City puts fire fees back on the City Council Agenda…
Today at Toledo City Council’s agenda review a “revised” piece of legislation concerning the fire fees will be presented. The Toledo Free Press reported on this Thursday but at that point, Council did not have the legislation.
Now it’s there…Establish and implement fire service fees for Fire & Rescue Operations – nothing appears to have been changed and it still states that those who don’t have insurance can be billed directly:
SECTION 6. The City, or their authorized agent, subject to the conditions and limitations of this ordinance, shall submit an invoice to the person, entity or relevant insurance company covering the particular loss for the emergency services rendered. If it can be reliably determined that there is no insurance coverage for a particular emergency incident which causes the Toledo Fire Department to use, or incur loss, damage, and wear and tear to apparatus, tools, equipment, and materials; the City may recover any such fees from the person or entity that received said emergency services or the person or entity responsible for the debts and obligations of the person or entity that received such emergency services. Recipients of the services of the Toledo Fire Department shall respond freely and cooperatively to fire service inquiries (including those of their authorized agent), regarding their insurance coverage. Recipients of the services of the Toledo Fire Department shall be invoiced directly under the terms of this ordinance if they do not carry insurance sufficient to cover the impact to the City of Toledo’s loss of capital or material.
On April 29th this was before Toledo City Council – the ordinance failed:
Craig, McNamara, Sarantou, Sobczak, Szollosi, Brown – voted yes
Waniewski, Webb, Collins, Copeland – voted no –
For this to pass they need one more vote, I’m assuming that since Councilwoman Shultz and Councilman Ashford were not present at the time of that vote — it’s being assumed that either one of the four who voted no, or Shultz or Ashford will vote yes. It’s ironic that it doesn’t appear to matter if Council votes something down, that it will just be re-submitted with apparently no changes.
I’ll report on the discussion that takes place at Agenda Review on this later tonight and I also want to point out this article MN cities may charge fees on emergency services. I recommend reading it in full but what I found interesting was this:
Since 2004, Fridley has billed for a range of services, including auto accident extrication, medical care, accident site cleanup, extinguishing of negligent fires, ice and water rescues, and more.
In Spring Lake Park-Blaine-Mounds View, where the fee — generally $375-$600 — has been levied for more than a decade, Fire Chief Nyle Zikmund said he has never heard of folks hesitating to call for help, even with the fee. The arrangement allows the department, a private, nonprofit entity, to add several thousand dollars to its rescue replenishment fund every year, he said.
In Fridley, however, Fire Chief John Berg said much of the potential profit is eaten up by administration hassles.
“It is not a revenue-maker,” he said.
In both cities, they say, a chunk of the fees are collected from nonresidents, who are not paying to support the departments.
“It’s our obligation to capture some of the cost supported by our taxpayers,” Zikmund said.
Lisa,
Can’t thank you enough for this update/these details.
t
May 19th, 2009 at 1:06 pmI planned to do it yesterday but didn’t have the chance to go through all of the Friday packet until today to confirm that it was there.
May 19th, 2009 at 1:19 pmWhy are we paying taxes if they’re just going to turn around and charge us again for services?
May 19th, 2009 at 1:27 pmThe official answer from those who support this would be that they are only going to try to bill those who have insurance. But that’s not how this legislation is worded..
May 19th, 2009 at 1:28 pmJust another reason to vote down the income tax renewal next time it comes up since it isn’t being used for police or trash anymore.
The city is going to rape you for those fees anyway, why give it to them in the form of an income tax?
How many times are we going to end up paying for city services that we don’t get in the first place?
May 19th, 2009 at 1:30 pmThis ordinance is absolutely shameful. This is a direct result of our city leaders’ fiscal incompetence coupled with their outright failure to execute their sworn duties.
May 19th, 2009 at 1:34 pmLisaRenee wrote:
Spoken like a true socialist crook.
May 19th, 2009 at 1:47 pmWhat happens when home owner’s insurance won’t cover? Doesn’t something like this just add more red tape to an already overwhelming situation for people?
May 19th, 2009 at 2:33 pmRobin wrote:
Your answer is right in the text: “If it can be reliably determined that there is no insurance coverage for a particular emergency incident . . . the City may recover any such fees from the person or entity that received said emergency services . . .”
I’m really suprised at the councilpersons who voted “yes”
May 19th, 2009 at 3:07 pmThey apparently have more faith that the City is only going to collect for those who have insurance than many of us have.
May 19th, 2009 at 3:53 pmWhy should they scam the insurance companies?
May 19th, 2009 at 4:17 pmJust wanted to clarify that some insurance companies do not provide coverage for fire services within the city/municipality providing them. That’s because it’s a city service paid by local taxes. Some homeowners policies provide limited coverage, typically $500. See the insurance coverage fire service fee study at: http://tinyurl.com/cg8jdf. Based on the laundry list of items the city plans to charge its fire victims (see section 3 of the proposal), most homeowners would likely be billed and it could be for thousands of dollars. Section 3 lists the specific billing costs for everything associated with a fire run –from fire trucks & equipment that likely have already been paid for to a $200 hourly rate for the battalion chief (whose salary is also already paid) to the cost of disposable goggles and barricade tape!
May 19th, 2009 at 4:42 pmMore importantly, this proposal poses a serious public safety risk which seems to be disregarded. This concern stems from the possibility that a resident may attempt to extinguish a home fire instead of calling the fire department for fear of being billed thousands of dollars. If this person is injured or worse – dies in the process – or if the fire spreads to a neighboring home, this could have serious implications for the city.
Toledo residents need to know that this ordinance is not in the best interest of public safety and that their opinions should matter. A few dollars in revenue is not worth the risk of injury, death or substantial property damage.
S.O.B. CZAK of you know what refused a public meeting because he is a political hack and a coward. What is he so afraid of?
May 19th, 2009 at 8:33 pmAccording to Mr. Sobczak at the agenda review today “this is low hanging fruit and we need to get it.”
May 19th, 2009 at 9:02 pmThese scum could care less about the public. They only want to steal from who ever has money.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:17 pmSobczak, don’t be a coward and a fool. Why can’t you stand up and be a decent person? You seem to be a socialist stooge.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:21 pmyeah, them be encouraging words to get me to do “the right thing”.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:54 pmI attended today’s council agenda review to do some research on some upcoming issues and to encourage members of council to hold a public hearing on the fire fee.
Lindsay Webb, to her credit, asked for a committee of the whole hearing to allow citizen comment and was rebuffed.
The end result: council will vote on the measure as an emergency the day after Memorial Day, when no one is paying attention.
Three years ago, the city tried to bill my insurance company for the fire dept.’s response to a car accident. I received three separate notices from a collection agency trying to get me to pay the $1500 bill. Fortunately at the time, I had a talk show to voice my concerns about it. We fought off the charge successfully, but it was a lengthy process and an unnecessary pain.
Citizens have no recourse to voice their concerns at this point, other than emailing and calling council.
I don’t buy the soft billing response, because of the way the legislation is written. Someone could change their minds at any future time.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:03 pmI’m transcribing the compete agenda review right now – it will be up as soon as I’m done.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:04 pmI should add though, that Kevin’s concern is the one I’ve had since this first started, especially since it was stated the administration did consider switching to hard billing for emergency fees…
May 19th, 2009 at 10:08 pmSection 6 = taxation without representation. These crooks are trying to scam the people of toledo. These people have absolutely no morals, in my opinion.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:18 pmThe council is trying to sell the idea that if you have insurance, this charge (fine?) will cost you nothing. That’s simply not true. Insurance companies are the very best at recouping payouts from their customers in the form of increased rates.
This bit of political misdirection is just another way to increase revenue from a city of residents who already believe they are being shortchanged.
-Dan
May 19th, 2009 at 10:20 pmWOW what some of the councilman are trying to slip by is just mindboggling and downright shameful!
May 19th, 2009 at 11:50 pmI do not live in Toledo but I work there. I pay the extortion fee, 3/4% tax, for working in the City of Toledo. Yes, that is taxation without representation. I want to know where my tax dollars are going. We were told this tax was for police and fire. Well, why are police being let go and why this fire fee? If SOBczak thinks this is such a good idea, why doesn’t he open this up to public debate? He can then “educate” the citizens on this issue. What he is hiding here? Why the secrecy? I would like to ask SOBczak to perform a public service. Why not use your home as the sacrificial lamb. Why not hold a public bonfire of your home. This way you can show citizens how this will work. Put your mouth where your money is you dolt. Does anyone really think any council person was told by insurance companies they would pay this extortion? Well let us know the company, the person you talked to and the telephone number. All any citizen has to do is check their own policy or make the phone calls yourself. I say citizens should make themselves heard at council chambers. As taxpayers we are the boss. They work for us. They have no right to tell any citizen this will not be up for public debate. When it affects our wallets, YES IT SHOULD!!!!!!! Thank you Lindsay Webb for fighting for taxpayers. Why is she the lone voice?
May 20th, 2009 at 9:48 amUhg! Just watch as 1 after another homeowner (the only stability Toledo has) , packs their stuff, sells their homes for whatever they can get and moves out of the city limits. If council and the mayor think they have money problems now…..just wait.
The list of reasons to leave grows daily while the list of reasons to stay abruptly goes away. Thousands of job losses, layoffs, skyrocketing fees, loss of police, escalating crime, vacant and abandoned property, unkempt streets, idiotic spending and the Gaul of the 13 people responsible to ensure this city is “livable” to think that anyone left is gonna cover their mistakes and smile about it…..LOL
On the bright side…. Perrysburg, Rossford and the other burbs are expanding, retaining and at least intelligent enough to know better than to assualt the citizens with stupidity.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:35 amI was just thinking that if my house were to ever burn down that it wouldn’t even be worth it for me to rebuild. I’m guessing that it would cost at least 150K to rebuild. I’d be lucky if I could get 50K for my house if I were to sell it. I don’t know if I could actually do this, but what I would do is pay off the mortgage note I have on this house, sign over the property to the city and then put a down payment on a house in Maumee or Perrysburg.
I’m tired of the mayor and council continuously trying to look for ways to extract even more money out of my pocket just for the “pleasure” of living in this city. I’m also not looking forward to my home owner’s policy skyrocketing just because I live in Toledo and this new fee.
May 21st, 2009 at 5:04 pmHey Chad?
Because of the mayor and city council and their decisions, I have my own “pocket of ex-Toledoans” in my area, with two more packing moving vans as we speak.
They may as well subtract 7 residential properties income from the present taxable census Carty is relying upon to make his numbers next year. Oh wait…Carty ain’t running!
and 7 less “family units” Toledo Police will need to protect.
19 less people buying cars, home improvement needs, groceries, gasoline, lottery tickets, cigarettes, beer, replacing appliances, etc.
you guys can carry their weight, right?
May 21st, 2009 at 7:04 pmBrian …. my point exactly
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:27 am