Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Onalaska council approves $25,000 feasibility study into shared fire services
Summary
The Onalaska Common Council voted to fund a McMahon feasibility study (not to exceed $25,000) to evaluate shared-service options between Onalaska and nearby fire departments; staff will return with specifics and potential cost-sharing arrangements.
The Onalaska Common Council voted to move forward with a feasibility study to identify opportunities for shared fire services with neighboring departments, approving funding not to exceed $25,000 and asking staff to return with implementation details.
City Administrator Rick Niemeyer and fire leadership described a narrowed scope that focuses on operational efficiencies and potential co-location, training and investigative collaborations. Rick said the study, to be conducted by McMahon, is intended to identify “what we don't know” so elected leaders can make informed choices about whether to pursue shared staffing, collocation or other measures to improve service and control costs.
Pete (a fire department official) told the council that the two departments already cooperate on investigations and training and that both departments are growing and may benefit from shared staffing strategies. “We have 4 to 6 firefighters now covering our area,” Pete said, arguing the study could reveal ways to share the cost of growth as call volumes increase.
Finance Director Sabrina explained funding options: reserving excess 2025 revenues or completing a 2026 budget amendment. Alder Steven Knott moved to approve the study with funding from 2025 excess revenues; Kathy Lowendorf seconded.
The council discussed timing and scope, including a projected 45-day start and roughly four-month completion window cited from the proposal. Councilors emphasized that approving the study does not commit the city to any structural change but provides the data needed to weigh trade-offs between cost and service levels.
The motion carried; staff will return with a detailed plan and any recommended next steps.
What’s next: staff will finalize the contract scope, coordinate with partner jurisdictions, and return to council with timelines and any recommended governance or cost-sharing options.
