BARRHEAD- County of Barrhead residents gave a resident a break on paying for firefighting services rendered due to extenuating circumstances.
That is the decision councillors came to during their July 5 meeting when they partially denied a request by Donald Roberts to forgive a firefighting invoice for $1,100 for a May 21 wildland fire by a vote of 4-2. Councillors Bill Lane, Ron Kleinfeldt, Bill Lane, Dennis Nanninga and Marvin Schatz voted in favour, while Coun. Darrell Troock and reeve Doug Drozd were opposed. Coun. Walter Preugschas was absent.
Under the county's Policy 23.02 (Fire Protection Service Charges) residents are charged up to $3,000 of the cost of a Barrhead Regional Fire Services (BRFS) response.
However, county manager Debbie Oyarzun noted the policy grants council the leeway to forgive a firefighting invoice in full or in part for services rendered.
In a letter, Roberts stated that he believed the bill to be because he did not ask for the fire department to respond, nor was he responsible for starting the fire.
Roberts stated the fire was started by a party of quads that drove across his wheat field, "causing considerable damage" to his crop.
The employees of a nearby gas plant on an adjacent property reported the fire concerned that it would spread to their facility. The employees also attempted to mitigate the spread of the fire the best they could.
Roberts also felt the response was excessive, with two fire trucks, a rapid-attack vehicle and a tender, along with the command vehicle.
Oyarzun said when the county receives a request or appeal of a firefighting invoice, it automatically triggers an internal review to determine if there was a billing error and if it adhered to policy.
After reviewing the invoice, the relevant policies and bylaws and after talking with BRFS fire chief Gary Hove, Oyarzun said they could find no reason to alter the invoice.
"In our opinion, the fire response was minimal, a pumper truck and a water truck to respond to a bush fire," she said.
Oyarzun added that under Bylaw 8-2013 (Prevention and Control of Fires) allows the county to invoice the owner or occupant of the property, the person in control of the property, the individual permitted and/or the person responsible for the fire.
Unfortunately, she said, because that individual(s) are unknown, the county had little option but to invoice the property owner.
Drozd asked if the police were actively investigating the incident. If so, he said the county might be able to invoice the culprit.
Oyarzun said she doubted it as there was little to no information to go on.
Later in the meeting, Oyarzun said even if they knew who was responsible for starting the fire, invoicing them could be problematic.
She noted if that person wasn't a county resident or landowner, it would be difficult to collect.
"If it is a county resident and landowner and they don't pay, it can be added to their tax roll," Oyarzun said.
Kleinfeldt said under the circumstances, most notably that the fire wasn't his fault, Roberts should not have to pay the invoice, at least not in full.
Coun. Bill Lane and Coun. Nanninga agreed.
"I have never liked [Policy 23.02]," said Nanninga, who is one of council's representatives on the Fire Services Committee. "I have spent a lot of time studying it ... it is cases like these why I always thought we should have a slush fund to cover these types of expenses, but we have a policy that tells us this is how we should act.”
It should be noted that the BRFS is a joint service with the Town of Barrhead. Fixed costs such as the building, administration, training and equipment maintenance are shared equally by the town and county, however, each municipality is responsible for responses in their jurisdiction.
Oyarzun interjected that it is not only the county's policy that allows them to invoice residents where BRFS' services are rendered but the Municipal Government Act (MGA).
She also noted that a previous council instituted the policy and the firefighting services cap of $3,000 was to assist residents.
"Because that is what council was told was covered under most insurance policies," Oyarzun said.
She also added that it is common practice for rural municipalities to require that residents have fire insurance.
"The big difference between municipalities is whether they charge landowners directly for fire services or if they spread it out across everyone's taxes," Oyarzun said. "If you are going to have a debate, it needs to be about whether you want to continue to have the fire services bill go to the person that receives the service with the understanding people should have insurance or build the cost of fire services into the budget and the amount gets divvied up and everyone pays a little higher taxes."
Troock said the real issue was trespassers, asking if it was within their power to increase trespassing fines to serve as a deterrent.
Oyarzun said trespassing was the jurisdiction of the RCMP and that the county had no power to prohibit people from going onto private land.
"Let's not confuse trespassing with fire services," Troock replied. "I agree, that in this case, it is not fair and it feels wrong invoicing him, but it is what it is. That is why we encourage people to have insurance."
He added that unless they are prepared to cut services or increase taxes and spread the costs of these "little mishaps", then they need to be prepared to deny these requests.
Drozd interjected, that the bill to the landowner, in this case, was relatively small noting if Roberts had chosen to fight the fire himself it was unlikely that he could have done it any cheaper.
"Just getting a few pieces of your own equipment out there and putting a little bit of water down, you would spend at least that much yourself. That is very good value," he said, adding that as it was the landowner was fortunate that the fire was spotted early and that he wasn't on the hook for the maximum amount.
Barry Kerton, TownandCountryToday.com
