The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Input, Disscussion?
This is just my opinion but is it un-ethical and morally wrong to do this? When you think about why the majority of us on here have a love for the job we do, I personally it is not for the $$$$. I do understand that special responses (Haz-Mat, Water Rescue, and other Special Rescues do eat up alot of resources and mnapower. Isn't that what tax dollars are for though? Lets hear your all your thoughts, or if your jurisdiction has came across this?
------- CITY COMMISSION OPENS DISCUSSION ON FEES FOR SERVICES
If the fire trucks come to your house in ------- to put out a fire should you be charged a fee for their service? If a volatile situation develops at your house, and the police and the SWAT team gets called, should you be billed?
If firemen have to cut up your car to get you out of the wreckage after an accident, should that be billed to you? That is a topic that was brought before the ------- City Commission Wednesday in their study session. While many recognize the high costs involved in situations, there is not consensus on what to do. What if the Ku Klux Klan marches in a parade, and extra police are deemed necessary, should the organization pay for that? Chief ---- ------said it’s not easy to budget some expensive events.
Commissioner ----- ------- said she is against this; residents pay taxes already to pay for training, readiness and to have personnel on duty to handle situations. She says that’s why people live in communities.
--------- said he will be collecting more information on costs and what other cities are doing for commissioners consideration.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Dumser on
-
I'm afraid that if they keep finding ways to "Bill" people for services, that people will stop calling 911 for help and start trying to mitigate the problem themselves.
~Grandma has a heart attack, so they drive her to the hospital instead of calling 911 for an ambulance.
~People will try more aggresively to extinguish that house fire and getting injured or killed before calling 911.
I understand that many municipalities are having budget problems and need more revenue, but in charging for services that used to be covered by taxes, they may be setting up for bigger problems.
As for your example of the KKK marching. I think that anyone who stages a gathering that is blatantly controversial should have to pay for the extra Police that it will require to keep the peace. I also believe that someone who causes a hoax, where manpower and resources are expended (missing person who's not really missing) should have to pay for the costs of the "wild goose chase".
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
I don't believe it's either unethical or immoral. What it sounds like is the city commission is exploring alternate revenue streams to offset what is most likely a drop in revenue from property taxes and state and federal aid/grants to compensate for steady or rising municipal overhead expenses.
An ambulance ride costs money, so too does a wrecker when you have an accident. As does every test in a hospital and fees for every doctor that sees you. A budget is predicated upon planned expenses with some extra for unexpected expenses. But additional police for a kkk event isn't something that is ordinarily planned for, so why wouldn't the town charge the event planners for additional police coverage.
I wouldn't agree with charging for a fire department response, that is why we're here. On the other hand, excessive false alarms could be charged for. Where I am, HazMat cleanup is billed directly to the responsible party. Fines for tickets may be either directed into police or fire budgets or into the town's general fund.
What it boils down to is, do you decrease essential public services or do you look for other ways to afford them?
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
Look at it this way, why do they (selectmen and city councilors) target emergency services? Because most do not feel it will ever be needed by them. This is an easy arguement to defend, maybe every road should have a toll booth and the "users" will then pay twice for it? Once in your taxes and then as needed. Or should the school bus have a coin slot like the city transit bus to take the "users" kids to school?
There are better ways to reduce municipal operating budgets but some bean counters refuse to look at it, like privatizing snow plowing with contractors, and contractor equipment, and pay when the blade hits the ground. Same for mowing, bridges, road repair and culvert work vs. having a fulltime 24-7 crew with bennies on the tax roll.
There are many town or city services that taxpayers are provided through tax funding source but could easily be run or delivered by other contracted sources, unfortunately fire and rescue is one that is not...
Prioritizing services that need to be funded vs nice to be funded sometimes gets blurred.
-
-
In my area, they are starting to bill "out of towners" for fire and EMS services at a much higher rate than residents.
Excessive false alarms have been charged for for several years here. As well as billing event planners for events requiring additional Police for safety.
We also go by the "spiller pays" method of billing for HAZMAT cleanup.
I think that some Cities/Towns should audit their Citywide payroll and start eliminating some of the "dead wood". Cook (Crook) County Illinois (just up the road a mile or two) is notorious for "ghost" payrollers. People who are on the books because tyhey know somebody, but never have to show up and do any actual work! If they hunted for and terminated these "ghosts", I'm sure they would be in for a huge windfall of surplus funds.
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Ewing on
-
I do agree Jack, we run Fire Based EMS in our department (rides cost money, BLS or ALS, items used cost money, etc) Wreckers for accidents are billed to the vehicle insurance provider. Kinda like how Haz-Mat is charged to the shipping company as well. But how do you charge or bill for a Structure Fire, Vehicle Fire, Extrication, etc? We actually do charge for False Alarms, and have now started charging for the "Frequent Flyers" that end up always refuses patient care. AKA a "Service call" for billing purposes. But I just think its bad and a black eye for the fire service. That we are now charging to help with your emergency? It just seems wrong. But on the other hand, yes this day in age money is pretty tight for anyone (individual or a City). That is why I started this discussion im kinda leaning on both sides.
-
-
Good point Joe, it seems that there's always too many Public Works guys on a jobsite. I believe some municipalities could benefit by thinning out that dept, along with the Park District, Water dept, etc.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
Gee, liike this hasn't been ridden hard and put away wet a couple of times...
The answer is so simple, and staring us all in the face, or at least this is my take:
People pay taxes for police and fire protection. This is no different than paying for roads, sewers or water. It's a basic service designed to not only provide service for the tax payer but to afford protection for other tax payers as well. To charge anything means that you are just taxing the population even more, which WILL alienate you from future voting for things like increased fees or salaries down the road. What works great for a politician does not always serve the fire services needs. Adding any revenue stream off the backs of the local tax payers will not help any out. We all need the money kept in house so to speak.
The answer here is to charge for services rendered for non-residents. How your interpret this is your own call. For example, an out of county trucking firm has a vehicle accident that requires intensive cleanup. Is it fair for the local tax payers to bear this fiscal burden? It's a lot easier to "bill" those other people than it is to tax you own. Charge for services only if those people receiving the services do not pay into the tax structure.
Just throwing it out there...
CBz
When you start talking about things like ambulance transportation, which has a built in money generation program with known insurance billing etc.
-
-
"Charge for services only if those people receiving the services do not pay into the tax structure."
Mike, that's so crazy it just might work! Now let's hope the Politicians can activate their "common sense" gene and impliment something like this.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Actually, Mike, that is close to what a lot of places are doing, but what really happens is this:
Charge only for services for which the existing tax structure does not pay.
That doesn't mean "don't charge the locals". It means that if the tax structure is set up to pay for certain things (basic fire services, fire stations, apparatus, maintenance, training) that the things that fall outside of that get billed.
That would include EMS services (high proportion of expendibles compared to a fire), hazmat (the SARA Title III HAZWOPER legislation already provides for this), and technical rescue (Special training, special equipment, high training cycle to call ratio) would be legit to bill.
Legit billing also includes things for which insurance paid by the customer would reimburse for the response. The big two are responding for auto extrication (Metro Nashville has billed for this since the 1970's) and for vehicle fires (as FDNY is considering implementing).
Extrication and car fires are things for which the vehicle owners are required to have insurance. If the fire department doesn't bill for those services, the customer's money goes to the insurance company's profit margin. If the fire department does bill, that already-paid money goes to help keep the fire department solvent.
There's one other problem with "Charge for services only if those people receiving the servivces do not pay into the tax structure." - it would create a lot of billing for people like renters and indigents.
On the flip side, that is exactly the rationale behind subscription fire departments who don't get local tax subsidies.
The bottom line - this is a difficult issue, each local FD will have to make their own decisions about it, and the question isn't going away any time soon.
-
-
"Extrication and car fires are things for which the vehicle owners are required to have insurance. If the fire department doesn't bill for those services, the customer's money goes to the insurance company's profit margin. If the fire department does bill, that already-paid money goes to help keep the fire department solvent."
I agree, but nowadays, the insurance companies do everything they can to NOT pay on a claim. Which leaves the taxpayer in the lurch. Depending on how aggressive the F.D. is in collecting the bill, by the time the insurance company pays (if they pay at all) the taxpayer's credit rating could be damaged.
-
-
I suggest consulting with your town attorney. We used to provide free ambulance transport services for our taxpayers until an out of towner challenged the local policy. It appears that picking and choosing who is to be billed for our services may be against the law.
-
-
We provide free ambulance care and transport for our members and their immediate families that live in town. I wonder if that falls under that category?
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
