http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20110428/NEWS02/704289935
SPRINGFIELD — A local lawyer criticized a proposed ordinance that would allow the town of Springfield to bill residents and others for certain costs associated with fighting fires and responding to emergencies.
Without an ordinance in place, the town said, insurance companies have refused to pay the suggested fees.
But Jacob Speidel said residents shouldn’t be punished for accidents, including accidents caused by another person’s negligence.
Speidel, who lives in Springfield and works for Vermont Legal Aid in Springfield, said he wasn’t representing Legal Aid in raising his concerns. Speidel went line by line through the ordinance, which was drafted by two members of the Select Board, with help from both the fire and police chiefs.
Select Board members were adamant that the purpose of the new ordinance was not to raise revenue, which Speidel alleged.
Select Board member Michael Knoras said the town wanted to recoup certain costs associated with responding to accidents or fighting fires, such as using foam retardant on a building during a fire or using the so-called Jaws of Life extrication tool.
But Speidel said it wasn’t fair to charge residents extra, on top of their property taxes, for such services, because of an accident.
He said he was afraid the fees or fines would discourage people from calling for help when they needed it.
Speidel found several inconsistencies in the proposed ordinance.
The board had discovered a major typographical error at the beginning of the hearing, which dictated that the formal notice process of public hearings be started over.
Select Board member Terri Benton, who noted that her husband is a member of the Springfield Fire Department, said the town should be able to recoup its costs of sending a crew out on Interstate 91 during a snowstorm to help rescue a driver trapped in his car when “the roads were icy and he was going 95.”
“Our intent is not to punish people,” Benton said. “But when people are negligent, yes, they should pay.”
Select Board Chairman Kristi Morris said several other Vermont towns have similar ordinances and similar fee schedules, including Rutland, Shrewsbury, Shaftsbury and Brattleboro.
But Speidel said he had done some research that showed communities across the country were imposing such emergency response fees as a way of raising revenue.
“There’s been a lot of backlash across the country,” said Speidel, adding the Springfield ordinance had “flown a little under the radar” and that townspeople were unaware of it.
He said a “crash tax” had failed to raise substantial funds that many communities were banking on.
Knoras emphasized that the goal wasn’t to raise revenue. “This is a cost recovery scheme,” he said. “Not a revenue scheme. Brattleboro has had it for years and it works for them.”
But Speidel objected to the town charging residents $10 for a police accident report, saying it would add insult to injury if people were victims of such accidents. He also asked whether police reports would also be covered by a fee system.
Published April 28, 2011 in the Rutland Herald
Proposed ‘crash tax’under fire in Springfield
By SUSAN SMALLHEER
Without an ordinance in place, the town said, insurance companies have refused to pay the suggested fees.
But Jacob Speidel said residents shouldn’t be punished for accidents, including accidents caused by another person’s negligence.
Speidel, who lives in Springfield and works for Vermont Legal Aid in Springfield, said he wasn’t representing Legal Aid in raising his concerns. Speidel went line by line through the ordinance, which was drafted by two members of the Select Board, with help from both the fire and police chiefs.
Select Board members were adamant that the purpose of the new ordinance was not to raise revenue, which Speidel alleged.
Select Board member Michael Knoras said the town wanted to recoup certain costs associated with responding to accidents or fighting fires, such as using foam retardant on a building during a fire or using the so-called Jaws of Life extrication tool.
But Speidel said it wasn’t fair to charge residents extra, on top of their property taxes, for such services, because of an accident.
He said he was afraid the fees or fines would discourage people from calling for help when they needed it.
Speidel found several inconsistencies in the proposed ordinance.
The board had discovered a major typographical error at the beginning of the hearing, which dictated that the formal notice process of public hearings be started over.
Select Board member Terri Benton, who noted that her husband is a member of the Springfield Fire Department, said the town should be able to recoup its costs of sending a crew out on Interstate 91 during a snowstorm to help rescue a driver trapped in his car when “the roads were icy and he was going 95.”
“Our intent is not to punish people,” Benton said. “But when people are negligent, yes, they should pay.”
Select Board Chairman Kristi Morris said several other Vermont towns have similar ordinances and similar fee schedules, including Rutland, Shrewsbury, Shaftsbury and Brattleboro.
But Speidel said he had done some research that showed communities across the country were imposing such emergency response fees as a way of raising revenue.
“There’s been a lot of backlash across the country,” said Speidel, adding the Springfield ordinance had “flown a little under the radar” and that townspeople were unaware of it.
He said a “crash tax” had failed to raise substantial funds that many communities were banking on.
Knoras emphasized that the goal wasn’t to raise revenue. “This is a cost recovery scheme,” he said. “Not a revenue scheme. Brattleboro has had it for years and it works for them.”
But Speidel objected to the town charging residents $10 for a police accident report, saying it would add insult to injury if people were victims of such accidents. He also asked whether police reports would also be covered by a fee system.
Published April 28, 2011 in the Rutland Herald
Proposed ‘crash tax’under fire in Springfield
By SUSAN SMALLHEER
Does the Select Board have a process in place to determine when someone is negligent? Do they have a process in place by which someone can contest that determination?
ReplyDeleteThis is not a revenue generator, but a way to recoup costs?? Either way, it is designed to "get money" even from those who already pay for these services.
Bad Idea!!!