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.

Way back when - I can recall that as a kid my parents had to pay a small fee to both the fire company and to the ambulance corps. Failure to pay didn't result in a burnt down house or failure to transport, but would result in a large whopping bill for services rendered.

As to the situation in TN, well, stuff happens. Right, wrong or indifferent, they should have fought the fire and presented a bill, imho.

I feel for the family's loss. I've had a home burn when I was just a kid and it sucks.

But, that said, they had no right to expect the firefighters to put out the fire. If you refuse to pay your car note, your car gets repoed. If you refuse to pay your insurance, it gets dropped. If you refuse to pay your cable bill, you do without.

Very good explanation of why what was done was the right thing to do. Sad, but right.

IMO, the firefighters did not have any legal or moral duty to try to save this person's property.

Insurance comes in many forms and a 75 dollar fee to get fire protection is cheap insurance.

One question, one comment:

I think some people would agree that if you decided to skip the fee and make other arrangements, that would be a legitimate approach (if you can do that for less than $75/year). In the case of South Fulton, paying the fee meant you got a truck dispatched if it was available. There wasn't a guarantee of fire service. If you live in a remote area (not saying Obion counts) what should you have on hand to fight fire, i.e. minimum water on site, fire blankets, etc?

Some folks refer to the fee as insurance. Insurance is protection against a financial loss. You pay the premium and meet the requirements of the policy, they reimburse you.

Fire service fees and volunteer firefighting companies are a cooperative. You contribute to purchase/maintain buildings/equipment and provide training. If you pay the fee (or perhaps contribute labor) you get service free or at a reduced rate.

One eliminates or reduces the financial loss. The other eliminates or reduces the personal and property loss. Although a few news sources suggest that fire insurance companies used to provide funding and equipment to fire stations.

If the homeowner could pay during the fire, why couldn't he pay before the fire?

"It won't happen to me" works with fires every bit as well as it does with everything else.

Sue

Refusing to provide fore services to those who do not pay sounds like its correct and good. But it has down sides:

First, it doesn't save you any money. An fire large enough for people to call the fire department for is a hazard that has to be monitored, if not actively addressed. The fire is not going to stop until it runs out of fuel or is put out. Chances are it gets bigger and more expensive, and more hazardous, to put out.

The only people capable of monitoring the fire is ... wait for it... the fire department. Which means the fire department has to roll on every fire, even if they don't intend to actually put it out. If they have to go out, in case it gets out of hand, they will be spending the same time on the road and will have to bring the same number of people and the same equipment as they would if they actually intended to fight the fire.

They are also legally required to rescue people. To not rescue a person when they are on site and aware of their predicament would open the FD to being sued and possible criminally charges of 'depraved indifference'. Won't take many of those cases to eat up the budget. There is also the question of exactly how the FD determines there is nobody trapped without searching the house.

Second, the local taxing authority will be losing money even if the FD doesn't go out. If the house burns it can't be taxed. Even assuming low rates the loss of a medium-sized home from the tax rolls is going to cost the taxing authority a whole lot more than $75.

Third, the maintenance of a current database of who has paid, or not, and getting the accurate information out to the fire crews is not free. It is going to cost time and money to maintain that list. And God forbid if there is any error. County says I didn't pay. Homeowner says they did. If the FD lets the place burn and the HO pulls a receipt out of the smoking ruins the county and FD will be hip deep in lawyers. Best case, you get off just buying them a new house. If it happens once the county tells the FD to put out all the fires to save money.

There is also the intangible of sending emergency workers out on calls and telling them not to do what they do. Kind of rips the enthusiasm out of the job having a bean counter tell you you can't practice your calling. And if the crew, or even a single fireman, disobeys; will you fire them? What is that going to do for morale.

Letting the house burn if they didn't pay their fee sounds good until you look closely at it. It sounds like a deterrent. But people don't operate that way. If they did there would be no drunk driving and people wouldn't take chances. Problem is that people inherently assumes they are bulletproof. That it won't happen to them.

A better approach would be to expect a $75 fee to be paid but to bill anyone who has not paid it an additional amount. They could figure what hat would be but $750 wouldn't be unreasonable. This would be run through the normal tax system so that the unpaid tax is converted to a lien.

The funny thing is that this is not the first time this question has come up. Many of the first fire departments in the US were set up on a subscription basis. Most cities had several firehouses run as independent companies. If you wanted fire protection you contracted with a firehouse and were given a plaque to nail to your eave. If a fire was spotted alarm would be called and one or more companies would arrive. Non-contracted companies were required to rescue people but not fight the fire. Desperate homeowners would often offer up a large sum and the various companies would frequently have a fistfight, as the fire burned, to determine who took up the offer.

There was also the tendency for rich neighborhoods to have many fire companies and poor neighborhoods to have none. Unfortunately once a fire has become a major conflagration, building strength burning through the poor section of town, it is really too big to stop. So the rich, and well protected, neighborhoods burn in turn.

Fire companies also were quite territorial. Hire the wrong company and they might find their path blocked by a rival company when it is time to put your house out. A lesson to building owners to hire only the local boys if you wanted fire service. Rival companies might also sabotage equipment and cut hoses. If a company got the reputation for not being effective, for whatever reason, it tended to lose subscribers and go out of business.

The main reason we went to universal coverage was that it was/is simply more efficient. Firemen get to concentrate of putting out fires. Crews can be deployed in the most efficient manner to fight a fire without having to worry about who has, or hasn't, paid.

Yes, there are people who don't pay. Scofflaws who try to beat the system. Poor people who simply can't pay, won't. Scofflaws won't. People who are well connected politically to the municipality or fire chief won't. That is the way it has always been. Some of that can be handled administratively and/or through taxing authority. But no matter how right letting non-paying houses burn seems it is likely to cost you more in the long run to 'teach them a lesson' than to just put it out and sort it out later.

Any firefighters please feel free to chime in:

If I recall correctly, putting out a fire in a house only prevents it from burning to the ground, right? The damage is still done. The house may be "totaled" as it were depending on the response time and distance.. Another concern for the fire fighter is to keep the fire from spreading to adjacent/nearby structures. Is that a correct assumption? If so, does that person get protection if they did not pay the fee?

Man, does this thing get twisted quickly or what?

Final note: Is there a jurisdictional question on this issue with the guy?

I'm not a professional firefighter, but do have firefighting experience and training from the military, work in the fire alarm business, and am NICET certified in Fire Protection (Fire Alarms Level III).

A lot of damage is indeed done by the water used to fight the fire, no doubt. And a lot of damage will have usually been done before the fire is out. Some structures are able to be saved, but not all and this would depend on response time, construction, and a lot of other conditions.

But preventing the spread of the fire to other areas of the same structure or even to other structures is key. I've had this same discussion with people in the sprinkler business.

So here's another idea, to make sure the fee gets paid: Tack it on to something that DOES get paid, like the property tax. Just include it right in there.

I would dearly love to not pay the school part of my property taxes, but I can't. If the firefighter fee was included, I would have to pay that, too.

Then add up the number of property tax payments and multiply by $75, and direct deposit into the firefighter fund.

But maybe that is too simple, and the bureaucrats would still eff it up.

Sue

Sorry, Art, but you need to actually bone up on a bit of the reality of fire services in the USA. A fire "department" is a part of the municipal government, vs. a fire "company" - an autonomous non-profit entity authorized by and entrusted by government to provide fire services. They don't have to respond. We don't respond when we can't muster enough members. There's a difference.




Not if you don't respond. You see, that's the case here - they DIDN'T RESPOND to that fire, they responded to prevent the fire from spreading to subscriber's homes.




Do you have any idea how many times we've tried that argument without success?



it's a notebook kept at the dispatcher and in the fire truck. We're not talking about crowded areas here.




They were not dispatched.



No, it's not a deterrent. Not at all. It's not intended that way. It's fiscal survival, plain and simple. The fire companies can't operate without funding.




You can't maintain a truck, buy new gear, or obtain needed equipment today on penalty income you might get tomorrow if there's a fire. Or might not.




And with no municipal support with 100% funding of fire and emergency services, we're well on our way back to those times. The "good old days" I keep reading about.



This is not the case here, or in most "pay to spray" situations right now. These situations are in rural areas, widely spread out.



And that's why we hope that the municipalities wake up and realize that one way or another, there's a direct need for governance here.


I'll leave this topic with this article from my favorite satirical publication, "The Onion"

I believe that was the plan at some point in that county but residents voted it down.

Now THAT'S funny.

That happened up in New England when we lived there.

A house caught on fire, they called the fire department, turned out they weren't subscribed, and it burned to the ground.

...
...
...

Personally, don't believe something as critical as fire protection should be "opt in." Unfortunate but true ... sometimes people have to be protected from themselves.

The consequences aren't over yet, assuming they have a mortgage and homeowners/fire insurance coverage.

From industry-standard Deed of Trust: Preservation, Maintenance and Protection of the Property. Borrower shall not destroy, damage or impair the Property, allow the Property to deteriorate or commit waste on the Property.

Homeowners insurance policy boilerplate: Perils not included. This company shall not be liable for loss by fire or other perils insured against in this policy caused, directly or indirectly, by: neglect of the insured to use all reasonable means to save and preserve the property at and after a loss.

Conditions suspending or restricting insurance. Unless otherwise provided in writing added hereto this Company shall not be liable for loss occurring (a) while the hazard is increased by any means within the control or knowledge of the insured.

This is where lawyers have all the fun. Does the phrase in the insurance boilerplate, "neglect of the insured to use all reasonable means to save and preserve the property at and after loss" require paying the fee as a "reasonable means" or does it mean "try your darnedest to put the thing out"? Bet if you research the case law in six different states, you will get six different answers.

My understanding is that where fire service is provided by subscription, insurance policies will require that the subscription be kept up to date.