Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Department Billing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Putney Selectboard adopts Fire & EMS billing ordinance amid citizen warnings about possible double-billing
Summary
The Putney Selectboard on June 11 adopted an ordinance to allow the town to establish rates and use a billing contractor for Fire & EMS responses. A resident warned the measure could result in additional charges for residents and described legal and insurance concerns; the board said billing would target out-of-town or cost-recovery incidents.
The Putney Selectboard on June 11 adopted an ordinance authorizing the town to establish reimbursement rates and to engage a billing-and-collections contractor to collect charges for Fire & EMS responses.
Fletcher Proctor, Selectboard clerk, introduced the ordinance as a mechanism to set mitigation rates and enable the town to collect for services rendered. Aileen Tulloch, Selectboard member, moved to adopt the ordinance and Rebecca "Bex" Slattery seconded; the motion passed.
Private citizen Howard Fairman, whose multi-page submission was included in the meeting materials, strongly objected to the ordinance. "This is an extraordinarily serious decision," Fairman said, arguing that billing recipients for services already funded by property taxes effectively double-bills residents and that not all insurance policies cover fire-department charges. His written submission included sample math — two fire engines at $554 per hour for two hours less a $500 insurance payment — and warned the proposed contractor would deduct a percentage for sending bills. He also raised concern about a forum-selection clause in the contractor paperwork that, he wrote, would require disputes to be litigated under California law.
Eric McGowan, Selectboard chair, responded that the intent of the ordinance is not to bill residents for a response to a fire in their home and said, "this is not to bill residents for emergency calls if there's a fire in your home, we are not looking to bill, this is mostly for the interstate, when services have to be out there, because it's costing the town of Putney residents money." Proctor added that the proposed contract was not under consideration at that meeting.
Fairman also noted a statutory route for public challenge: "Five percent of Town of Putney voters can petition a special town meeting as a permissive referendum approving or annulling any Putney Fire & EMS Department billing ordinance that our Town of Putney Selectboard have adopted and enacted (24 V.S.A. § 1973)," he wrote.
The board adopted the ordinance after the discussion. The transcript and attached materials show the town manager and selectboard members described the adoption as authorizing the town to set rates and pursue collections; details about specific contractor terms, specific rate schedules, how mutual-aid responses will be invoiced, and whether collected revenue would be shared with mutual-aid partners were not resolved at the meeting and were not in the motion on the floor.
Next steps noted in the meeting record: adoption is subject to statutory petition rights (permissive referendum) and any detailed billing contract would be presented separately for consideration.
