Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marathon County amends code to require local consultation on fire, policing costs for events
Summary
The Marathon County Board amended sections of its General Code (Ordinance 0-5-25) to add fire-protection language and require organizers to consult local units of government about police and fire cost coverage, an amendment driven by a town chair's concerns.
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Marathon County Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the Marathon County General Code of Ordinances (Ordinance 0-5-25) to add provisions addressing fire protection and to require event organizers to consult with local units of government on police and fire cost coverage as part of the permit process.
Supervisor Yi Ling Zhang moved the ordinance and Supervisor Jean Mask seconded. Supervisor Robinson explained the amendment in the meeting packet grew out of concerns raised by Dean Beck, town chairman from the town of Easton, regarding "local input in covering of police and fire costs associated with it," and said he believes Beck "is in support of it as amended." The amendment was entered into the record; the amendment vote "carried, but it's not unanimous," and the board subsequently voted to adopt Ordinance 0-5-25 as amended. The chair characterized both votes as carried but not unanimous.
The amendment places explicit requirements in the permit process for organizers to consult with, and consider input from, local units of government on matters of police and fire protection costs. The motion to amend was entered per the draft in the meeting packet (noted to appear on page 4 and page 6 of the draft). The transcript records no additional detail on enforcement mechanisms, fee schedules or specific cost-sharing formulas; those elements were not specified in the spoken record.
Supervisor Robinson, who presented the packet amendment, said a local official from Easton raised the concern and that the change was shared with that official. The county’s corporation counsel, Michael Pierner, was referenced as available to explain legal details but did not speak in the recorded excerpt.
The ordinance amendment and the final ordinance vote were recorded by the chair as passed but not unanimously; precise roll-call tallies were not stated in the transcript.

