LBReport.com

News

Council Votes 8-1 (Gonzalez dissenting) To Impose "First Responder Fee" of $250 Per LBFD Medical Response

Mgm't Says Fee Won't Restore Fire Services Or Provide Add'l Services For Taxpayers In FY16, Gives No Guarantee For FY17; Despite Fire Dept. Label, Fee Is General Fund Revenue That Could Be Spent As Council Desires


LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.

(July 22, 2015, 5:25 p.m.) -- As seen LIVE on LBREPORT.com and reported on our front page, the City Council voted 8-1 (Gonzalez dissenting) on July 21 to impose a $250 "first responder fee" when one calls LBFD for medical assistance.

City management told the Council that the fee won't restore any fire services or provide additional services for taxpayers in FY16 and gave no guarantee for FY17. Despite the fee's label for a Fire Dept. related service, the fee's revenue is legally general fund revenue that the Council could (a year from now) spend for other general fund purposes. City management has previously indicated it expects to have a "deficit" (expected spending exceeding anticipated revenue) in FY17.

In addition to approving the city management-sought fee, the Council requested that management return to the Council within 30 days with some type of "hardship waiver" based on income and perhaps age and income, and also examine some type of opt-in/opt-out (subscription) type system.

The sole dissenter was Councilwoman Lena Gonzalez, who is among the Council's most liberal members, and in Council colloquy with management voiced concern over the fee's impacts on the poor. The Council's sole Republican member, Councilwoman Stacy Mungo, indicated she supported imposing the fee arguing it would help ensure continued public safety services. Third district Councilwoman Suzie Price commended Fire Dept. management for coming up with what she called an innovative solution to looming budget issues...and indicated she hopes for more.

[Scroll down for further.]




City management told the Council that the fee would charged as soon as possible...but will (under standard city budget policy) evaluate how much the new fee will actually produce before budgeting a sum from the fee a year from now entering FY17.

A city management agendizing memo estimates the fee would produce $1.8 million in revenue, of which $200,000 would be required to administer the new fee. In response to a direct question from Councilman Daryl Supernaw, Fire Chief Mike DuRee said fire engines would be restored to stations currently without them (8, 1 (second engine), 17 and 18) in an order previously indicated by management...and provided no date certain for this.

[Scroll down for further.]

Advertisement

Advertisement

Several Councilmembers asked about an exemption for patients in "hardship" circumstances (income, disabilities, elderly); management indicated it would decide requests for waivers on a case-by-case basis on submission of materials by the patient showing hardship to City Hall's satisfaction. Management also indicated it doesn't expect to engage in collection actions if bills remain unpaid...and expects a compliance level of about 20%.

As previously reported by LBREPORT.com, "Covered California" (the state "insurance exchange" overseeing CA's version of ObamaCare) told us the following about whether its insurers would cover a "first responder fee." [Caveat: Your individual policy, PPO or HMO, may differ.]

[Statement emailed by Covered California Information Officer Larry Hicks] The health plans get to make the first determination of whether a "first responders fee," if approved by the City Council, is a covered benefit. We don't do that. If the first responder's claim is denied, state regulators -- either the Dept. of Managed Health Care or the Dept. of Insurance -- would interpret both the insurer's Evidence Of Coverage...

If the first responder was providing Emergency Care that is determined to be Medically Necessary, then it would be a covered benefit and if the first responder was approved as a provider of "emergency medical transportation," the applicable cost-sharing that the patient would be responsible for would be $250, minus any deductible.

Three people spoke on the item, and 2nd dist. resident Jack Smith was among them. Mr. Smith began his testimony by saying "a tax is a tax is a tax regardless of whether it's called a fee." He noted that even if the fee is "covered" by insurance (as management claimed), the coverage is subject to a deductible (sometimes quite large, meaning likely out of pocket cost); in seeking a hardship waiver, one may be asked to disclose much personal information to the City, and the fee can deter people from calling 9-1-1 Mr. Smith suggested that the Council get answers on these issues and hold the item for thirty days (which it declined to do.)

[Scroll down for further.]

Advertisement

Advertisement

Prior to the vote, the leadership of the Long Beach Firefighters Association (LBFFA) signaled to LBREPORT.com that it wouldn't oppose LBFD management's request for a "first responder fee," said the Department is drowning and in need of resources and can't withstand further cuts, noted that the LBFFA has opposed previous "proportional budget reductions" [advocated in budgets by city management recommended under Mayors Foster and Garcia and implemented under their Council majorities] and noted that there are a number of ways a City Council majority could provide LBFD with additional funding and the fee is the Fire Chief's Choice.

Below is the agendizing memo that managament provided to the Council and the public in support of its proposed Council action.

LB Fire Chief proposes "First Responder Fee"

On April 17, 2015, LBREPORT.com was first (again) to report LBFD Chief DuRee's publicly stated intention to propose a "first responder fee" in testimony to the Council's Public Safety Committee. Public Safety Committee chair Councilwoman Suzie Price and vice-chair Councilman Al Austin (member Mungo absent) had invited testimony from LBPD and LBFD management on measures their Departments recommend to deal with budget reductions that city management said (March 3, 2015 study session) would be required if a City Council majority were to continue "proportionate share" budget cuts (which have had significant impacts on LBPD and LBFD service levels for taxpayers.)

Neither chair Price nor Vice Chair Austin questioned continuation of "proportionate share" budget reductions; the Committee item was agendized to discuss "alternate funding sources" for public safety and city efforts to "come up with innovative ways to address public safety needs."

[Scroll down for further.]

Advertisement


Advertisement

At that meeting, Chief DuRee stated that he planned to propose to the full Council in the coming weeks consideration of a "first responder fee"...and neither Price nor Austin expressed any disapproval of this.

During the roughly nintety days that elapsed since then, not one Council incumbent (Supernaw took office in early May 2015) or Council Committee (Public Safety or Budget Oversight) took any steps to seek alternatives (spending reductions elsewhere) that might have avoided imposing the "First Responder Fee."



blog comments powered by Disqus

Recommend LBREPORT.com to your Facebook friends:


Follow LBReport.com with:

Twitter

Facebook

RSS

Return To Front Page

Contact us: mail@LBReport.com







Adoptable pet of the week:






Carter Wood Floors
Hardwood Floor Specialists
Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050


Copyright © 2015 LBReport.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here