Council votes to advertise fire-services committee and a draft cost-recovery ordinance amid accusations and calls for data

Lower Saucon Township Council voted March 5 to advertise two measures aimed at reshaping oversight and finance for local fire response: a proposed ordinance to establish a public Fire Services executive committee and a draft ordinance creating a fee schedule to recover costs for certain emergency responses.

Supporters told council a public committee would create a transparent forum — modeled like other advisory boards — to plan budgeting, equipment and long-term strategy for fire services. Council member Victoria (last name as in transcript) said the committee would be “a public committee that meets in public...to help generate where we want to see ourselves in five years, 10 years,” and that survey findings collected by an outside consultant informed recommendations.

Opponents criticized both moves as premature and potentially harmful to volunteer response. Council members and public commenters raised two core concerns: (1) that the township has not received the underlying survey data from a paid consultant (Jerry Ozog) even though council funded the review, and (2) that a fee schedule that bills insurers or residents for responses could be abused, raise insurance premiums or disproportionately affect vulnerable residents. Anonymous allegations circulated during public comment suggested financial irregularities at the volunteer company; some council members asked for audit-level review before any expansion of authority or fee mechanisms.

The proposed cost-recovery schedule lists per-incident charges for apparatus and specialized response (for example, scaled charges for engine, tanker, ladder, or rescue responses and for certain technical rescues). Proponents said the ordinance targets incidents where non-resident highway crashes or commercial incidents place unusual costs on the township’s volunteer company and that insurers, not taxpayers, would primarily pay these invoices. Opponents asked for explicit consumer protections within any ordinance to protect residents who lack insurance or face disputed claims; some asked that any third-party billing vendor include clear dispute-resolution steps and limitations on collection.

Council approved advertisement of both ordinances on a 3–2 vote. Members who supported the measures said the steps establish public oversight and possible revenue recovery to sustain equipment and training; dissenting members said the moves risked politicizing emergency response and urged staff to first produce consultant data and consider an independent audit of fire-company finances before advancing fee schedules.