Long Branch official says temporary fire response to West Long Branch halted after MOU talks stalled

Long Branch — A Long Branch official told the City Council on July 23 that the city briefly provided emergency response to certain “high‑hazard” calls in West Long Branch while officials there considered a memorandum of understanding; the response stopped after West Long Branch officials decided not to proceed.

Vincent Lepore of 33 Ocean Terrace told the council the Long Branch government carried out a “sinister attempt” to take over West Long Branch’s volunteer fire department and described the episode as a threat to West Long Branch residents’ safety. Lepore said West Long Branch officials and residents opposed the proposal and that local volunteer status would be preserved.

In response, a Long Branch official (identified in the transcript as a city staff member) said Long Branch had been invited to a West Long Branch council meeting in May after two incidents raised concerns about local fire response, including one the staff member described as school children left outside for more than a half hour. The staff member said discussions considered cost, staffing and equipment-sharing options, and that Long Branch proposed trading use of a fire truck for 10 years in exchange for response services while an agreement was negotiated. The official said Long Branch began, for the first time, to respond on the “first alarm” to certain high‑hazard locations such as schools and dormitories while the MOU process was underway.

The staff member said that after social-media criticism and a West Long Branch council decision not to move forward with a deal, Long Branch reversed the temporary response because it could not continue using city resources without an approved agreement. The official said the short-term coverage included fewer than 15 calls over the period described and that continuing to respond without a formal agreement would be an inappropriate use of Long Branch taxpayer funds.

Why it matters: The exchange raises questions about intermunicipal emergency arrangements, mutual-aid practices and the limits of a city’s use of personnel and equipment when formal agreements are not in place.

Discussion versus action: The transcript records discussion and an operational change (temporary response to certain calls, then reversal) but does not document any formal MOU, council vote or ordinance approving a permanent change. The staff member said MOU drafting occurred but that West Long Branch officials ultimately communicated they would not move forward and the temporary responses stopped.

Clarifying details from the meeting: the staff member said the temporary response covered “high hazards” (examples given: schools, public buildings, dormitories); the staff member said the city had provided that coverage for under 60 days and described it as “probably under 15 calls total.” The staff member said paying for full Long Branch coverage could cost West Long Branch residents “somewhere between 4 and $500,000 a year” as quoted in the transcript; the staff member also described attempting a truck-for-service formula but did not provide a clear single-dollar valuation for the truck on the public record.

Other agencies and community reactions mentioned: the staff member cited mutual-aid responses from Ocean Township and Eatontown fire departments as existing county‑mandated coverage for West Long Branch; a public commenter thanked local Facebook groups — “West End Long Branch NJ Watchdogs” and “West Long Branch Residents” — for mobilizing residents.

What’s next: No formal agreement or vote was recorded during the meeting. The staff member said the city halted temporary coverage after being notified West Long Branch would not pursue the arrangement. Council members and the mayor acknowledged the exchange and encouraged professional handling and continued public communication.

Speakers quoted in this story are identified in council minutes and the meeting transcript.