No additional personnel would be needed; Police, Fire Department would set rates, CRC states |
| GARDNER — A public forum held Wednesday night at City Hall to discuss several aspects of a recently-proposed public safety cost recovery ordinance shed light on several aspects of the program that concerned city officials, including the fee structure and concerns that out-of-town drivers would avoid driving through the city because of the ordinance. The ordinance was referred back to the City Council as a whole at the last council meeting because many councilors still had concerns, including who would determine the fees and what it would cost the city to implement the changes. In order to clarify how the system would work, Regina Moore, president of Cost Recovery Corp., and attorney John Flick fielded questions from both residents and councilors. Although municipalities across the country have adopted programs like this as a revenue source, Ms. Moore said only one town in Massachusetts, Bernardston, is currently contracted with her company. Former city councilor Joanne Bernard said her major problem with the ordinance is the message that it would send to surrounding communities. “When our police and fire department go to other towns to assist with fires or go to other towns to help capture somebody, there has never been a cost we help each other because we are neighbors,” said Ms. Bernard. “This is not the most neighborly thing to do. I don’t think this is the fairest proposal.” One issue that was consistently touched upon at the meeting was the establishment of the fees facing at-fault drivers. Residents and councilors wanted to know how they would be calculated and whether it would change depending on the specific cases with each accident, something Mr. Flick said was written into the ordinance. “The police and fire department would initiate the services, so the ordinance authorizes the police department and the fire department to establish those fees,” said Mr. Flick. “There are a lot of factors that go into that, such as manpower and equipment.” Ms. Moore said that when cities and towns have contracted with her company in the past, that is usually one of the residents’ main concerns, and it is something the company takes very seriously. “This whole program is designed to protect your tax dollars and create a safer community,” said Ms. Moore. “ Another concern voiced at the meeting was businesses worrying that the ordinance would make out-of-city drivers less likely to visit Gardner, which will result in a decrease in their customers, something Mr. Flick said is unlikely. “We’re not saying people shouldn’t drive in Gardner, we are simply asking you to drive through the city of Gardner in a safe matter,” said Mr. Flick. “We’re not telling you that you can’t drive through the city of Gardner. We aren’t putting up a gate at the entrance to the city that says give us a $100 security deposit and if you don’t cause an accident we will give you your $100 back, that would be problematic. With this we are saying if you drive in a safe manner and don’t cause an accident — no problem.” One councilor who was particularly opposed to the implementation of the recovery system was Kim Dembrosky, who said she still has serious concerns regarding the ordinance. “This is a revenue generator,” said Ms. Dembrosky. “And I understand that we are looking at this because we need revenue streams to support our safety services, but I still don’t think this is the right way to go.” Among Ms. Dembrosky’s concerns was whether the implementation of the ordinance would require additional city employees to handle the added paperwork. “What are we going to have to do in terms of city personnel in order to compile and analyze each of these accidents on a case-by-case basis?” asked Ms. Dembrosky. “What are we looking at in additional costs just to process these reports?” According to Ms. Moore, the city wouldn’t face additional costs or require additional personnel, because the police and fire departments already report each case and would simply send the reports to her corporation and they would handle all of the analysis. “They would submit their already existing reports to us,” said Ms. Moore. “We do the analyzing and compiling of the claim. So once they have their report done, they send it to us and we will handle the rest.” Representing the Gardner Police Department at the meeting was Chief Neil Erickson and Deputy Chief Rock Barrieau, both of whom said they were in favor of passing the ordinance. “I think it is a reasonable request to get the ordinance passed to start the cost recovery for at-fault drivers; certainly we don’t want to see anyone involved in an accident but God knows that we’ve seen a lot of them. We have more than 700 a year,” said Chief Erickson. “I think it will certainly help with reducing some of these accidents.” Also on hand at the meeting was Fire Chief Ronald Therrien, who said the additional funding would help an already underfunded department. “Under the current conditions, the city simply cannot afford to fund adequate police and fire services,” said Chief Therrien. “Our responses have increased dramatically and our manpower has been reduced.” Although the cost recovery system has only been implemented in one town in the commonwealth, Bernardston, Ms. Moore said other cities including Fitchburg and Leominster are already involved in talks with her company and are now waiting to see what Gardner does before becoming involved. “You are being looked at as a model right now,” said Ms. Moore. “Because your leaders are being proactive and visionary as opposed to reactive to situations. They are trying to protect you and be fiscally responsible relative to your money — these are hard-earned tax dollars.” The proposed ordinance is expected to be voted on again at the next meeting of the City Council, and would have to be sent to two required printings before being made law. oboss@thegardnernews.com |
| Appeared on Page 1 on 8/21/2008 (Vol. 206 No. 198) |
No comments:
Post a Comment