Greenfield to re-examine fire district agreement
Lead Summary
By
Brandy Chandler-brandychandler@gmail.com
The parks and property committee of the Greenfield City Council will re-examine a lease contract with the Paint Creek Joint Fire District after council and members of the fire district's board discussed who is responsible for repairs and upkeep of the city-owned building being utilized by the fire district.
Council member William Redenbaugh, who is also on the fire district board, addressed council during during its regular meeting Tuesday, and stated that for some months the city and the fire district have been discussing the agreement regarding the lease on the building, "and we can't get an agreement."
Redenbaugh said the "stickler" in the matter is that the sides cannot agree on the portion of the lease regarding general maintenance of the building.
Council member Harvey Everhart told the Highland County Press that when the joint fire district — comprised of the village of Greenfield, and Madison, Paint and Buckskin townships in Highland and Ross counties — was organized that the city would lease the former Greenfield Fire Department building on South Washington Street to the district for $1.
"When we did the contract creating the district we signed off on it, giving them the equipment, fire trucks, as the city's part of the agreement, and lease the building to the district for $1 a year, but they would maintain it and keep up on the insurance," Everhart said.
Mike Erskine, a member of the fire district board, spoke to council at Redenbaugh's request. Erskine said that the district agreed it should be responsible for "ordinary maintenance" such as fixing broken doors or windows, but structural maintenance should be the responsibility of the city.
City law director Brian Zets said that in negotiations on the lease agreement the city was trying to make the language the same as in the contract that formed the district, which stated the district would be responsible for maintenance. However, he said, if council wanted they could have different language in the contract and the lease agreement.
Erskine said that if the district made repairs to the building, such as putting in a new heater, if the district should change locations, they cannot take a new heater with them.
Redenbaugh agreed with Erskine and said that if the wind should blow the roof off the building, it is the city's responsibility because the city owns the building, and the city would have to maintain the building even if the fire district was not being housed there.
"Where does the city get the funds to do this?" Everhart asked.
Council chairperson Betty Jackman also said the city would have to maintain the building if the district were not located there.
Everhart said that if the fire district were not located there, "We would transfer the street department there and pay for it out of street department funds. We have no fire department, it was abolished. We have no funds. I was under the impression our tax dollars were going to pay for it."
Everhart said a tax levy passed in the November general election was supposed to support the district.
Council member Bob Bergstrom said the city would "have to go to the general fund," to pay for maintenance.
"OK," Everhart said, "but that is expense we hadn't counted on."
Redenbaugh said it was a "maybe expense," in that there was not currently a specific issue, but that months or years from now, the city will have to pay for the expense on the upkeep of the building in some form.
"Do we need to go back and re-negitiate the $1 a year lease?" Everhart asked.
Council agreed a committee should review the matter and Jackman put the issue into council's parks and property committee, on which Everhart and Bergstrom serve. The committee will meet at 5:30 p.m. March 16.[[In-content Ad]]
Council member William Redenbaugh, who is also on the fire district board, addressed council during during its regular meeting Tuesday, and stated that for some months the city and the fire district have been discussing the agreement regarding the lease on the building, "and we can't get an agreement."
Redenbaugh said the "stickler" in the matter is that the sides cannot agree on the portion of the lease regarding general maintenance of the building.
Council member Harvey Everhart told the Highland County Press that when the joint fire district — comprised of the village of Greenfield, and Madison, Paint and Buckskin townships in Highland and Ross counties — was organized that the city would lease the former Greenfield Fire Department building on South Washington Street to the district for $1.
"When we did the contract creating the district we signed off on it, giving them the equipment, fire trucks, as the city's part of the agreement, and lease the building to the district for $1 a year, but they would maintain it and keep up on the insurance," Everhart said.
Mike Erskine, a member of the fire district board, spoke to council at Redenbaugh's request. Erskine said that the district agreed it should be responsible for "ordinary maintenance" such as fixing broken doors or windows, but structural maintenance should be the responsibility of the city.
City law director Brian Zets said that in negotiations on the lease agreement the city was trying to make the language the same as in the contract that formed the district, which stated the district would be responsible for maintenance. However, he said, if council wanted they could have different language in the contract and the lease agreement.
Erskine said that if the district made repairs to the building, such as putting in a new heater, if the district should change locations, they cannot take a new heater with them.
Redenbaugh agreed with Erskine and said that if the wind should blow the roof off the building, it is the city's responsibility because the city owns the building, and the city would have to maintain the building even if the fire district was not being housed there.
"Where does the city get the funds to do this?" Everhart asked.
Council chairperson Betty Jackman also said the city would have to maintain the building if the district were not located there.
Everhart said that if the fire district were not located there, "We would transfer the street department there and pay for it out of street department funds. We have no fire department, it was abolished. We have no funds. I was under the impression our tax dollars were going to pay for it."
Everhart said a tax levy passed in the November general election was supposed to support the district.
Council member Bob Bergstrom said the city would "have to go to the general fund," to pay for maintenance.
"OK," Everhart said, "but that is expense we hadn't counted on."
Redenbaugh said it was a "maybe expense," in that there was not currently a specific issue, but that months or years from now, the city will have to pay for the expense on the upkeep of the building in some form.
"Do we need to go back and re-negitiate the $1 a year lease?" Everhart asked.
Council agreed a committee should review the matter and Jackman put the issue into council's parks and property committee, on which Everhart and Bergstrom serve. The committee will meet at 5:30 p.m. March 16.[[In-content Ad]]