Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lock Haven council sends fire-department ordinance back to advisory committee after public objections
Summary
Council members voted 6-1 to send proposed amendments to the city—s fire-department ordinance (Chapter 59) back to the advisory committee after public commenters and advisory-board members raised concerns about removing the foreman role, altering suspension procedures, and shifting selection of the chief from election/rotation to appointment by the city manager.
The Lock Haven City Council voted to return proposed amendments to Chapter 59 of the city code to the fire advisory committee for further work after residents and volunteer fire-company representatives raised objections about several structural changes.
The ordinance under consideration would reshape how the combined fire companies choose leadership, eliminate or rename several officer roles, and change discipline and appointment language. Joe Bailey of the fire advisory/citizens host company told the council the advisory board "passed it not unanimously" and said the major worry was "the rotation of the chief not being rotated anymore, that the chief's gonna be appointed by the city manager rather than being elected." He also criticized removal of a foreman role and the loss of advisory-board input on suspensions.
City staff and council members debated precise ordinance language, pointing to several subsections (repeatedly referenced in public remarks as "59-1," "59-2," and "59-9"). Staff stated that text in 59-9 "has nothing altered," and reminded speakers that departmental discipline for paid employees is reviewed by the city manager as a department head. Still, volunteers worried the merged structure would give the chief—s company an ongoing advantage on the advisory board and that longer fixed terms could entrench a single company—s influence.
After extended discussion, Council moved to send the ordinance back to the fire advisory committee for additional review and revision; the motion passed on a roll-call vote, 6-1. Council did not adopt the ordinance tonight and instructed staff and the committee to reconcile the concerns raised about appointment language, advisory-board composition, and property/equipment control before returning a final proposal.
What happens next: the council asked the advisory board to meet again and return to council with a version that resolves the points raised about 'city owned' verbiage, suspension/appeal procedures, and how company representation will work after the merger. No ordinance changes were enacted tonight.
