The Mukwonago Chief just published an article written by Amy Nixon entitled “Citizens group seeks to save joint Fire Dept.” (3/10/10 Ed. Note: Good article by the way Amy! Please don’t take to heart Mr. Reilly pointing at you and giving you a hard time at the meeting last night. [Thanks for calling him out of order Mr. Michalek.] I think your article was pretty fair and well balanced.)
http://www.livinglakecountry.com/mukwonagochief/news/87114212.html
In reading this article, you have to ask yourself some questions. I suggest you think about the following excerpts from the article then try to answer the questions that follow the excerpts. If you don’t know the answer, then please ask whoever said these things:
CHIEF: “At Thursday's [March 4] Town Board meeting, Supervisor Joe Reilly said he was against a referendum on the issue, citing the April 1997 annual meeting in which residents voted 44 to 14 to direct the board to "review all joint departments, joint projects, cost sharing arrangements, service contracts and other agreements between the town and village or city so annexing such territory is hereby authorized to modify, suspend or terminate the same."
QUESTION: If at the April meeting of the electors a motion passes to renegotiate the agreement with Big Bend and continue the joint fire department, will your honor this motion or are you going to pick and choose which motions of the people to follow? Is the 1997 motion more valid than a 2010 motion?
MY COMMENTARY: This is a little silly, but hey, I’ll make the motion and we’ll see what happens. According the Mr. Reilly the will of the people should prevail, we’ll see if he’s a man of his word.
CHIEF: “Supervisor Bill Craig said that it will actually cost the town more if it does nothing and cited the village's intent to put in sewer, which he said will lead to big-box stores which will force a joint department to purchase costly equipment such as ladder trucks. The town would be paying for the village's growth, he explained.”
QUESTION: How do we service the Waynez World building? Isn’t that a big box? When the village develops, doesn’t that trigger a shift in the funding formula so that they pay more and more as the village develops? Long term, won’t the town costs start to shift downward?
MY COMMENTARY: I have spoken to fire fighters close to this issue and they all admit that it would be hard to justify a ladder truck for this interchange. Plus this interchange has easy access from the surrounding communities that do have ladder trucks (New Berlin, Waukesha, Mukwonago and Muskego all have ladder trucks). I’ve been told by senior fire fighters that if there was a fire of the size necessary for a ladder truck, then the situation would be addressed through mutual aid.
Mutual aid is a formalized system in the county that in essence is an agreement between departments to provide assistance to adjacent departments when there is an emergency outside of the capability of one department to handle. Have you ever heard of a “five alarm” fire? We’ll that means that besides the original fire company, four additional [local or mutual aid] fire departments are alarmed to respond. This is a real situation that we deal with now; not speculation on some distant circumstance.
The truth is that we don’t need to buy any more fire trucks if we get the “big box” that Mr. Craig is referring to. BUT, IF we do, AND we’re partnered with the village, the village has the ability to force whoever is making the impact, PAY for the impact. This is called an “impact” fee. The Town of Vernon alone does not have this power; only villages and cities do. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a partner in our fire department that has the power to have developers pay for their impacts? I want people to pay their OWN way, the best way to do that under state law is to be a village/city or be partnered with village/city. Despite their higher taxes, there are some advantages to being a village. Why don’t we remain a town and keep our way of life, but partner with the village to get the benefits for our fire department? Makes sense to me.
CHIEF: “Instead of keeping the Fire Department as is, Reilly suggested the village could contract with the town.”
[RHETORICAL] QUESTION: Maybe Mr. Craig and Mr. Reilly should talk to each other because if the Village contracts with us, don’t we have to buy that truck? Sorry, I forgot, we don’t need a truck….see above. [This is a rather snotty comment by me, but I’ve decided to leave it in only for the humor of it. Much like my comment about razing the barn just south of town hall in an earlier post….]
CHIEF: "We're trying to do what's in the best interest of the town - the town - not the village," said Reilly. "Last night [at the VRSG meeting] we heard a lot of misstatements. We are not (being) deceiving … we wouldn't do anything to hurt this town."
QUESTION: What is the plan to provide fire service to the town and how much will it cost? Shouldn’t the town board have considered the costs and impacts of not partnering with the village before this decision was made? If the costs were considered, then where is the data to prove to me that this is going to be better for our community and not hurt our community? Can you give me a plan?
MY COMMENTARY: I have never suggested that the town board is WILLFULLY not working in the best interest of the town. I DID suggest that the town board demonstrates from their actions that they do not have enough information or understanding of the complexities of this issue to make a decision that will benefit the town in the long term. I feel this decision was made in haste, in the heat of a battle of wills with the village, and without consulting the people. This was a big decision. We the citizens should have been involved. It should not have been made at 12:15am without this being specifically on the agenda.
When I read the agenda for that meeting on 12/17, I did not go to the meeting for two reasons: first, I read in the Mukwonago Chief just two days earlier that Fred Michalek was reported to have felt comfortable that an agreement had been reached with the village over the budget; second, I did not see anything on the agenda that would indicate anything other than the town board would discuss this agreement (in closed session) and then maybe suggest some changes to the ordinance that governs our joint fire department and maybe some other budget negotiation matters before meeting with the village again. I breathed a sigh of relief after quietly following this issue for four months. Here is the article I refer to:
http://www.livinglakecountry.com/mukwonagochief/news/79317052.html
This article actually says that Big Bend finally acquiesced and agreed to shift the $4,000 budget item to cover increased insurance costs instead of legal fees. Big Bend gave in and completely compromised. Read it for yourself. Yet, two days later the town board took action to not continue our agreement with the village.
CHIEF: “Craig stated that although the citizens committee insinuated that it is the Town Board who voted to split the department, it is not the town that dissolved the agreement.”
BACKGROUND (From the minutes of the meeting on 12/17):
Chairperson Michalek stated reconvening in open session to consider taking actions on those matters in discussed in Closed session including but not limited to issues regarding the Intermunicipal Agreement, “would accept a motion to give notice to the Big Bend Village Board dissolving the Town of Vernon’s participating in the Big Bend – Vernon Fire Department per the provision of the “Inter-municipal Agreement for Creation of a Joint Fire Department and a Joint Fire Board and a Joint Fire commission between the Village of Big Bend and the Town of Vernon”.
MOTION Supervisor Reilly moved to give notice as stated by Chairperson Michalek, seconded by Supervisor Bird.
QUESTION: Did the town board’s action (or maybe inaction) cause the joint fire department dissolution provision to come into play?
MY COMMENTARY: In all things said by a member of town board recently, stating that they did not take action to dissolve the fire department is the MOST disingenuous. Nearing the deadline of 12/15, the village was willing to agree to pretty much anything to avoid the provision in the ordinance that calls for the dissolution of the joint fire department (see above), including removing the $4,000 in attorney fees from the budget. The board spent about four hours in closed session contemplating their action (or inaction, I guess) to break away from the village. Is this really about a $4,000 budget item? I think I’ve proven not.
Ask your town board why they think putting $4,000 for attorney fees in the Fire Department Budget is a bad idea when they spent $110,939.70 in attorney fees in 2009? (Don’t blame this on Paff, he was only there for three of those months.)
Anyway, my fingers are getting really tired of writing these things over and over again. But this is my only platform. At town board meetings I only get 3 minutes to state my case in public comments; I try to remain calm and respectful. The town board can respond however, whenever they like, can take all the time they like, then they can play the tape of the meeting over and over again. I don’t have the power to get the message out like they do. They can pretty much say whatever they want with no consequences and then put it on TV and hammer the point home over and over again. It’s an uphill battle for me and others that see the benefits of partnering with the village.
Any of you out there that read this, please call me if you want more information. I’d be happy to sit down with you and lay out the details, provide facts and figures, and help you become informed. Please call me at 262-662-9745. I’d be happy to back up anything I’ve said AND I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong. Is the town board willing to do the same?
Oh and by the way, all of the quotes from the town board above were made under an agenda item from the March 4th Town Board Meeting that reads:
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS. The following individuals will be given the opportunity to make announcements at the meeting in regards to activities they have undertaken since the last meeting on behalf of the Town, future activities and citizen contacts. It is not contemplated that these matters will be discussed or acted on but referrals to the appropriate committees and/or individuals will be made.This is a violation of the open meetings law. I’m not suggesting they should not respond, just put it on the agenda next time.
Town Board, Town Clerk, Town Treasurer, Department of Public Works Director and Building Inspector.
But who I am to say so, I used the some logos without permission.
Posts
