Duval council reviews proposed amendments to interlocal fire inspection agreement with Eastside Fire and Rescue
Loading...
Summary
City staff presented proposed changes to the interlocal agreement with Eastside Fire and Rescue on inspections, fee audits, stop‑work authority and indemnity; staff and the district identified several technical differences to be resolved before final placement on the consent agenda.
City staff presented a set of proposed amendments to the interlocal agreement (ILA) that governs building plan review and fire inspections conducted by Eastside Fire and Rescue, and asked the council for direction at the July 1 meeting.
Brian Keller, a city staff presenter, reviewed recommended language changes the city had proposed and the fire district’s responses. Keller read proposed audit language giving the city the right to audit district fee collections and to require supporting documentation within 30 days; staff supported that change. He also summarized a proposed revision to inspections language to require a mutually agreed inspection schedule “and in a manner consistent with adopted city priorities and industry standards.”
Keller described proposed modifications to stop‑work authority that would reserve to the city the exclusive right to issue stop‑work or emergency orders except when there is an immediate life‑safety hazard; in an immediate hazard case the district could post a temporary notice and must notify the city within 24 hours. Keller noted the current International Fire Code (IFC) language gives the fire code official authority to issue stop‑work orders but said staff were “absolutely amenable to adding this language” to clarify practice.
Other proposed items included a provision for the city to review plan‑review timelines annually and request corrective action if average reviews exceed 30 business days; staff noted that review timelines and cooperative administration are already captured elsewhere in the ILA and recommended no textual change. The city also proposed that on termination the district must document and transfer all open inspections, unresolved violations and in‑progress reviews to the city within 30 days; staff and the district agreed to that addition.
On indemnification, the city proposed adding language requiring the district to defend the city for failures in timely inspections or plan review “except to the extent caused by the city's own neglect.” City legal staff said the existing reciprocal indemnification clause already covers negligent acts by either party; the city attorney and district representatives agreed that the current reciprocal indemnity is the operative protection.
Council members asked clarifying questions about timelines, enforcement practices and contractual protections for the city. There was no formal vote that evening; staff and the district agreed to incorporate the mutually accepted edits and return the amended ILA for placement on the next council consent agenda.
