Councilors take cost recovery ordinance out of discussion

Vote effectively kills proposal, for now

By Owen Boss

GARDNER — Despite efforts from Mayor Mark Hawke and members of the Police and Fire departments to keep it alive, city councilors recently voted to remove a proposed public safety cost recovery ordinance from the calendar, a decision which however doesn’t mean it could not be brought before City Council again. The proposed ordinance called for the collaboration between the city and a private company, Ohio-based Cost Recovery Corp., to recover service fees for the deployment of public safety services for motor vehicle accidents that are outside the scope of basic crime prevention, investigation, and fire prevention. The city had been in discussion with the company, which works with hundreds of municipalities across the country to recovery funding from at-fault drivers involved in car accidents. Although the company has worked with hundreds of cities across the nation, only one town in Massachusetts, Bernardston, has adopted the program. According to Councilor Kim Dembrosky, who has adamantly opposed the ordinance since it was first presented several weeks ago, there was no discussion on the ordinance at the meeting. “There was no discussion at all on it, nobody was willing to make a motion to send it to first printing,” said Ms. Dembrosky. “Jim Robinson made the motion to remove it from the calendar and there was no discussion, two councilors voted no but everyone else voted to remove it from the calendar.” Among the councilors who voted to keep it on the calendar was James Minns, who said he wanted to at least discuss the ordinance further. “It’s not that I was in favor of the ordinance at the moment,” said Mr. Minns. “I just wanted more conversation. I don’t want to just kill it, but I do have big reservations about it.” Although the ordinance has been removed from the council’s agenda, Councilor Josh Cormier said that doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t be brought up again. “It’s off the calendar, which basically means it can come back at any time,” said Mr. Cormier. “It is an issue that could come back and I think in all probability it will come back somewhere down road.” Many city officials were worried that out-of-town drivers would avoid coming the city because of the ordinance, something Mr. Cormier said affected his decision to vote in favor of removing it from the calendar. “My opinion had changed from the first meeting,” said Mr. Cormier. “I had spoken to a number of individuals, and I think the residency in the city didn’t want it at the time. If another city did this first, then they may be able to find out more about it.” oboss@thegardnernews.com

Appeared on Page 1 on 9/4/2008 (Vol. 206 No. 209)