View All

Top Jobs


Latest featured videos from PulseJournal.com

No deal on fire protection between Deerfield, Mason

By Denise G. Callahan

Staff Writer

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Deerfield Twp. and Mason officials have not settled their differences about how to expand fire protection.

The township and city commissioned a study about how they can reach the National Fire Protection Association response time of six minutes to nearly every area of the city and township.

Extras

However, the Mason Safety Committee has already identified locations where city officials plan to build three fire stations and Deerfield officials are wondering why they weren't consulted, since they believe this was supposed to be a regional approach to fire protection.

Mason officials have said the city needs the three stations in those locations, in addition to cooperating with Deerfield Twp.

Township Administrator Dan Evers said he might have offered to move the Townsley Road fire station, which may have revised some of Mason's plans.

Also unresolved is whether to trade responsibility for protection in northwest Deerfield and the area around Kings Island in the city. City Manager Eric Hansen sent Evers a letter dated May 6 offering to take over the northwest area immediately but noted that the offer is "not" dependent on the township reciprocating in Kings Mills.

Evers said he doesn't understand why Hansen seemed to exclude the Kings Island area.

"Why wouldn't we simultaneously address an issue that both parties acknowledge are identical," he said.

Evers also sent Hansen an e-mail dated May 1 in which he set out components of an agreement that are essential to the township:

• The city agrees not to annex any more land from the township;

• He wants the agreement to be in effect for 40 years;

• The city agrees to re-open the fire station location issue; and,

• Deerfield and Mason agree to trade responsibility for protection in the northwest part of the township and around Kings Island.

Mason has an economic development agreement with Liberty Twp. in Butler County that includes a no-annexation promise and Evers said the city should extend the same promise to Deerfield.

However, Mayor Tom Grossmann said the two situations are different

"First off (Liberty Twp.) didn't need Mason and secondly they were doing something that would impact our roads and third they are in an area where we historically have not had any annexation and it's in an area that's already developed. We don't typically annex things that are already developed," Grossmann said.

Grossmann said the city can't arbitrarily agree not to annex because property owners might want their property annexed into the city.

Vote for this story!


Pulse-Journal.com:

Copyright 2008 Pulse-Journal. All rights reserved.

By using Pulse-Journal.com, you accept the terms of our visitor agreement and privacy policy. You may wish to note our other business policies.

This website is ACAP-enabled