Brighton fire disputes reignite

BRIGHTON — Representatives from the Brighton Volunteer Fire Department say they’ll temporarily stop responding to calls within the city’s limits — but not to the area’s townships — by Nov. 30 if the city fails to consider its suggested changes to a 28E agreement. A 28E agreement is an agreement between governmental bodies.

The notice came in a hand-delivered letter to city hall Oct. 21, signed, “The 21 Volunteers of the Brighton Fire Dept.,” complete with the department’s letter head.

“In light of the council not asking our input on the proposed 28E, we feel it necessary to share our opinion,” the letter said. “It is our sincere hope that this council will consider our position and make the move to enter into a 28E with the changes we have indicated. That action is needed to resolve the existing dispute and allow the city/fire dept. relationship to begin the healing process.”

The letter thrust the city’s fire department budget back into the spotlight, after complaints early this year first drew widespread attention to the issue. A packed city council meeting was followed by a one-time ARPA fund allocation to the department and calls for increased communication between the city and township trustees, but momentum did not culminate in major reforms.

With the dispute back in the public eye, officials and community residents had a number of concerns at a council meeting Monday night.

What are they fighting about?

City and township negotiators have spent at least the last several months working on a reformed 28E agreement, which was first implemented in 2010. Talks on that document, which governs city and township arrangements for fire protection, have not included the fire department.

“The council, through me, had been working with the township trustees, but now it appears there are — to use lawyer language — other stakeholders,” City Attorney Katie Mitchell said.

The main point of contention at the meeting was the authority of a suggested fire advisory board.

The department’s proposal would establish a fire board, where the fire chief would permanently serve as the group’s chair and have the ability to make final determinations when board members don’t reach a majority vote.

Under the proposal, that board would have the final say in "any dispute regarding the operation or expenditure of funds between the city of Brighton and the Brighton Volunteer Fire Department.“

Council members took issue with the suggestion, saying it would give too much authority to an unelected official.

“There is a reason we have elected officials, there is a reason when we are dealing with tax dollars, we have elected officials overseeing the money,” Council Member Cathy Rich said. “To hand off that responsibility is not something that this council should consider.”

City officials signaled they were open to the idea of a fire board, but not giving it such a high level of authority.

“Most fire boards — I’ve looked back in the county and I’ve read several from the League of Cities — it’s for advisory and communication purposes,” Mayor Melvin Rich said. “That’s pretty much in the description.”

While other concerns were listed in the volunteer fire department’s letter, they were not discussed at length in the meeting. Those include calls for some items to be paid through the fire department budget, rather than city general funds, and vice versa for workman’s comp. The letter also listed utility payments for the fire station as a grievance, which have recently increased.

How are people reacting?

Municipal officials said they read the fire department’s email as an aggressive response to good faith efforts.

“I think that we have tried as a city, we have made sure their bills are paid … we are making every effort to make sure that the excess fire funds are invested and earning additional income,” Cathy Rich said. “I think that’s our duty as a council, is to oversee the tax dollars that are collected, and make sure that they’re used properly. So to have a threat from our volunteers that they won’t respond is very concerning.”

Area residents said they opposed the stakes set by the fire department.

“This letter, to me, is a threat,” area resident Becky Rich said. “It’s terrifying to me that the leadership of the fire department does not care about the citizens of Brighton.”

Some worried about the implications of stopped service not only for their safety, but for their finances.

“If this stuff’s all public knowledge, my insurance man lives in Washington, he’ll figure this out real quick and he’ll just send me a new bill,” area resident Dick Green said. “I don’t want to pay any more insurance, I don’t want to pay any more taxes, this is crazy. Somewhere along the line, someone’s going to have to give just a little bit.”

Confusion was another common reaction. Funding disputes in the city fell out of the public eye after unpaid city allocations to the fire department were partially repaid using ARPA money in February. While public attention left soon after, the tension did not.

“I thought that when the townships all came to us that everything was back to normal,” Council Member Rose Jaynes said. “Evidently, it’s not something that can be taken at face value.”

Fire Chief Bill Farmer said he stood by the ultimatum as a way to get the city’s attention in short order.

“This wasn’t an easy decision for the firemen to make,” he said. “We’re tired of waiting on this council to do anything, and this has been going on for well over a year … we’re ready to sit down and talk.”

What’s taking so long, and where do things go from here?

City officials said they were doing their best, but cited “speed of government” as a reason change was slow.

Katie Mitchell said she was waiting on legal input from other officials, including the Washington County Attorney’s Office.

“On Oct. 17 I provided the County Attorney’s Office with what I believe they were requesting, and I don’t have any additional information,” she said. “The only new document is this letter that was received by the city.”

The city insists it’s not for lack of trying. Mayor Melvin Rich said there were several bureaucratic hurdles along the way.

“We asked for time to find that money because there were issues with the general fund, we worked that out with ARPA money,” Mayor Melvin Rich said. “The state audit took until the end of June, we did not get it until the second to last day of June, because they’re short handed and we had to ask for an extension.”

Some have questioned the department’s willingness and legal ability to follow through on a partial denial of service.

Sue Rich, who is affiliated with Washington County but was not speaking on the county’s behalf, said the old 28E agreement required a notice of termination long before that of the Oct. 21 letter.

“The one that’s enforced, in place, they have to give a six month notice to get out of that,” she said. “I don’t think … any of the fire department members are going to sit there and watch their own properties burn. I would hope not, nor would I hope that they’d let mine burn.”

The city plans to bring in a third party consultant to help resolve the disputes between township trustees, the city and its department.

“It’s my opinion we need to get him here, it’s long past due,” said Council Member Paul Shelangoski, who made the motion for a consultant. “We’ve got to get some guidance on this.”

In the meantime, the city’s legal adviser said she didn’t expect a resolution from that consultant before Nov. 30, and suggested council members prepare for the worst.

“This letter, I believe, puts the city on notice that there’s at least a threat that city of Brighton calls will not be responded to,” Katie Mitchell said. “I would just advise the city to ensure that it takes action to ensure that we provide fire services to the city if the department chooses not to respond to a call.”

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com