PDA

View Full Version : IS your house on fire???



The Happy Squirrel
07-19-2008, 08:20 AM
what are your thoughts on this??? ANyone have this already in place???

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/articles/index.cfm?id=70636&section=News



Pay a fee if your house is on fire? Duluth councilors might consider it
Patrick Garmoe Duluth News Tribune
Published Saturday, July 19, 2008

Next time you get into a car accident, or need firefighters to douse your home with water, brace for a bill.

Charging flat fees for these police and fire responses is an idea the Duluth City Council may vote onJuly 28.

City administrators are contemplating charging homeowners or drivers a flat $500 fee when firefighters extinguish a fire at a home, extract someone from a mangled car, or if police have to investigate a car accident.

RELATED CONTENT
Patrick Garmoe Archive
“We don’t know what the fees are yet,” city spokesman Jeff Papas said.

If councilors approve the notion of charging the fees, they would then — perhaps also on July 28 — have to separately vote on the fees.

While the fire response and vehicle extraction would apply to everyone, the plan to charge to investigate car accidents would only be assessed to non-residents, if the city can legally pass an ordinance that differentiates between the two groups, Papas said. The city attorney’s office still is checking whether the ordinance can differentiate between residents and non-residents of Duluth.

“You’re dealing with about 300 to 330 accidents a year,” Papas said, of which about half involve drivers who reside outside of Duluth.

The idea is supposed to net the city an additional estimated $100,000 annually, Papas said, about half from fire calls, and the other half from police investigations.

It would be another budget boost for a city that this year is facing a $4.5 million deficit.

According to the ordinance, the city would bill the insurance company. But if the insurance company wouldn’t pay, or there was no insurance, then the homeowner would be billed. If he or she didn’t pay, the charge could be assessed on the following year’s property taxes, the proposed ordinance says.

The idea was modeled after a similar ordinance in Burnsville, Minn., Papas said.

The Burnsville Fire Department charges varying fees for vehicle extractions, and having to go into licensed care facilities to lift patients, said Steven Harklerode, Fire Chief, but not for fighting blazes.

Nothing is charged for fires or for police assistance, Harklerode said.

Edie Clark, director of communications for the International Association of Fire Chiefs, said there is a smattering of cities across the country that has begun charging fees.

Some councilors voiced strong philosophical opposition.

“I don’t like it,” said Councilor Sharla Gardner. “People are already paying for those services through their taxes. I don’t think it’s at all fair.”

Councilor Jim Stauber said the city’s administration should focus on cost-cutting, not charging residents more.

“Our fire department is the most expensive per capita, than any other fire department in the state,” Stauber said.

He also worried charging a fee might make people reluctant to call the police or fire departments.

“I just think it’s a very bad idea,” he said. He also feared that once implemented, fees would end up rising annually.

While Councilor Jeff Anderson hadn’t decided where he stands, he said he definitely won’t support it if the ordinance doesn’t include an expiration date.

“We have to recognize that eventually we’ll be in a more solvent position,” he said, and therefore these fees should only be charged during this stretch when the city is cash-strapped, Anderson said.

Council President Roger Reinert said other cities have fees for various city services He said he will consider the idea, but would like to know if insurance would pick up the tab in most cases.

“I’m certainly interested in hearing about it,” he said. Increasingly, the city is asked to offer more and more services with fewer dollars. This would be one way to help remedy that, he said. “It’s not a dead-on-arrival proposal.”

mojo
07-19-2008, 09:29 AM
people could get used to it if insurance covered it in part or in whole. but at first it could make someone hesitate and in the end cost more in damages.

GraingerGuy
07-19-2008, 10:07 AM
So does that mean if there is a fire at an apartment complex every single apartment resident has to pony up 500 since all of their homes would have been in danger?

Markel
07-19-2008, 10:39 AM
So does that mean if there is a fire at an apartment complex every single apartment resident has to pony up 500 since all of their homes would have been in danger?
I would think that the fire department would be willing to negotiate a volume discount. ;)

DarkFury
07-19-2008, 12:49 PM
"To serve and protect... for a nominal fee of course". :rolleyes: :2far:

InfiniteNothing
07-19-2008, 03:27 PM
Suggested donation ;)

zippyjuan
07-19-2008, 06:15 PM
They should charge a fee if the are called and NOT needed.

mojo
07-21-2008, 06:07 AM
"To serve and protect... for a nominal fee of course". :rolleyes: :2far:
i'd pay them in coffee

Memo
07-21-2008, 06:37 AM
They should charge a fee if the are called and NOT needed.

This is already in place. Well at least where I've lived in Texas and in Connecticut.

cheapie
07-21-2008, 06:44 AM
they already charge us a fee. it's called TAX!!! :2far:

DarkFury
07-21-2008, 07:20 AM
i'd pay them in coffee
I've heard that donuts have a higher exchange rate. :D

cheapie
07-21-2008, 07:46 AM
he might be referring to the starbucks fiasco. :heh:

Prngr44
07-21-2008, 08:26 AM
they already charge us a fee. it's called TAX!!! :2far:

That's exactly what I was thinking. Sure, I'll pay a fee, when you eliminate that tax on my tax bill.

Maarchk
07-21-2008, 09:23 AM
Yeah this is no bueno. Some smaller cities around have volunteer fire fighting groups that handle the small situations. And have big city backups in case it is a larger emergency. This way you can manage the cats, and the small brush fires and not spend much money other than supplies.

ShawnLee
07-21-2008, 10:26 AM
I'm of two minds of this. I'd be completely against it except that there are some times when your own actions put you at risk. I might be in favor of an adjuticated fee where the stupidity of your actions was proportionately related to the fine.

Simple accident, no real fault between the drivers? No fee.
Drunk and racing a buddy? DUI, reckless, etc. etc. etc. and $2000 for the cost of the police department to take care of that.

House fire - just something that happens? No fee.
"Hey Jed! Look at this!" and then your house burns down? $15000.

LPMiller
07-21-2008, 10:51 AM
we already have that though, Shawn. If it was your fault, you can be fined, you can not have insurance pay, you can be charged. That's something that exists in most places already. But this sounds almost like a legal protection racket.

ShawnLee
07-21-2008, 02:40 PM
we already have that though, Shawn. If it was your fault, you can be fined, you can not have insurance pay, you can be charged. That's something that exists in most places already. But this sounds almost like a legal protection racket.
You're right - but I'm just thinking... There's always that one house in the neighborhood where the cops come out frequently, the cops know everyone involved by name, and the victim refuses to press charges. That house pays as much in taxes as anyone else and that sucks for people who don't "use" the cops as much.

But yeah, legal racketeering = bad idea. Still, I understand the sentiment.

Thesifer
07-21-2008, 07:09 PM
Why don't they just raise their taxes by $0.25 and call it good.

renovation
07-21-2008, 07:59 PM
in most rural area's like i live in. the fire dept's are know as the chimney and basement department's.by the time they arrive thats all thats left anyway . the chimney standing and the stoves sitting in the basement with all the ash's of what you did own :(

InfiniteNothing
07-21-2008, 09:19 PM
Why don't they just raise their taxes by $0.25 and call it good.
Raising taxes is unpopular. Everyone thinks accidents won't happen to them.

Thesifer
07-21-2008, 11:48 PM
Raising taxes is unpopular. Everyone thinks accidents won't happen to them.

Yeah, but you're still paying for it with Tax that's already there. And every one knows that isn't going away. So now people PAY TAX, and then get screwed again with a Bill when something does happen.

The Happy Squirrel
07-22-2008, 07:53 PM
yeah the whole system is messed up these days. Everyone is out to cut costs, cut pay-outs and screw everyone they can.

gear02
07-22-2008, 10:50 PM
I bet they'd make $100k by firing one of those lunatics they call "city administrators"

cruelpupet
07-23-2008, 07:08 AM
I think this is an awesome idea.

But, there is one problem. People might not be willing to pay (as evidenced by the above posts) so the firemen should present the homeowner with the bill *before* they put out the fire.

They should also have them sign off on a contract to save their house first. Because the person could also claim that they didnt want them to save their house.

Prngr44
07-23-2008, 08:12 AM
I think this is an awesome idea.

But, there is one problem. People might not be willing to pay (as evidenced by the above posts) so the firemen should present the homeowner with the bill *before* they put out the fire.

They should also have them sign off on a contract to save their house first. Because the person could also claim that they didnt want them to save their house.

I know of a town in rural Missouri that sells these stickers as a yearly fee similarly to what's stated above. Houses that don't have a sticker..... don't get put out.

cruelpupet
07-23-2008, 09:08 AM
I know of a town in rural Missouri that sells these stickers as a yearly fee similarly to what's stated above. Houses that don't have a sticker..... don't get put out.

I was being sarcastic...but I like that idea.

Prngr44
07-23-2008, 11:44 AM
I was being sarcastic...but I like that idea.

I can't imagine how it's legal, I guess nobody ever pushed it into the courts.

Thesifer
07-23-2008, 01:33 PM
I can't imagine how it's legal, I guess nobody ever pushed it into the courts.

Yeah, when things like this start happening, pretty soon we will pay extra for Police protection to, just like you pay extra for it when you get arrested/go to court etc.

Maybe we should just get rid of them all. Since Taxes aren't covering it, and we're going to have to pay out the a$$ to use their services.

attgig
07-23-2008, 01:38 PM
wow, talk about rubbing salt in a wound.... geez.

Wouldn't those guys love it if on top of losing your house and everything you own, you owe the city money...
And you know what would happen during the next fundraising drive... *shakes head* you lost your house, paid 500 bucks for them to come, and then they call you asking for more donations... *blech*

The Happy Squirrel
07-24-2008, 06:22 PM
UPDATE:

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/articles/index.cfm?id=70871&section=News



Duluth mayor pulls proposal to charge for police and fire calls
Brandon Stahl Duluth News Tribune
Published Thursday, July 24, 2008

Did you hear about city officials in Duluth, Minnesota, saying they might charge fees if you call the police or firefighters to come to your house? Your house is on fire and they’re going to charge you — Don’t we already pay that fee? It’s called taxes!

So joked Jay Leno during his TV monologue Tuesday night about the proposal from Mayor Don Ness’ administration to charge for certain police and fire services, a plan the News Tribune first reported Thursday.

The idea was supposed to net a cash-strapped city about $100,000 annually, but on Wednesday Ness pulled it from the Council agenda.


Though the ordinance was modeled after programs around the country that allow public safety departments to recover expenses, Ness said, the proposal given to the council “wasn’t given the proper attention.”

One of the problems appeared to be that Ness didn’t read the ordinance before it was presented. Because he was out of town when the proposal was drafted, “I was not able to sign off on the inclusion of the ordinance on the agenda — the first I read the ordinance was at Monday’s council meeting,” he wrote in an e-mail to the City Council.

“Upon reading it, I immediately saw why it was causing so much confusion — there is a lack of definition in the ordinance which by default broadened the scope and provided opportunity for incorrect speculation. The result has been a great deal of confusion.”

Did the national attention have anything to do with his decision? Ness responded via e-mail: “The attention that this has received has highlighted the failure to communicate effectively on this subject.”

Had it passed, the ordinance would have allowed the city to charge for some emergency services such as fire suppression, car accident investigations and vehicle extractions. City spokesman Jeff Papas said last week that administrators were considering a flat fee of $500 for those services, which would be billed to an insurance company. If the insurance company wouldn’t pay, or if there was no insurance, the city would directly charge the property or car owner. Unpaid charges would be assessed against the property owner.

That proposal drew criticism from city councilors and the Duluth firefighters union. Ben Gasner, 29, a union member and a Fire Department captain, read a letter to the council Monday accusing the mayor of using the ordinance to turn public opinion against the department.

“I know, as a firefighter, the last thing I want is for a citizen to have to decide whether it is necessary to call us, or if the problem is something they can fix on their own,” Gasner said. “No one would advocate for that scenario.”

The idea for the proposed ordinance didn’t come from the mayor but from police Chief Gordon Ramsay and fire Chief John Strongitharm, who were asked to find ways to help fix the budget problems

However, Ramsay said the ordinance, as it was written, wasn’t the proposal he had in mind for the Police Department. He wanted to model it on a program that would have charged non-Duluth residents for car accident investigations, billing the insurance company of the person found to be at fault.

He said he got the idea from a company called Cost Recovery Corp., whose president, Regina Moore, said hundreds of municipalities charge for similar services. She said her program never puts out-of-pocket expenses on local taxpayers.

“The services being billed are outside of the primary job function for police,” Moore said. “It’s a civil suit caused by negligent driving. … We’re recovering those tax dollars that have been spent and recycling them back into the city budget.”

As for billing citizens for putting out fires, Moore said that’s something she’d never endorse.

So how did that get into the ordinance? Strongitharm said it was one of many fees he wanted the council to consider, but under state law the council first had to give permission to charge any fees. If general permission had been granted, he would have presented other suggestions in addition to charges for putting out fires, such as vehicle extractions or responding to false alarms. Each proposal would have required a separate vote.

“The ordinance doesn’t set any policy,” Strongitharm said. “It just gives the authority to charge.”

The council will get an explanation of what happened with the ordinance at a committee of the whole meeting, Strongitharm said. But the administration probably won’t present a revised ordinance, he said.

“This ordinance and this concept is dead right now. We have no plans to bring it forward,” he said. “There’s been such a negative spin put on it.”