Baldwin Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Parrish issued a press release this afternoon in response to Habersham County’s claims about the two entities’ discussions over a long-standing Automatic Aid agreement. That agreement is set to expire in August. The statements in this press release have not been independently verified. The viewpoint expressed here belongs to Jeff Parrish. Baldwin City Administrator Jerry Neace says he “concurs” with the statements presented here.
“I appreciate Habersham County’s July 10, 2018 Press Release and their attempt to put Baldwin’s claims in context. However, Habersham County’s Press Release includes many facts of error.
Paragraph 3 of the County’s Press Release states, “There have been no attempts by the City of Baldwin to negotiate an agreement with the county.” I strongly disagree with this statement. I personally have discussed these issues at least once with County Chairman Victor Anderson by phone, the City and County had a formal meeting at Baldwin City Hall on May 9, 2018 along with Chairman Victor Anderson, Commissioner Andrea Harper, and County Manager Phil Sutton, and Chairman Anderson invited me by his place of business one afternoon after the May 9thmeeting. During the meeting at his place of business he proposed an idea and requested I share it with the Baldwin City Council, which I did. Councilman Joe Elam has talked with Chairman Anderson several times regarding the issue. Additionally the issue was discussed in a Baldwin City Council open meeting with City Manager Phil Sutton present and the County Manager made public comments as reported in the Northeast Georgian. Additionally, our Fire Chief and the County Fire Chief have discussed this issue looking for solutions to our concerns. For Habersham County to write that we have made “no attempts… to negotiate an agreement” is disingenuous at best and definitely untrue.
In paragraph 4 of the Press Release the County uses language like they had never heard of Baldwin requesting a fee of $ 25,000 a year to continue covering the “First Responder” portion of the agreement. However, in Chairman Victor Anderson’s email notes of the May 9 meeting he states, “Baldwin presented an option that had been suggested by Chief Roy and apparently discussed by the Baldwin Council which proposed a fee of $25,000 (at that time) for Baldwin to continue to provide the level of service they are providing. The impression I received was that this proposal had been presented to the County and rejected. While I recall some discussion in an open meeting regarding comments that “the County should pay for the fire protection services Baldwin is providing”, I do not recall and cannot find any documentation that a proposal was ever made to the Commission regarding this matter. It is not the County’s practice to “contract” these services so our generic response is, and would have been, “we don’t do that”. Further, the Baldwin City Council discussed the issue at an August, 2017 public meeting with County Manger Phil Sutton in attendance.The proposal to contract with the County for $ 25,000 was discussed. County Manager Phil Sutton addressed the Baldwin City Council that night about the issue and participated in the discussion. Sutton later told the Northeast Georgianon August 11, 2017, “we (Habersham County) would be happy to help with annexation, but wer’re never going to pay for fire service”. After that comment no formal agreement was presented to Habersham County because we had already been told they would not agree to it.
In paragraph 6 the County states, “This proposed agreement would ensure that the closest fire station would respond to structure fires regardless of political boundaries.” That is exactly our point. Much of unincorporated Habersham County is closer to the Baldwin Fire Station and in some instances these are very large facilities like Windstream, the County Airport, and Fieldale facilities (none are in the city limits). No portion of the Baldwin City limits can be responded to quicker by the Habersham County Fire Department than the Baldwin Fire Department. So what this really means is that Baldwin would be first responders for a large portion of unincorporated Habersham County but the County would basically only respond to Baldwin when we needed additional help but not as first responders. The cost of covering much of unincorporated Habersham County as first responders would still fall on the Baldwin City taxpayers. In paragraph 7 the County uses the 21 fire calls to say they are responding equally. But remember that most of our calls are as “first responders” that on many calls do not require the County to even respond to their own jurisdiction while their calls to Baldwin have been as additional support. They quote the figure of 21 calls over three years. Chairman Anderson’s notes state, “An area of particular concern is the area to the east of Hwy 365 from the south side of Baldwin to the Hall County line. In this area and during the last year or so, Baldwin has responded to 88 calls that were not structure fire calls and were outside their city limits.” The County has offered to try and reduce the number of non –fire calls routed to Baldwin. However, based on the discussions at the May 9 meeting Baldwin officials were not comfortable with how the County planned to respond to those calls and we fear the County may be planning to unfairly use “mutual aid” as a way to continue to have Baldwin respond.
Lastly, while the County does not believe they should reimburse Baldwin taxpayers for fire services they have provided to unincorporated Habersham County, they did in their Press Release admit that the services the City of Baldwin has provided have a cost paid by the citizens of Baldwin. In paragraph 8 of the Press Release the County states, “Habersham County is increasing emergency services staff and will move emergency response equipment to the Duncan Bridge Road Fire Station to provide seamless coverage and protection for the citizens and businesses effected by Baldwin’s decision to terminate Automatic Aid.” So the County is now going to provide more service instead of paying for service Baldwin has been providing. Maybe a “thank you” for 15 years of free service would have helped in trying to find a solution where Baldwin citizens don’t have to continue to pay for service to people who live outside Baldwin’s jurisdiction.
Of important note, the County referenced the wrong state law in their Press Release. The correct section is O.C.G.A. Section 36-69-3(b). As we always have, Baldwin will continue to offer “mutual aid” as outlined by state law.”
This information has been updated to reflect that the press release was issued by Baldwin Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Parrish and not by Baldwin City Administrator Jerry Neace.
