BARRHEAD - A County of Barrhead resident will not receive a rebate for firefighting services for a September wildland fire.
Councillors denied the request to refund, passing it for information by a 4-2 vote during their Dec. 17 meeting. Councillors Bill Lane and Paul Properzi were opposed, and Coun. Jared Stoik was absent.
The resident made the request via an e-mail.
Under the municipality's Policy 23.02 (Fire Protection Service Charges), the municipality can charge residents (or owners of land or other property) up to $3,000 of the cost of a Barrhead Regional Fire Services (BRFS) response. The county decided on the cap because councillors, at the time, believed that most insurance policies would cover $3,000.
County manager Debbie Oyarzun said she reviewed the file and found nothing under the policy that would allow her to grant the resident's request.
However, she noted the policy grants council the leeway to forgive a firefighting invoice in whole or in part for services rendered.
The resident who called 911 asking for the fire department's assistance for a crop fire that had gotten out of control said the $2,600 bill was unreasonable, saying BRFS responded with more equipment and firefighters than was warranted.
The resident noted that by the time firefighters arrived, they had gotten the fire under control with the help of some "quick-thinking neighbours."
Dispatch characterized the fire as a small outside fire. According to the fire department's Dispatch Policy (23-17-006), which sets the minimum standards for responses in terms of equipment and personnel, the standard response should be Rapid Attack (RAT)1, Tender 5, Tender 34, and Engine 33.
Oyarzun noted that all four units attended the scene, along with BRFS' two command vehicles and a firefighter's personal vehicle, which the resident was not charged for.
The resident argued the RAT was the only fire apparatus that drove into the field to help extinguish the fire by "chopping a large spruce tree down and putting out hot spots."
"The [two tenders] stayed on the road and, besides partially rolling out a hose on one of the trucks, they were not needed," the resident said. "Engine 33 did nothing but bring personnel. It stayed on the roadway and then left. Its presence was so uneventful that numerous neighbours and family don't remember it being here, cost $1,000."
The resident also suggested that the county's policy of charging residents up to $3,000 to offset fire department responses, because the majority of insurance policies will cover the amount, is useless.
"Getting insurance to cover this, with a larger deductible and loss of claims free discount, it makes absolutely no sense to use it," the resident stated, adding his Agricultural Financial Services Corporation insurance did not cover the loss to his crop as the fire wasn't caused by lightning.
Coun. Ron Kleinfeldt did not believe council should rebate the resident, saying everything that was done was according to BRFS' policy.
"If those neighbours hadn't been there and been able to help, they would have been more than happy that that other equipment was there," he said. "It costs money to dispatch the units."
Deputy Marvin Schatz agreed, given hindsight, that maybe the response was overkill.
"You never know what is going to happen. If the wind picked up and the fire got out of control, we wouldn't be having a different conversation. "You have all this iron at the fire hall. Why don't you bring it out when there is a fire," he said, adding that is why the fire department has a dispatch policy.
Barry Kerton, TownandCountryToday.com
