Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Department Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and taxpayers urge clearer Fire Department reimbursement ordinance; Selectboard hears detailed objections
Summary
Two residents delivered lengthy statements urging the Selectboard to reconsider a proposed Fire Department Service Reimbursement Ordinance, arguing the draft is vague about applicability, effective date and statutory authority and warning billing residents or insurers may be legally and practically problematic.
Putney Selectboard members heard extended public comment on June 25 about a proposed Fire Department Service Reimbursement Ordinance, with two residents urging the board to slow down and clarify the draft before adopting it.
Jeanette White read a prepared statement saying the town already has a 2003 ordinance that she believes was not adequately reviewed or repealed and that the new draft lacks essential definitions. "This ordinance is going to set up rates but there is no indication of how or when those rates will be applied," White said, arguing the draft omits definitions for "emergency," which personnel are covered, and the circumstances under which the town would bill a party directly rather than their insurer.
Howard Fairman delivered a separate, detailed submission with cost figures and legal observations. He said town taxpayers have already invested about $2.3 million in fire and EMS apparatus and that the town will spend roughly $371,445 on the department in fiscal 2025–26. "Neither property-taxpayers nor their families, tenants, or employees who receive necessary fire-department services should be billed for these services for which taxpayers already have paid," Fairman said. He also questioned whether Vermont law authorizes the town to charge the broad "mitigation rates" described in the draft and called for clearer statutory grounding and explicit exceptions.
Both speakers raised statutory and practical concerns. White noted the ordinance text sets an effective period shorter than she believes state law permits and flagged the use of "shall" in places where the board might intend discretion. Fairman cited 20 V.S.A. and other statutory guidance as context for his legal doubts and asked the Selectboard to spell out what incidents would be billed and when.
Town Manager Karen Astley and other Selectboard members did not adopt changes during the meeting. The board had earlier listed public comment items on the agenda and received the written materials Fairman supplied. Selectboard members acknowledged the complexity of drafting enforceable local ordinances and the need to avoid uneven application.
The Selectboard took no final action on the ordinance at the June 25 meeting; the public statements were entered into the record and the board signaled it would address ordinance drafting and effective dates in future work. The next Selectboard meeting is scheduled for July 9, 2025.
