Commissioners debate interim fire-services agreement for Midway; reimbursement, duration and ISO impacts raised

County attorney Kelly Davis, county fire officials and commissioners discussed a draft memorandum of understanding under which Liberty County would provide interim fire services to the City of Midway while the city works to reestablish its own certified department.

Kelly Davis described the agreement as “very much similar to the one you previously authorized,” and said the county would calculate and bill Midway for direct costs plus overhead on a monthly basis; plan review and approval fees would be charged at plan submission and paid to the county. County fire official Brian told commissioners the county has spent just under $10,400 from the general fund to bring a county apparatus back to operational condition for Midway response; a projected figure of about $18,000 had been estimated earlier but expenditures were held pending direction.

The draft MOU in the packet sets a 120-day interim period measured from execution by both parties and allows two consecutive 60-day extensions; it also allows either party to terminate sooner. Commissioners expressed concerns about the proposed term and the operational burden on county personnel and equipment. One commissioner said extended coverage without added staffing and equipment could negatively affect the county's ISO fire-protection rating; staff confirmed the Georgia Fire Standards and Training Council advised caution about long-term agreements that increase coverage without matching increases in staffing and equipment.

Board members also debated reimbursement mechanics and prior informal coverage: the county has been responding to many types of calls in Midway since 2021 under a prior gentleman's arrangement, but no reimbursement has yet been collected. Several commissioners said they were reluctant to commit to an extended county role if Midway would not promptly reconstitute its certified department; others said the county should not leave Midway residents without protection while the city resolves its certification.

The transcript records substantial discussion but does not show a formal recorded vote approving the MOU. Commissioners asked staff and counsel to clarify terms, costs and potential ISO impacts; the record shows the county intends to charge for services going forward rather than continuing unpaid coverage.

No action approving the final contract language or execution is recorded in the transcript.