Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays consideration of ordinance allowing volunteer fire companies to bill nonresidents for accident responses
Summary
An ordinance that would enable Lock Haven volunteer fire companies to seek reimbursement for responses to motor vehicle accidents involving non‑residents was introduced but sent back for more study after council members raised questions about fee levels, county EMS costs and revenue sharing with the city.
Council members on March 17 discussed a proposed ordinance to permit the city’s two volunteer fire companies to bill responsible non‑residents for the costs of responding to motor vehicle accidents. The ordinance would allow each company to use a third‑party administrator to pursue claims; proceeds would go to the individual companies and city staff proposed requiring companies to report annual revenue to the city.
Several council members said the proposed fee schedule appeared high and requested more data. One council member ran through city budget line items — including wages, equipment insurance, utilities and vehicle maintenance — and said the city already provides substantial support to volunteer companies. Concerns included whether fees should be shared with the city, how mutual‑aid responses would be billed when multiple companies respond, and whether EMS transports and non‑emergency ambulance assists should be treated differently.
Council members requested additional analysis, including year‑end run rates for call volumes and costs, and said the two volunteer chiefs who requested the ordinance were not present for questions. A motion to delay further consideration was made and the item was tabled pending more information and legal review; council recorded a roll call in favor of tabling.
Staff noted that under state law individual companies can pursue fee recovery while the city itself cannot levy such user fees in the same way; council asked for follow‑up with company solicitors and for the chiefs’ written responses to council questions before returning the measure.
