In the news a bunch today.

From my personal blog:

http://19k.blogspot.com/2010/10/75-firefighting-fee.html

I'll make this as short as possible. I am a volunteer firefighter and I have been the president and treasurer of our fire company. I am in a rural area. Here are the facts.

1. Over 80% of fire and rescue services in the USA are provided by unpaid volunteer companies.

2. Many of these volunteer companies are autonomous, non-profit organizations, NOT municipal services. They are, however, acting on behalf of the local government, regulated by it as well. It's often a 501(3)(3) corporation that is granted the privilege of acting on behalf of the government. A fire "department" is just that - a department of the government. A fire "company" is just that - a company that exists to provide fire and/or rescue services. Most places have fire companies, not fire departments. Especially rural areas.

3. MOST - yes MOST of these volunteer companies are NOT fully funded by the local government via taxes and rely on fundraisers and grants for some or ALL of their funding. In the time I was president of our local fire company there was NO defined fire tax from the municipality - they gave a small "donation" every year that covered 17.5% of the operating budget of the fire company - the rest was made up holding breakfasts, selling raffle tickets and so on. We generate our own income, we manage our own cash, we are CONSTANTLY were running into one financial crisis after another. We now (as of 2010) have a fire tax - and it STILL only covers 63% of the operating costs. We STILL have to hold carnivals to chase dollars.

This is Very Bad because in the last 10 years:
- The number of people available to volunteer has declined dramatically.
- The amount of training required to be a firefighter has increased dramatically.
- The costs of running a fire company have increased dramatically

So now you put it all together and you have many small rural fire companies with no tax funding, volunteers departing, and the ones who remain are constantly hustling for funds with bake sales and coin tosses and so on, and then you're told you need some 40 hour course in rescue ropes or hazmat or some such ON TOP of the 40 hours you're spending doing fundraising.

Members are hardly able to keep up with the TRAINING much less the FUNDRAISING. THEN the bill comes for the new federally required equipment, or you need to replace 20 year old gear at a cost of $3,200 per member, or the new homeland security requirement for X, or the fire truck is 45 years old and not working anymore (fire trucks are $250,000 to $1,000,000 EACH).

Eventually, the fire chief and president of the fire company come to the conclusion that they need to get some sort of predictable income if they want to keep the doors open. So the try for a fire tax with the local government, and that gets shot down. They try again and again. No tax. So, as a last resort, they return to the roots of firefighting, which is private companies and paid subscribers. It's insurance, and the customers get coverage.

And then the day comes where a house burns - and it's not a subscriber's house. And that's that. That's where it all comes together. The house burns. Because, as a company, YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO NOT LET IT BURN because if you do VIRTUALLY EVERY OTHER SUBSCRIBER WILL STOP PAYING BECAUSE IT MEANS NOTHING TO SUBSCRIBE. What then? The fire company sacrificed one house to save the whole company, which means that the company will continue to exist and service the majority of residents who do pay in.

If there was anyone in the house, they would have gone in, subscriber or not. But property? No. And I don't blame them a bit. You want access to a shared service? You have to pay for it, one way or another. You opt out of that system? You're all the way out.

A very well written blog post. I didn't realize there was a distinction between a fire dept and a fire company. In this case it sounds like it was the homeowner's own fault. He did offer to pay whatever it cost to fight the fire but I'm sure the individual firefighters had no authority to consider his offer, and I don't know how they'd go after him if he reneged.

Man! That's good reading!It re-hashed knowledge I had,but forgot over the years.Back in the 1870's to 1920's,Fire Companys outnumbered Fire Departments by somewhere like 10 to 1!That was due mainly because of Funding,or lack of Funding.Most buildings,houses,apts,etc. had special Plaques or plates displayed on their frontside's,So the corresponding Insurance coverage,could be Identified.Many row houses back in that day,burnt to the ground,because the majority of them didn't display the Plaques,It didn't matter if 1 or 2 had them up,As even if they responded to those 1 or 2,they were Row houses,& the fires would eventually consume the whole Enchilada!Personally,I'd pay $75.00 a month for Fire services,If it meant Yes or No,That's Cheap Insurance/Peace of Mind,as compared to a Lot full of Charcoal!

Back when I was a paramedic, I worked on a volunteer ambulance. We received no government funding what so ever. Every year we had a membership drive. Newspaper ads, and letters mailed to every household in our district. That was our one and only yearly fundraiser. It was cheap - IIRC, it was $35 for an individual or $50 for a family for unlimited treatment/transport. Those who chose not to become members were treated just the same when a call came in - we would respond, treat and transport. The question of membership never came up. After the fact, non-members were sent a bill whereas members were not.

I don't understand how people who know they are not paying any firefighting tax would expect NOT to receive a bill. Especially if you do like our ambulance did and send letter to each household advertising memberships and mentioned that non-members would be billed for services if they call you. Certainly don't let their house burn down in an emergency, but bill them after the fact, and pursue collections if they refuse to pay and that's what your department decides to do.

I did not get any compensation for being a paramedic (other than paid training), but that does not mean that there are no costs for a volunteer organization. I seem to remember paying a good $80,000 per ambulance (that was back in the 80's and doesn't include the supplies inside). I can't imagine what a fire truck would cost these days.

Although I can understand the financial arguments for what that fire company did, what happened seems terribly wrong to me. I can't really think of a more corrosive situation for a volunteer fire company than what happened, for all parties involved.

As a volunteer--or even paid--fire fighter, it must be incredibly demoralizing to be right there, with the residents pleading them to do something, checkbook in hand, but ordered not to do anything simply because "they didn't pay up". Is this what they volunteered for? Could you look your neighbor in the eye after you let their house burn down when you could've stopped it?

Similarly, I'm sure that this incident has struck a bad chord in members of the community, too, and could hurt fund raising or recruitment in the future, even if they understand the financial argument. What if the circumstances of the residents were different? What if it was an elderly couple struggling under a mountain of medical bills, and that's why they didn't pay? Based on the little I know of the situation, I think the way it happened was a lose-lose outcome.

I agree with haertig--a volunteer, public safety organization should treat everyone the same, but bill them later in situations like this. Make it painful enough and a pain in the butt enough that people realize it's smarter to pay the fee rather than gamble on not needing their help and skipping the fee. A small number will never pay, out of principle or spite or whatever, but as a community, we can rise above those few, can't we?

Well, but if it's a lot more than a few holdouts...well, there are other forces out there, too, slowly destroying family and community life, and that's sad. The last few years, in particular, have highlighted many of those forces and pressures that have been eating away at us--individually and collectively--for a long time now. And that's a much bigger problem than just a $75 fire protection fee.

Let's say the homeowner also stopped paying his homeowner's property insurance premium. I wonder how many people would expect the insurer to pay for his fire losses, anyway? How is that any different than the fire department, if you think it is? Would it be different if, say, the homeowner had lost his job and was simply unable to pay? Why?

On a related note, I wonder how the insurance company is going to view his failure to pay his fire department fee. They may well treat that as culpable negligence and deny coverage.

Part of the issue was that the firefighters' insurance wouldn't cover any injury received while fighting a fire "on their own time" which what putting out the family's house would have been.

And a bit of history, another member of that family had a fire last year which the firmen put out even though the $75 hadn't been paid. The family then expected to get fire service without paying in the future.

I side with Martin on this case. People can say "It just isn't right." Sometimes the greater good means some people suffer.

-Blast

On a related note, would it be out of line for hunters, campers and hikers be asked to pay a SAR fee to whatever SAR group covers the area they are hunting, camping or hiking in? No fee, no rescue.

Or is that a different kind of situation, and if so, how?

They should be billed afterwards. There are always some ill prepared dimwits trying to cross the Atlantic in a kayak or whatever, and they get stranded. Canadian coast guard/navy always get stuck finding and rescuing these dumb crocs, and you can imagine how much does it cost to mobilize several naval ships and helicopters to do that each time. And of course the tax payer always get stuck paying for it.

So these volunteer firefighters were being asked not only to risk injury but possible financial catastrophe for their families because this turkey didn't pay his $75? I simply cannot take that sort of risk. I sure as hell wouldn't expect the volunteer firefighters to do so.

In most places with subscription fees to fire companies, the homeowner's insurance policy requires that the subscription be kept up to date. This guy may end up owing the bank on his pile of burnt rubble.