The City Council will be voting on a new fee a week from today (it’s actually on tonight’s agenda, but with a motion to defer until next Tuesday). Here’s the background information from the “request for council action”:

BACKGROUND: While reviewing the process for towing private vehicles, it was determined the Police Department had a considerable amount of time invested in processing vehicles from the initial tow to the release of the vehicle. In an effort to cover these costs, it was determined that an administrative fee of $25.00 per tow should be assessed. The Tow Operator will collect the $25 City administrative fee for each rotation tow the tow operator receives compensation for. The Tow Operator shall forward on a quarterly basis all City administrative fees collected, along with an accounting setting forth the number of rotation tows performed during the quarter, the number of rotation tows for which the operator was paid during the quarter, and the amount of City administrative fees forwarded. Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the new administrative fee would go into affect October 1, 2005.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Estimated new revenues of $75,000.

IMPACT IF APPROVED: Estimated new revenues in the amount of $75,000 would be recognized in the General Fund to support Police Services.

IMPACT IF DENIED: The City would recognize no new revenue relating to towing of private vehicles.

First of all, what exactly is a “considerable amount of time”? And secondly, if time spent is the justification of this new fee, what else will the police want to charge us for in the future? Helping an elderly person change a flat tire? Calling an ambulance at the scene of an accident? Helping a lost child find his parents?

I’m sorry, but I just don’t think it’s asking too much to have the police call you a tow truck. I mean, isn’t that a basic service? Isn’t helping citizens part of their job? Aren’t they looking out for your safety and the safety of others by assisting you in this manner?

If time is such a problem, why did they just agree to be truancy officers for District 150? I like the idea of them being truancy officers and cooperating with the school district, but if their time is so crunched, why are they taking on additional responsibilities?

Now, if this passes next week, when your car breaks down and you need help, instead of getting help from police, you’ll essentially be assessed a fine. It’s kind of like getting a ticket for breaking down, only it doesn’t go on your record. I mean, if it’s not a punitive fine, what is it? A deterrent? Are we supposed to wave the police off if they come by offering “assistance” like you’d wave off guys with squeegies who want to wash your windows at stoplights?

Another thing that bugs me is that this is only going to mean a measly $75,000 extra per year for the city. Compare that to all the money they’ve squandered looking into the water company buyout every few years. Or compare that to the money they’re throwing away to give away the Kellar Branch to the Park District instead of selling it to Pioneer for $565,000. You’d think the city had money to burn.

And who is this policy going to affect the most? Who is most likely to have a car that breaks down and needs a tow? Someone with an older car, perhaps? People who can’t afford a new car, so they keep driving the same old beaters to their minimum-wage jobs? Oh, let’s just come right out and say it — the poorer among us, right? I doubt anyone on the north end with their new Mercedes and AAA Motor Club membership is going to need the police to help them out. But the poor guy on the south side with an ’81 Buick trying to scrape by whose car breaks down on the way to work is going to get “help” from the police, for a small fee.

The council should shoot down this proposal. There have to be more equitable ways for the police to raise revenue.