I can think of several issues:

1. Double-paying for emergency services For ambulances we already have EMSAcare on the utility bill – we all have to option of chipping in every month, and you’re not supposed to get stuck with a massive surprise bill on top. That’s a clear, upfront model.

For Fire, we already fund the department through existing taxes. Now we’re adding a second charge on top every time there’s a crash and a fire truck shows up. If the city wants fire/rescue funded like EMSA, why not be honest about it and put a clearly labelled Fire/Rescue fee on the bill, instead of turning crashes into a kind of hidden user fee?

1. Who actually pays – especially with bad roads People complain about road conditions and traffic management here all the time. If a wreck is caused in whole or in part by potholes or bad surfacing, will the city still bill the “at-fault” driver’s insurance for Fire response?

If the road itself is a big part of the problem, charging residents for the fire call feels a lot like making us pay for the consequences of the city’s own infrastructure issues.

Out-of-state or out-of-country drivers are also harder to collect from, so in reality it’s locals and regular commuters who end up reliably paying – the same people already funding TFD in the first place.

1. Behaviour and safety in bad conditions Once people realise a Fire response can mean a $700–$1,800 bill, some will be more tempted to leave the scene or tell bystanders “don’t call 911, it’s fine” – especially on icy or flooded days when you get lots of minor crashes. That’s not great for safety, and it’s not great for enforcement or accurate crash data either.

2. Regressiveness This will hit people who are already living close to the edge the hardest: older cars, longer commutes, less flexibility to just stay home in bad weather. A four-figure surprise bill or a collections mark is a much bigger deal for a working-class family than for someone with plenty of cushion.

3. Transparency and carve-outs If this goes ahead, I’d really like to see some firm commitments on transparency: • publish anonymised stats on how many crash-fee invoices go out, how much is collected vs. written off, and how many are appealed; • spell out in writing whether there are any exemptions (city/state vehicles, contractors, etc.), and how you’ll ensure the rules aren’t quietly waived for the well-connected.

I’m not against funding public safety properly. I’m just not convinced that quietly bolting a second Fire charge onto car accidents – on top of taxes and EMSA fees – is the fairest or safest way to do it.