It is said government gets things done at the intersection of overlapping self-interests. Or to put it more simply, we make progress when and where there’s enough agreement to move ahead.

So when Butler Councilwoman Kathy Kline and Mayor Tom Donaldson agreed Tuesday on a proposal to start billing insurance companies for fire department runs, it seems like a sure thing.

Just recently, Kline, who heads council’s Public Safety committee, and Donaldson were cats-and-dogs opposed over which of them controls fire department personal issues. Their dispute began when the mayor demoted longtime Fire Chief Nick Ban and ended when Ban announced his retirement.

In the wake of such a bitter dispute, if the mayor and public safety chair can agree on this proposal, then common sense dictates that it must be a good thing. Right?

Certainly. Except that it does raise a couple of issues that should be discussed. It’s a safe bet the insurance companies that are about to be billed for these fire runs will want to talk about them. Or to put it more simply, let’s not be too quick committing to a program until we’ve given it a thorough examination.

When council meets tonight, it should consider exploring — but not yet forming — a partnership with Pennsylvania Fire Recovery Service, a company that specializes in billing insurers for emergency responses.

The way Kline explained it, and according to the PAFRS website, the 12-year-old Allentown-based company uses data from fire reports to bill insurance companies. It keeps 15 percent of the revenue it collects. The remaining 85 percent is free and clear revenue for the city.

But the unanswered issue involves the nature of the emergency calls. Will structure fires, auto accidents and medical emergencies be billed the same way?

The city routinely dispatches a fire crew and pumper for ambulance calls. The rationale is that the firefighters are also trained emergency medical technicians and frequently are on scene faster than the ambulance crew. But given the vast improvements in communications technology in recent years, is sending a big fire truck onto Butler’s narrow, often congested streets the necessary or even appropriate response?

We can expect insurance companies will ask this specific question if they will be asked to reimburse the city for some of the costs associated with these calls.

And for that matter, will it be just the fire insurance companies to be billed, or will there be occasions when health and auto insurance comapnies should be billed too?

This detail might be little more than a regulatory wrinkle, but such details should be ironed out before they become potential court challenges.

The concept of billing for fire department responses is not new. The city adopted an ordinance and fee schedule 12 years ago but did little to followed through. This ordinance included billing provisions for witnessing fire drills and inspecting commercial structures.

A commissioned study in 2006 — when this billing ordinance was two years old — noted that the city was billing insurers in-house for fire responses, but with little success. The study recommended outsourcing the billing for the same reasons Kline cites now.

Before council jumps hastily into a contractual relationship with PAFRS, it should review why the first effort to bill for services failed. At least it should consider updating the ordinance’s fee schedule to reflect more accurate costs related to its services.

And by the way, does PAFRS have any competitors? Should the city seek bids or proposals for this service? Is the city obligated to put it out to bid?

All that said, this is a great idea. Insurance companies that collect premiums for these services must be willing to consider paying the fire department when it provides the services.