Section 57-15-26.3 of NDCC limits the mills that a district board can levy at five mills without special petition from the district members. Is it time that we look at lobbing for a change on this? We all know that costs of replacing and maintaining equipment have increased significantly over the past years. Federal grant monies have helped us SIGNIFICANLY over the past seven years or so, but we all know that these grants will likely not hang-around forever. Without these grants do you have the money in your budgets to maintain and update equipment to keep your firefighters safe and provide the effective fire protection that today's technology offers?
I do not like the idea of increasing property tax, but (at least around here) it is our only source of (nearly) guaranteed funding. We are not at a point of critical need yet, but I do think that giving the district boards the authority to increase a couple additional mills would be a good thing for the future of the fire service in ND.
Your thoughts?
I think that this does need to be looked at, not only replacing and maintaining equipment, but fuel costs for some departments has to be hurtin. Some departments have toyed with the idea of billing for services also, maybe this needs to be looked at. I know my renters insurance covers up to $500 of fire department costs or however its worded.
Beau makes a good point. I just assumed that all volunteer FDs billed since insurance covers the cost. I believe many of the insurance companies go beyond $500 but then I am assuming again. I also know of nearby FDs that bill $750/person for extrication- and their definition of extrication is not what we typically consider extrication. If they stay on scene and help remove a patient, it is billed. The auto insurance of the party at fault pays the bill.
I guess, why wouldn't you? The local town/city does not usually support the FD adequately so the billing is just a way to supplement revenue. It would be different if the residents paid taxes at a rate that provided sufficient revenue for operations. I would say a VFD not billing is much more rare than one that does.
Todd: Your idea would make things easier for those in directorship in local government. I don't think that will happen, because big brother would have to give up control. I could tell you whats going on in my area thats causing problems but it would take to much space. Call me
Billing I think is fine as long as you do not bill those who are tax payers in your district, I have a problem billing someone who is already paying for that service in tax money. I'm not sure but I think there was a AG's opinion that said you can bill them but cannot force them to pay. Those not part of your taxing district could be billed. Mutual aid agreements, etc; would change things too. We would sure like to bill some just to make them think about their stupidity.
From time-to-time we have tossed around implementing a more aggressive billing policy than what we currently have. We do some type of minimal billing on auto accidents and structure fires. Mutual-aid is billed only for fuel and generally they replace foam.
I have talked with members of several departments across ND about billing for services rendered. I think that for the most part you will find the majority do not bill much at all. I have always felt that I would prefer to not bill tax paying members of a "Rural Fire Protection District". These individuals are already paying for fire protection whether they utilize the services or not. Furthermore, revenue that is generated by billing for services rendered is not a consistent source. Another even larger concern that I have with billing is that people are going to be tentative when deciding whether or not to call the fire department...main concern here is grass fires. Then once the fire is out deciding who to bill can get interesting too.
Standpipe (and others): I am interested in hearing how you (or the dept that you are referring to) bill for auto accidents. We provide auto extrication to an area that far exceeds our fire district boundaries. We receive zero funding for providing this service outside our district.
Thanks,
Todd
Todd,
I should see the fire chief of the FD that charges for car accidents tomorrow night. If not, I will get a hold of him over the next week or so.
I understand and appreciate the idea of not charging taxpayers. Why charge someone for a service they have already paid for? However, who really pays this? The homeowner must have homeowner's insurance if there is a mortgage. If there is not a mortgage, then chances are still pretty good that they have insurance. Renters are a little different story...but then there is always the building owner's insurance. Anyway, my point is that the owner will not be paying the bill. The insurance company will.
I live in a rural area protected by a VFD that charges, so when I bought my homeowner's insurance one of the things I checked was that the amount the insurance company pays to a VFD is the same as the amount the VFD charges. I pay taxes to maintain the FD service at a constant level, but realize that a call for service to my house is going to use resources at a level beyond others in the district. In fact, I would be (as a devil's advocate) upset if the FD did not charge the users (homeowners with fires) for services and I had to subsidize them.
Just a different way to look at it...
For a more constant source of income and to give options to those who oppose a service fee, offer a subscription service (maybe you already are). If a homeowner pays a given amount per year, say $50, then they will not be charged for a response to their house. This is being done for EMS services and used to be done widely in MN for fire service but has gone away (I think the state law changed and forced the FDs to collect money through taxing via the township/county).
I heard back from an officer at the FD that charges for extrication. The amount I had been told was exagerrated, but they do bill with good success. He said they charge $300/person extricated. The city is the billing entity. The bill is sent to the insurance company and the extrication fee is paid out of the PIP. He said that LifeFlight and medical bills add up quickly so they have the best success when the bill is submitted quickly- he estimated the collection rate at 90%. He couldn't remember exactly how they determined that $300 was the right amount. For example, does a response cost $300 with fuel, wear & tear on equipment, etc. Hope this helps.
Todd, I agree with you guys on this. Our assistant chief Dale Fugleberg and myself sat down with our local reps for the state legislature and brought up to them the fact that our departments in the state are always struggling with money issues. We brought up the changes in the state radio that is requiring our depts to switch to digital (P25) capabilities, so we are having to make very expensive purchases to update the radios. We are hoping that this will lead to something in legislature levels to change the funding problems that all rural depts are facing in North Dakota. This was one thing we taked about with them was the mill levies. But we also discussed training and money to train depts. And we even brought up the fire school funding. I hope that changes will come from this but time will tell and we all know how politics work. We discussed with the reps to get in touch with the ndfa and Louis. I think that if alot of our depts contact there reps and sit down with them like we did this will help get the ball rolling even more, because we only discussed this with our 3 reps, so maybe this will help you guys to get some attention to the cause as well?
We have struggles with this as well. Unfortuneatly we are not set up on a district mill. We have implemented that for any grass fire we respond 2 units (covered by the township due minus foam). Any additional units are charged to the landowner.
We are also looking into the extrication/rescue since we receive zero dollars for that.