Howard Fairman describes himself as “a private citizen (not a lawyer).”
PUTNEY-Billing recipients of fire-department services is not as simple as it seems.
While questioning publicly the town of Putney’s proposed “new revenue stream,” I learned:
• Twenty-seven southeastern Vermont towns that are members of the Southwestern New Hampshire District Fire Mutual Aid System are subject to its By-Laws and Mutual Aid Firefighting Assistance Agreement and to Vermont laws.
• Some fire departments serving these towns are Vermont nonprofit corporations and federal 501(c)(3) charitable organizations receiving appropriations from their towns plus donations.
• Sixty-eight New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Vermont municipalities are members of this fire-mutual-aid system. Whether they are owners or tenants residing in these municipalities, taxpayers have paid for their fire departments that must donate their services to any member municipality and its residents, whether these services are received at home, at work, on the road, or elsewhere within this fire-mutual-aid system (By-Laws VIII, VIII-A and VIII-B; Mutual Aid Firefighting Assistance Agreement, clause 3.b) .
• Billing resident recipients of these fire-department services is double billing. To avoid it, property insurers often state that they do not cover fire department service charges if the property is located within the limits of the city, municipality, or protection district furnishing the fire department response.
• The only exception to donation of fire-department services is that a fire department may request replacement for foam, wet-water (including wetting agents lowering natural surface tension), and other expended materials (By-Law XI).
• Illegal, unpermitted, or unattendedburning (10 V.S.A. §2641–2648, 2671–2676), false alarms(13 V.S.A. §1751), and arson(13 V.S.A. §501–509) are violations of Vermont laws that are under the jurisdictions of town forest fire wardens (nominated by a town and appointed by the state), or law enforcement and the Vermont Judiciary. Towns are not paid any fines, forfeitures, or penalties imposed despite their taxpayers having incurred the costs that justified them (13 V.S.A. §7251–7252).
* * *
Whether or not any laws have been violated, municipal taxpayers whose fire departments must respond to interstate and heavily traveled state highways are unfairly burdened by costs of incidents involving multiple vehicles, busses, or vans carrying many passengers, or control and cleanup of spilled hazardous materials. Responsible parties may be residents of this fire-mutual-aid system, this state, this country, or other countries.
These municipal taxpayers also are unfairly burdened by additional costs of recovering from responsible parties and insurers costs incurred by their fire departments while responding to these incidents on interstate and heavily-traveled state highways.
And these municipal firefighters, especially volunteers, are unfairly burdened by having to train for and respond to these incidents on interstate and heavily-traveled state highways in addition to routine incidents where they live.
* * *
The Vermont General Assembly and the governor therefore should decide and implement that:
• Fines, forfeitures, and penalties imposed by the Vermont Judiciary for violation of a Vermont statute regarding illegal, unpermitted, or unattended burning, false alarms, or arson be paid to each municipality from which a fire department responded to that violation.
• The state recover on behalf of and pay to Vermont municipalities costs incurred by their fire departments while responding to interstate and heavily-traveled state highways for incidents involving multiple vehicles, busses, or vans carrying many passengers, or control and cleanup of spilled hazardous materials.
• The state also pay at hourly rates respecting their training received and risks accepted members of fire departments who responded to interstate and heavily-traveled state highways for incidents involving multiple vehicles, busses, or vans carrying many passengers or control and cleanup of spilled hazardous materials.
This is what I learned while questioning publicly the town of Putney’s proposed “new revenue stream.” Whether you agree or disagree with my legislative suggestions, ask our legislators and governor to act, because there is a problem that only they can solve.
This Voices Viewpoint was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.