Nick Palmatier, president of the Pennsdale Volunteer Fire Department explains the damage done by a recent sewage problem at the township building. DAVE KENNEDY/Sun-Gazette

PENNSDALE – Just when they thought the cleanup in their facility after sewage backed up earlier this year, could begin, the Muncy Township Volunteer Fire Company is once again facing resistance from the Muncy Township board of supervisors who say it’s not their problem to pay for the work.

Board Chair Terri Lauchle, claimed at this week’s meeting that the township had not received documentation on the extent of the damage and it wouldn’t matter anyway, because it’s not the township’s problem, according to her interpretation of the lease signed by the fire department.

During the second public comment portion of the meeting, Nick Palmatier, president of the fire company had called for board members Heath Ohnmeiss and Denise Artley to approve having a company come in to do the work, which they did, only to have Artley contact Palmatier the next morning to say that she wanted to rescind her yes vote.

Palmatier said that Artley said she wanted to change her vote and would do so at the next meeting.

“She said the exact same thing Terri said the night before – the lease stated otherwise that we were responsible for cleaning up the sewage,” he explained.

Muncy Twp Supervisors Heath Ohnmeiss and Terri Lauchle argue during the meeting Tuesday evening. DAVE KENNEDY/Sun-Gazette

For the fire department the situation has become critical.

“To this day, there is still fecal matter on the floor downstairs,” said Palmatier, president of the fire department.

Initially, following the incident, ServPro had been called, but Palmatier stated that Lauchle had wanted an independent company to handle the cleanup because she felt ServPro had a vested interest in determining the extent of the damage and then doing the cleanup.

“You then directed us to use a third party, which we did. We called in a company out of Altoona, which is the closest one to this area. I emailed you guys back and asked if you really wanted to go down this road, or if you would just simply turn this into your insurance and let this be over with. You did not reply. We brought in a third party. Now there is a $3,500 bill that needs to be paid because of that third party coming in,” Pamatier said.

What could have been a clean up has now evolved into a mitigation after it was determined that there is mold, fungi and bacteria, such as staphylococcus, present and the damage has moved to the walls.

“Now that we’ve played this game for so long, the moisture test that they’ve done downstairs, they’ve got moisture five feet off the ground, so now they have to rip out every wall, all the flooring has to come out. You’ve turned this from a $5,000 job to now a $40,000 job,” he said.

“This is not a minor cleanup. You do not clean it up with a bucket. You do not clean it up with a mop. This is not something that we’re responsible for. This is yours and we ask that you clean it up,” Palmatier said.

Lauchle, referring to the lease, stated that it specifically places responsibility on the fire department to pay for the cleanup.

“The township’s understanding is that addressing the plumbing repair itself and paying for that response was consistent with the township’s obligation regarding major repairs,” she said reading from a prepared statement.

“However, ordinary cleanup upkeep and interior maintenance responsibilities within the leased premises remain the responsibility of the tenant under the lease agreement,” she added.

She further read that the township had not received documentation “establishing that the additional remediation and the restoration expenses claimed are contractually required to be paid by the township” under the lease.

Palmetier countered that he had sent the information in an email and had tagged members of the board.

“I did not see it and we are not responsible,” Lauchle claimed.

Supervisor Heath Ohnmeiss, who often remains silent as Lauchle and Artley dominate the meetings, spoke up and said, “I want to interject on that — May 4, Nick did send us a ServPro confirmation of what the issue was. He forwarded an email to all of us on the fourth.”

The main issue revolves around what is considered ordinary maintenance of the fire department’s section of the building.

Don Reese, who has been a volunteer fireman for 53 years, pointed out that the lease places the responsibility for ordinary upkeep on the fire department.

“This is not ordinary cleanup,” Reese said. “This was a backup of a sewage system of their building. If we spilled something down there and had to clean it up, we would clean it up … this problem down there was caused by the sewage system of the building. It wasn’t the fault of the fire company … it is the township’s responsibility to clean up their mess. It is not the fire company’s mess.”

It was also revealed that the damage from the sewage spill had resulted in a loss of supplies used on the ambulance.

“Again, it’s not the township’s responsibility,” Lauchle repeated.

As Lauchle remained adamant in her claim that the township was not liable for the cost of cleanup, Palmatier appealed to Artley to cast the vote allowing another company to come and inspect the damage and give an estimate of the cost, which she did, only to apparently change her mind by the next morning.

At one point during the meeting, the irreconcilable differences between the fire department and the township were brought up with the suggestion being made that the fire company just needs to buy back the building and be the sole occupant.

“Okay, give us a price. Give the fire company a price to buy back this building, because we want you out,” Palmatier told the board.

So for now everything is in limbo. The meeting to begin the cleanup, which Artley said she would have with Palmatier and a representative from a company, was canceled. The unhealthy conditions still exist, so rather than put the volunteer firefighters in a situation that is dangerous, the company is seeking a temporary location to operate from. Long term, Palmatier indicated that a decision will have to be made. A meeting of the fire company has been scheduled for next week

The question really remains, does the fire company want to spend upwards of $40,000 to mitigate a hazard in a building they do not own or would it make more sense to find another location?

Although the fire company is seeking a short-term solution, Palmetier indicated that they may be looking for a long-term change, something that would depend on what the firefighters want.

“We’re going to discuss offering to purchase the building back from the township and/or a long term, maybe moving somewhere else because if we can’t trust our landlord there’s no sense in being there,” he said.