell you quite a bit.

He said Livingston Fire & Rescue is currently fully staffed, well resourced, and continuing to provide full fire protection and ambulance service. But he tied that reassurance directly to the remaining life of the current ambulance levy, saying that service would not change “for the next two years.”

Then he shifted to what happens after that period. He said the community will have an upcoming conversation about how ambulance service should be “operated and organized.”

And when he spoke directly to City employees, he said:

“There is a place for you in the future of ambulance service in Park County.”

That is worth reading twice.

He did not say there will always be a place for those employees at Livingston Fire & Rescue. He did not say Livingston will continue operating Fire and EMS together. He did not say the City of Livingston will continue operating ambulance service after the current levy expires. He said there will be a place for them in the future of ambulance service in Park County.

Maybe that distinction ultimately means nothing. But when the person responsible for recommending the City budget and helping shape the City’s long-term operational plans chooses those words so carefully, I think the public should pay attention.

And then we should look at what the City is actually funding, because the budget tells its own story.

About That “Nearly $500,000 Increase”

The first thing to understand is simple: the Fire Department’s General Fund budget did not increase by nearly $500,000.

The FY26 Fire General Fund budget is $1,620,049. The proposed FY27 Fire General Fund budget is $1,757,791. That is an actual increase of $137,742, or about 8.5%.

So where does the nearly $500,000 number come from?

You only get there by combining the Fire General Fund with the separately accounted Ambulance fund.

	FY26	FY27	Increase
Fire General Fund	$1,620,049	$1,757,791	+$137,742
Ambulance Fund	$2,753,014	$3,108,899	+$355,885
Combined	$4,373,063	$4,866,690	+$493,627

So yes, Fire plus Ambulance increases by approximately $494,000. But about 72% of that increase is in Ambulance, not the Fire General Fund.

That distinction matters when the public is being told that the City has increased funding to “the Fire Department” by nearly half a million dollars.

Now Look Inside the Actual Fire Increase

The Fire budget itself increases by $137,742. Almost all of that increase goes into the firefighter personnel account.

Fire General Fund	FY26	FY27	Change
Fire operating account	$282,688	$290,040	+$7,352
Firefighter personnel account	$1,337,361	$1,467,751	+$130,390
Total Fire	$1,620,049	$1,757,791	+$137,742

That means 94.7% of the entire Fire budget increase is in personnel costs. Only $7,352 is added to the Fire operating account, which is an increase of just 2.6%.

And there are no additional Fire FTEs.

The proposed budget keeps Fire at 10.25 FTE, exactly the same staffing level as FY26.

That is an important distinction. Spending more to maintain the same workforce is not the same thing as increasing firefighting capacity.

When residents hear that the City is “investing more in the Fire Department,” they reasonably expect that investment to result in greater capability, whether through stronger staffing, better training, replacement apparatus, improved protective equipment, safer facilities, or increased response capacity. In other words, people expect an investment to produce some measurable improvement in what the department can actually do.

So the question is not simply whether the number printed at the bottom of the Fire budget went up. The more meaningful question is: what additional firefighting capability does that increase buy?

What Makes Up the Personnel Increase?

The firefighter personnel account increases by $130,390, but that number should not automatically be interpreted as $130,390 in raises.

Here is where the increase appears:

Personnel cost	FY26	FY27	Change
Salaries and wages	$674,419	$736,764	+$62,345
Emergency callback	$12,200	$12,200	$0
Non-emergency callback	$55,000	$65,000	+$10,000
Holiday callback	$5,750	$6,000	+$250
Unemployment insurance	$4,185	$4,584	+$399
Workers’ compensation	$33,060	$36,235	+$3,175
Health insurance	$184,221	$198,432	+$14,211
FICA	$793	$837	+$44
PERS	$1,160	$1,224	+$64
Fire pension	$133,269	$145,614	+$12,345
Clothing allowance	$0	$5,000	+$5,000
Medicare	$11,033	$12,085	+$1,052
State pension expense	$207,871	$228,776	+$20,905
Cellular	$900	$1,500	+$600

At least $52,195 of the increase is specifically attributable to insurance, pensions, workers’ compensation, unemployment, Medicare, FICA and PERS. Those are real costs, and the City has to pay them, but they do not put another firefighter on an engine or add a new crew to a shift.

The salary-and-wage line increases by another $62,345. A fair question for the City is: How much of that $62,345 represents contractual increases, and how much represents discretionary raises?

Regardless of the answer, the staffing level remains unchanged. The City is paying more to maintain essentially the same workforce, not expanding the number of firefighters available to respond.

The Fire Operating Budget Barely Moves

This is where the claim of a major investment becomes even harder to reconcile with the actual budget.

The Fire operating account increases from $282,688 to $290,040, an increase of only $7,352, or about 2.6%.

At the same time, several important operating lines are reduced.

Operating line	FY26	FY27	Change
Office supplies	$2,300	$3,000	+$700
Operating supplies	$32,000	$45,000	+$13,000
Repair/maintenance supplies	$2,500	$2,500	$0
Vehicle repair/maintenance	$10,000	$20,000	+$10,000
Fuel	$10,000	$8,500	-$1,500
Professional services	$15,000	$20,000	+$5,000
Repair/maintenance services	$8,000	$4,000	-$4,000
Computer/equipment maintenance	$26,006	$20,804	-$5,202
Travel	$4,000	$5,000	+$1,000
Training	$20,000	$15,000	-$5,000
Code books	$1,000	$400	-$600
Physicals	$5,500	$16,000	+$10,500
Operating capital outlay	$13,950	$0	-$13,950
Tools/equipment/safety	$41,500	$40,500	-$1,000

Training falls by 25%. Repair and maintenance services fall by 50%. Operating capital outlay goes to zero. Computer and equipment maintenance falls by more than $5,000, and tools, equipment and safety funding also decreases.

Those reductions matter because the operating account is where the department pays for many of the things required to keep existing capability functioning safely.

The Purchasing-Power Problem

There is another issue that gets lost when the discussion stops at nominal dollars.

The Fire operating account increases only 2.6%. That means even ordinary inflationary pressure on equipment, parts, protective gear, maintenance, contracted services, technology, fuel and other routine costs can consume most or all of that increase.

If the cost of the things Fire needs to buy rises faster than 2.6%, then the department may technically have more dollars while having less purchasing power.

That is why saying “the budget went up” does not necessarily mean the department is better funded in practical terms.

The same concept applies to the overall budget. The City’s own FY27 budget projects that Fire will spend approximately $1,700,086 in FY26. The proposed FY27 budget is $1,757,791. That is only $57,705 more, or about 3.4% above what the City already expects Fire to spend this year.

That is a much more revealing comparison than the nearly $500,000 figure.

If costs rise, personnel obligations increase, equipment ages and maintenance becomes more expensive, then a 3.4% increase over actual projected spending may do little more than help the department stand still.

And standing still is not the same as investing in additional capacity.

Fire Capital Funding Actually Goes Down

The Fire capital budget reinforces the same concern.

FY25 actual Fire capital spending was $29,688. FY26 budgeted Fire capital is $55,450. The FY27 recommendation is only $40,500.

That is a decrease of $14,950, or approximately 27%, from FY26.

The entire FY27 Fire capital plan consists of:

Project	FY27
Base Station Radio	$10,000
Fire Station Remodel	$5,000
Hose Replacement	$8,000
Radios	$2,500
Turnout Gear	$15,000
Total	$40,500

Those are basic replacement, communication and firefighter-safety needs. There is no major apparatus replacement in this capital list, no significant station project, and no large capital investment that clearly expands Fire Department capability.

So again, if the City is making a major new investment in Fire, where is it?

And Then There Is the Ambulance Increase

Most of the nearly $500,000 combined increase is not in the Fire General Fund at all. It is in Ambulance.

The Ambulance budget increases by $355,885, and the FY27 Ambulance budget includes a separate $331,171 Mobile Crisis Response account.

Mobile Crisis Response is a very important and worthwhile service, and it should absolutely be fully funded. This is not an argument against Mobile Crisis, its staff, or the work they do.

But this particular conversation is about what the City is investing in the Fire Department and whether that investment increases firefighting capacity and capability.

Mobile Crisis funding does not increase structural firefighting staffing, replace Fire apparatus, expand Fire training, improve Fire station capacity or add firefighting equipment. That is not a criticism of the program. It is simply an accounting distinction that matters when the public is being told that Livingston Fire & Rescue has received nearly half a million dollars in additional investment.

Fund Mobile Crisis appropriately. Support the work. But do not count those dollars in a way that leaves residents believing they represent additional firefighting resources when they do not.

So Is Livingston Fire & Rescue Being “Defunded”?

Technically, the Fire General Fund appropriation is not lower than last year. It increases by $137,742.

So if “defunding” means only that the nominal appropriation was reduced, then no, the number did not go down.

But that is not the whole story.

Nearly 95% of the increase goes into personnel costs required to maintain the existing workforce. There are no additional Fire FTEs. The operating account rises only 2.6%, several operating lines are reduced, and the separate Fire capital budget is reduced by 27%. When those facts are viewed alongside normal inflationary pressure and the rising cost of maintaining aging equipment and facilities, the budget looks much more like an effort to maintain current operations than a substantial expansion of Fire capacity.

That distinction matters because when taxpayers are told the City is “investing in Fire,” they reasonably expect to see some return on that investment in the form of stronger staffing, better equipment, improved facilities, increased training or greater response capability.

What does Livingston Fire & Rescue gain next year that it does not have this year?

That is the question.

“For the Next Two Years” Is Not a Long-Term Plan

And that brings us back to September 1.

Gager reassured residents that Fire and ambulance service will continue “for the next two years” because the existing ambulance levy remains in place.

But the levy expires in 2028, and we are nearly at the end of 2026.

That does not mean Livingston has two full years to wait before deciding what happens next.

A replacement or renewal levy has to be developed, coordinated, formally approved for the ballot, presented to voters, passed, and then incorporated into the next tax and budget cycle. Even without pinning down the exact legal deadline here, the practical point is clear: the planning window is already getting short.

If uninterrupted EMS funding requires an election before the existing revenue expires, then the meaningful decisions have to be made well before 2028.

That makes Gager’s September 1 language even more important.

He says the coming conversation will determine how ambulance service is “operated and organized.”

And then he tells employees:

“There is a place for you in the future of ambulance service in Park County.”

If you are listening closely, he is telling you something.

He chose the words Park County. He did not say Livingston Fire & Rescue, and he did not say the City of Livingston.

Those words do not prove that a final decision has already been made about LFR’s future. But they also do not sound like an unequivocal commitment to maintaining the current Fire/EMS model.

And when those carefully chosen words are placed beside a budget that adds no Fire staff, barely increases operating purchasing power, reduces training and maintenance in several places, and cuts Fire capital funding by 27%, Livingston residents have every right to ask what the long-term plan actually is.

The City should be able to explain where the investment is, what additional firefighting capability taxpayers are receiving for that investment, how LFR will be staffed and equipped going forward, and what the plan is for replacing or renewing the EMS funding before the current levy runs out.

Because “we increased the budget” is not the same thing as demonstrating an investment in firefighting capacity.

And “for the next two years” is not a long-term plan.