Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays decision on proposal allowing volunteer fire companies to bill non‑residents for responses
Summary
Council heard extensive discussion of a proposed ordinance authorizing the city’s volunteer fire companies to seek reimbursement for emergency responses to motorists and non‑residents; members requested more data and voted to postpone action.
Council heard a lengthy presentation and extensive councilmember commentary on a proposed ordinance that would permit Lock Haven’s volunteer fire companies to bill responsible parties (through third‑party administrators) for costs incurred responding to motor‑vehicle accidents and other non‑resident emergency calls.
Staff explained the draft ordinance would amend chapter 257 of the city code to allow the two volunteer companies that make up the Lock Haven Fire Department to independently pursue cost recovery for vehicle‑accident responses where the person at fault is not a city resident. The draft envisions each company using a third‑party administrator to prepare and submit claims; proceeds would be retained by the individual companies but, per staff suggestion, reported to the city and deducted from the city’s annual equipment allotment to each company.
Council members raised multiple concerns: several said the draft fee schedule produced potentially high bills for motorists (examples discussed included per‑unit charges for engine response, chiefs and per‑person fees for firefighters), questions about splitting charges when multiple companies respond, and whether the city already bears substantial costs for equipment, personnel and benefits. One member reviewed budget line items and noted the city’s operating costs for the fire department (citations in the meeting: wages/benefits ~ $409,000; insurance ~$17,000; vehicle maintenance ~$15,000; fuel ~$7,000; operating supplies ~$15,000) and asked whether the city should share in any proceeds or negotiate a different split.
Because key details were missing (final fee schedule justification, standard operating procedures for multi‑agency responses, year‑end call statistics by company and a solicitor review of ordinance language), several council members asked for more information and time to review. The council then voted to postpone final action to allow staff to gather data, consult the fire chiefs and the companies’ solicitors, and return with clarified revenue handling and procedural guidance.
Ending Staff will supply a written summary of operational costs, call statistics (EMS and MVA counts), a legal review of draft ordinance language and a recommended fee schedule or alternative revenue‑sharing approach. The item will return to council after the requested information is provided.
