Waunakee trustees press for statutory fire commission as talks with towns stall

Trustees for the Village of Waunakee on Monday outlined steps they have taken to implement recommendations from a 2024 McMahon Associates fire study and said state law requires formation of a statutory fire commission for districts serving larger municipalities.

The presentation by village staff and board representatives summarized the district’s operating agreement (last updated in July 2012), the McMahon report’s recommendation that the operating agreement be updated “immediately” to include a fire commission that appoints the chief, and recent local actions including a December ordinance by the village to require a fire commission and a December fire board vote to keep the existing operating agreement in place while a commission is created (a 3–2 vote, with the two village board members voting no).

Why it matters: The village’s presenters said Waunakee now funds about 71% of the joint fire district based on equalized value and that the current operating agreement limits the village’s ability to act quickly on unbudgeted needs, personnel oversight and capital projects. The McMahon report recommended a commission and ultimately a transition to a full-time chief after governance changes are made.

What trustees told the public: Trustee Robert (village representative on the fire board) said the district formed in 1933 and that when the operating agreement was drafted the funding and voting balance looked different. He told residents the village has repeatedly tried to negotiate changes with the three towns in the district (Westport, Springfield and Vienna) but that progress has been slow, producing “real uncertainty” for the district.

Village staff explained statutory context. A presenter summarized the relevant language in state law noting that villages with populations of 5,500 or more have an obligation to provide fire protection services and that a joint department that meets certain criteria must have a joint board of fire commissioners; the presenter emphasized, “It says shall, it doesn’t say may.”

Trustees discussed options, not final decisions. Those options included continuing to press the towns to amend the operating agreement to create the statutory commission; granting the village board and its fire-board representatives more delegated authority for limited, time-sensitive expenditures; contracting to provide fire protection services to the towns if the district were to dissolve; or beginning the formal withdrawal process from the district (trustees said withdrawal requires a minimum notice period that effectively makes any exit an 18-month-plus process tied to fiscal-year timing).

Trustees and staff stressed limits of the village’s authority under the current agreement: the district owns assets and, under the operating agreement, the village’s representatives have oversight of only the district’s single employee (the fire inspector) and not the membership of volunteer firefighters. Presenters noted that donated property and equipment are district property, not owned by the volunteer membership.

Public comment and reaction: David Boettcher, Waunakee’s representative on the Dane County Board, thanked trustees and urged clear public explanation of statutory limits; he told the board that sometimes residents interpret constrained choices as the village simply refusing to act. Several trustees and village representatives affirmed support for continuing volunteer firefighting and repeatedly said their goal is compliance with state law while maintaining and honoring the volunteer service legacy.

Next steps trustees discussed: (1) directing staff to pursue technical and legal work (trustees emphasized the fire district needs independent legal counsel to avoid conflicts); (2) pursuing facility improvements identified in the McMahon report (for example, a ventilation upgrade for apparatus bays); (3) exploring limited delegation of expenditure authority to village fire-board representatives so urgent needs can be addressed more quickly; and (4) continuing negotiations with the towns while preparing contingency plans, including contracting options and the formal withdrawal timeline if an agreement cannot be reached.

Trustees repeatedly framed the proposals as steps to improve oversight, planning, training and equipment acquisition while preserving volunteer service where feasible. No final policy decision to withdraw or to create a village-run department was taken at the meeting; trustees asked staff to bring additional detail and legal options back for later meetings.