Final offers made in Brighton fire dispute

BRIGHTON — Dozens of community members, including township trustees, local and nearby firefighters, and area residents packed into Brighton City Hall Monday night, where city council members voted on a last batch of proposals in an ongoing dispute over fire protection.

If disagreements are not resolved by March 15, firefighters said they would stop responding to calls for service, leaving the duty to other departments in the area that have agreed to fill the gap. Fire Chief Bill Farmer and other firefighters declined to comment on the city’s resolutions Monday night.

The first point of contention on the agenda was an intergovernmental agreement between the city and surrounding communities — called a 28E agreement — governing fire protection. At the meeting, council members voted to approve a new 28E that would formalize the process for budget planning and advisory board involvement, set deadlines for parties’ fire protection payments, and clarify what funds cover various fire-related expenses, among other changes from the current agreement, which was signed in 2010.

It would do so by establishing a separate 28E with each township and city protected by Brighton’s fire department. Several townships had called for a shared agreement that would give them greater collective leverage in disputes.

“It seems to me the city council is interested in greater government control, which is exactly what a 28E agreement is, when you have separate agreements,” area resident Abe Miller said at a meeting last week. “It’s a lot easier for government to separate and kill stuff if you have them separated, rather than one unified agreement.”

Council members said they stood by the new version, including Rose Jaynes, who several weeks ago moved to keep the old agreement intact. She said she opposed the revisions initially because they codified an advisory board into law, which she was against.

With that advisory board now established in other votes, she said she felt comfortable voting for the updated 28E Monday night.

“When it passed on a 3-2 vote, you know, I’m not a naysayer, it was a majority,” Jaynes said.

As for an advisory board, the council voted to appoint member Paul Shelangoski as its representative to the now-established body. Shelangoski said he would do it, but voted against the motion, which passed with a 4-1 tally.

Council Member Mary Smith, who also clashed with fire department representatives at meetings since November, said she was happy with the updated 28E’s approach of individualized agreements with every township. Still, she acknowledged that the offer went against the stated desires of township trustees.

“They may decide no, that they don’t want to sign these individual agreements, that is their prerogative,” she said. “We certainly hope they do (sign them,) but it gives them the choice as taxpayers.”

The next point of contention: whether the city would agree to allocate “up to” $2,000 a year for fire station maintenance, or a regular contribution of that amount, which could accumulate with time. Firefighters fought hard for the latter, saying it was a compromise between budget constraints and the cost of liability coverage, which would otherwise come from the fire department’s fund. Council members said they didn’t have cash in the general fund to assure $2,000 payments every year.

At Monday night’s meeting, the city established a new subaccount for its local-option sales tax revenue, which it will use to pay $2,000 for fire station maintenance at least once per year, building the amount up for use “as repair and maintenance expenses are incurred.”

Smith made that motion, which passed in a 5-0 vote. She said it was reasonable, despite her skepticism about similar proposals at previous meetings.

“It’s coming from the LOST option sales tax, it’s not affecting our budget, because we have $14,” she said. “Now, I feel at ease, so I’m OK with that going as a separate line item to take care of the maintenance of the fire department … it wouldn’t increase the taxpayer’s portion so that we’d have to raise taxes.”

Council Member Cathy Rich said the newly created subaccount would ensure transparency for the money, which the city can only legally spend on infrastructure. Rich previously pushed back on a request from firefighters that would have drawn from the general fund instead.

“It is not mysteriously come-up-with, it is out of a completely different fund,” she said. “Our local-option sales tax money comes in monthly, and those funds do build, and grow. And it is a way I believe we can identify what is being set aside and maintain an accounting of how it’s growing, what comes out.”

With a lack of public comments, it was not immediately clear whether the volunteers or townships planned to accept the offers, leaving the continued operation of the Brighton Fire Department after March 15 unclear.

Stakes are high not only for fire risks, but for locals’ pocketbooks. Area insurance agents told some Brighton clients and the Journal that a fire department closure “would change” insurance premiums, but were careful not to use the word “increase.” The city’s backup fire protection plan involves a collection of further-away departments. Given their distance, the change would impact the community’s Insurance Offices Score, a metric used to calculate property insurance premiums based on several factors, which also include fire department quality and water supply.

City Attorney Katie Mitchell encouraged other parties in the dispute to consult their respective attorneys before moving to accept the proposals. She said the document had been provided to the Washington County Attorney’s Office — which represents the jurisdiction’s township trustees — but that she had not heard a response from the department.

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com