City Council*

City Ordinance No. 1506 deprives "responsible" parties of their due process rights, as the billing process does not provide proper notice or a formal method of contesting findings of responsibility. The City respectfully disagrees with this finding. Ordinance No. 1506 complies with all applicable constitutional requirements.

"Responsible" parties are treated inequitably, depending on their insurance coverage. The City respectfully disagrees with this finding in part. The City agrees that Ordinance No. 1506 differentiates between responsible parties with and without insurance coverage. However, this distinction is not "inequitable" or otherwise improper. The City Council has the clear authority to rationally differentiate between those with and without City of Trees PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER coverage. Only billing parties with insurance coverage allows the City to target the responsible party without charging him or her directly. This process has a much higher collection rate and charges the fee against an insurance policy that, in many cases, covers these costs with no adverse affect to the policyholder. Moreover, this finding ignores an important fact. The vast majority of drivers and property owners have insurance. In fact, vehicle insurance is legally required. Lastly, the City believes that it is important to reiterate a major policy basis for this arrangement. As noted on the City's website, the City fears that directly billing responsible parties will disproportionately affect the elderly population, especially those a fixed income, who would likely feel compelled to "help those nice firefighters." 1

Billings are linked to insurance policy language. The City respectfully disagrees with this finding. Billings are not "linked" to insurance policy language. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 1506 and the City's agreement with its billing contractor, Fire Recovery USA ("FRUSA"), the City charges responsible parties' insurance carriers for emergency services. However, the City does not, and frankly is unable to, review a responsible party's insurance policy language before charging fees. As such, the City does not "link" any billings to specific policy language. Of course, the City does not dispute that insurance carriers may be more or less likely to pay fees based on whether or not the services provided are covered by an individual policy. However, the City does not "link" billings to insurance policy language. Rather, it charges the responsible party's insurance carrier for the emergency services that were provided.

City Ordinance No. 1506 is a form of double taxation for Woodland property taxpayers. The City respectfully disagrees with this finding. Ordinance No. 1506 imposes a user fee; it does not impose a tax. As a general rule, the difference between a user fee and a tax is that a user fee is a charge for a service that does not exceed the reasonable cost of providing that service. In this case, Ordinance No. 1506 charges responsible parties for receiving emergency response services. The fees do not exceed the City's costs of providing these services. Therefore, Ordinance No. 1506 does not impose a tax.

The FRUSA contract has not met its financial goals. The City agrees with this finding. The City has not received the expected amount of revenue from the program. Of course, and as noted in the City response to the Grand Jury's previous report on Ordinance No. 1506, there is very little the City can do to increase the revenue generated by the program. The City cannot charge fees that exceed the City's costs of providing emergency responses by its Fire Department.

Record-keeping by both FRUSA and WFD is inadequate and is not auditable. See http://cityofwoodland.com/gov/depts/fire/fire response billing/default.asp. The City respectfully disagrees with this finding. Both the City and FRUSA maintain adequate and appropriate records. Moreover, all City departments, including the Woodland Fire Department, conduct and are subject to regular audits. In addition, the City is entitled to audit FRUSA's records regarding the program.

The time it takes WFD personnel to gather and submit pertinent data does not make economic sense given the important public safety demands on their time. The City respectfully disagrees with this finding for two reasons. First, the City disagrees with this finding because the Grand Jury's admittedly cursory review actually demonstrates a net economic benefit of the program. Given the City's budget difficulties, any net monetary gain from the program helps ensure that the City can continue to provide a first rate Fire Department. Second, the City disagrees with this finding because the Grand Jury's $100 per incident cost is not documented or otherwise supportable by any information or calculations. It appears to be a guess at the per incident cost of the program. While the City understands and appreciates that the Grand Jury has limited time and information, the City believes that $100 per incident is an overestimation of the program's true cost. Given that City staff collects and documents emergency response information for other necessary purposes, any City staff time spent collecting FRUSA-specific information is de minimis. Accordingly, the actual economic benefit of the program is much greater than that estimated by the Grand Jury