Left In Lowell

City Council Meeting11/28

5 Responses to “City Council Meeting11/28”

1. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   November 28th, 2006 at 11:23 pm

   I obviously understand the need for some fee adjustments, I just have a hard time getting over the fact that these non-tax deductable fees (like trash) were at one time paid for through income tax deductable real estate taxes.

   If I were one to start sliding down the slippery slope then I could forsee a day when we have to pay a fee to call the police or fire department (there is already a fee if they respond to an alarm) Maybe sometime in the future a fee will be imposed for street sweeping? Plowing?

   So you want to side your house? $75 to the city
   replacing a gas stove? $30
   Need the Fire Dept to okay smoke or carbon monoxide detectors? $50,
   Trash fee that I mentioned earlier? $100

   The above figures are for a single family home or condo, and RE taxes are going up.

   Again, I understand why, but these are items that were included in our real estate tax bill at one time, deductable on our income taxes, but no longer.

   Thank you John Cox.

2. waittilnextyr Says:
   November 29th, 2006 at 9:53 am

   Fees are pretty onerous, and a regressive form of “taxation” in that everyone using the service pays the same amount, regardless of ability to pay. However, there are some services that are not generally required by the public, so those that do require them should probably foot the entire bill. They cannot be considered tax deductions, as you are receiving something directly for your money. However, in deference to Renee’s comments, it would seem that the recycling fee should be considered a general requirement (indeed it is leveled on all households) so it may be moved into the general tax structure. That would not only allow for it to be included as a federal tax deduction, but it would be levied somewhat in accordance with ability to pay.

   The CM appeared to have done his homework on this ordinance, and did not just arbitrarily raise the fees. He considered not only how much the service was costing the city (in terms of labor, benefit allocation and materials) but also the reasonableness of each charge (at least by comparison to the charges by other communities). I would hope he would go a step further, and look into ways to provide each service more efficiently, but that will have to be done over time, as there are so many items to consider.

   He also engaged the department heads in the discussion, a level of openess in city government not seen in recent years. Now he should ask these people to come up with suggestions to reduce the city’s cost for performing each service, so that when next year’s review of the fee ordinance comes around, he will be able to hold the line on costs to the citizens.

3. Mimi Says:
   November 29th, 2006 at 10:20 am

   Eleanor are you telling me that I will be paying $100 for trash fees when my condo association is not allowed to use the City’s service?

   And Waittilnextyr, your observation about “engaged department heads” is right on target. They need to play a major role in deciding how to reduce costs and yet not impact the service level. Next year’s budget needs to be lean and the tax payer needs some relief.

4. Jason Says:
   December 1st, 2006 at 9:33 pm

   FYI,

   In 99.5 percent of instances the Lowell Fire Department does not bill for responses. The fire department bills only for multiple false alarms. This usually takes place for chronic alarm system malfunctions that fail to be corrected after the property owner is served notice of the problem. The obvious reason is because false alarms tie up firefighters in the case of a real emergency and property owners have a responsibility by law to maintain their alarm system operating properly 24/7/365. It is meant to pressure property owners, specifically absentee landlords, to maintain their properties. No property owner is charged for the department coming out when their fire alarm goes off for actual cause, even if you just burned dinner.

   Smoke(and now carbon monoxide) detector inspections have been billed for quite some time now, but this is only enforced upon the sale of the property and is required by state law. The city may set the fee based on costs, but the state requires the inspection. Other larger occupancies and hazardous materials sites have very detailed inspection procedures with testing and permitting. Fees are(and have been) charged for some of those.

   The other few billable items I am aware of in the fire department are hazardous material spill clean ups, which are fairly rare and normally covered by insurance, whether auto or homeowners. These tend to be occur only in large industrial plants or significant transportation accidents. There have also been cases where arsonists and those who pull false alarms have been required to reimburse the fire department for their response. This only occurs when mandated by the district attorney as part of a criminal court decision.

   It concerns me that people may hesitate to call in the event of a fire or rescue emergency because they worry about getting a bill. This is not the case. It is highly unlikley you would be billed for anything you would call 911 for. Better to call first, that’s what your firefighters are here for. Just thought everyone should know.

5. Lynne Says:
   December 4th, 2006 at 11:36 am

   Thanks Jason. It’s good to remind people that they can and should depend on their emergency services.

Leave a Reply