Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Ems Interlocal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Perry City Council tables interlocal fire and EMS agreement with Brigham City after legal and service questions
Summary
Councilors spent nearly three hours reviewing Resolution 2026-01, an interlocal agreement with Brigham City for fire and emergency medical services. Members raised questions about contract term length, invoicing and prepayment, licensing, service-level expectations and indemnity language and voted to table the agreement for a rewrite and more detailed terms.
The Perry City Council on Jan. 8 discussed but did not approve an interlocal agreement with Brigham City to provide fire and emergency medical services, instead voting to table Resolution 2026-01 so staff can rewrite and clarify multiple legal and operational provisions.
Councilors and staff spent extensive time on the proposed three‑year agreement — discussing the meaning of the contract’s “effective date,” whether the term should be a minimum three‑year commitment or year‑to‑year with locked pricing, how annual invoicing should align with Perry’s fiscal year, and whether prepaid fees should be prorated on early termination. Council members also pressed for clearer language on ambulance/paramedic staffing and licensing, indemnity and which court system governs disputes.
“Has Brigham City approved this, or are they waiting for us?” asked a staff member during the review; staff confirmed Brigham City had given preliminary approval to a revised version but had not formally adopted it yet. Council member Blake Oster pressed for definitions and payment timing, arguing the agreement should state when payments are due and whether Perry must prepay for services: “I don’t have a problem with the pricing they proposed for 3 years, but I don’t know why there needs to be a contract for 3 years,” he said, advocating a clearer year‑to‑year alternative with specified pricing.
Other council members raised operational concerns: what happens if Brigham City loses the licenses that authorize paramedic‑level ambulances; whether the agreement should include service‑level reporting (call volumes, response times, fire marshal turnaround for development reviews); and whether the contract’s termination clause effectively locks Perry into four years because of the required 12‑month notice following the initial term. Staff and council agreed those points need clearer drafting and numerical fixes (several dates in the draft still read “2025” and must be updated).
Council members also asked for a refund/pro rata clause if the city prepays fees and then terminates early, and discussed whether the mayor should be authorized to finalize minor dates and corrections after council direction. Concerns about liability language and which party bears responsibility for indemnity were flagged for legal review.
Rather than vote on the draft, the council agreed there were too many substantive ambiguities to approve the resolution as written. The body voted to table the item and asked staff and legal counsel to prepare a rewritten agreement that (at minimum) fixes dated references, clarifies the effective date and fiscal‑year invoicing, spells out termination/refund mechanics, and includes a list of the services Brigham City will provide and any reporting requirements Perry expects.
Next steps: staff will assemble negotiated changes and proposed language for council review and return the item to a future meeting for possible action.
