Round 2
Orono says "goodbye" to its fire department. Plus, a former Council Member makes a diagnosis.
Orono Fire Department Goes Kicking and Screaming
In a meeting that had already crept passed the four hour mark, the Orono City Council discussed how to undo their fire department. Staff members started interrupting speakers and even jumping up to the lectern to try to shout over them. One council member had to ask the Orono Chief to stop interrupting the speaker, only to then do the very same thing a few seconds later. Although it could be argued that it was tame compared to some of the Orono meetings in the past, it's still shocking to see staff members engage in that kind of behavior.
The only ones that didn't like the plan were those who got a paycheck from the Orono Fire Department and wouldn't have a spot in the paid-on-call model that Long Lake has. Towards the end of the discussion, the Long Lake Fire Chief pointed out something I have been saying for a while now: having a full-time duty crew for around 500 calls per year is not good service. It's simply a waste of money and resources. Orono latched onto the idea of a duty crew model in order to offset the fact that they wouldn't have enough stations to adequately cover their territory. As a result, their response times actually increased - and costs went through the roof.
The problem that Orono is now having to deal with is all too familiar. Decisions were made by the previous Council that really were not in the best interests of the physical or financial safety of the community. In creating it's own fire department, some on the Council tried to bamboozle the residents by claiming it would somehow be a better financial decision - it didn't take long to see they were painfully wrong. All of those that pushed for a municipal fire department were voted out or resigned, but the damage had been done. That damage was not only the massive increases in spending, but also the reputation of the city, and the relationships with its neighbors.
A lawsuit from the City of Long Lake tried to calm some of the madness, but that didn't stop Orono - and they were held in contempt of court twice for trying to take Long Lake firefighters and assets.
It only showed signs of stopping once the voters took over. After all the proponents of a municipal fire department were voted out, the last remaining hold-out resigned. Some political maneuvering allowed the outgoing Mayor to install a loyalist, but the new Council decided to hold a special election to fill that seat, anyway. As a result, the former Mayor has sued his own city in an attempt to stop the special election, but so far has lost. That case is currently with the Minnesota Supreme Court and will hear oral arguments on May 6th.
With the new Council, the community breathed a sigh of relief. Long Lake put a pause on it's lawsuit, and the two cities immediately began negotiations of how to repair the damage. On Monday, a big step was taken in the effort to right the ship. A plan to merge the two departments into Long Lake has been accepted.
Less than a year after the Orono Fire Department started, it's now gone.
The lesson here is that it is not impossible, and it's also not easy. The new Council has had to take a lot of heat - even from those who supported them - because there is no longer a less-expensive option available to them. No matter what they do, they're adding more taxpayer expense to an already expensive mistake in order to clean up the mess. The new Mayor of Orono is hopeful that, in the end, it's going to put Orono in a better financial position while improving safety, but any savings that would happen are likely to be minimal. During his campaign, he stated that it wasn't going to be as easy as flipping a switch back to contracted service - and he was right.
The reality is that once you buy the equipment and the station and the trucks and the staff... you don't get a refund when you realize it was a bad idea. There are no take backs. That money is gone - it's a sunken cost - and the overwhelming temptation is to continue down the wrong path just to avoid the sting of admitting that it was a very expensive mistake. It took a ton of courage for residents and the new Council in Orono to actually fix the problem. There was even the extra sting of having to sell equipment to get the funds in order to pay Long Lake's legal fees and end the lawsuit. The proponents of a municipally owned fire department sunk their teeth into these issues, suddenly caring about costs.
When that time comes for Otsego - hopefully sooner, rather than later - I believe residents will also have the same courage that Orono did, and then we'll be able to fix this mistake.
This week
City Council Meeting
The video from this meeting has received over 1,200 views in 2 days. That's almost twice as much as any other Council meeting still available online.
For the second Council Meeting in a row, a former Council Member has taken to the lectern during open forum to try to criticize and mock me. Former Council Member Moores decided that it would be a good idea to pretend that I have mental health issues, and that this is the reason I don't agree with her... it has nothing to do with the facts or the evidence... I'm just mentally not capable of seeing how right she is.
What is she right about? It's difficult to say, because she struggled to articulate what the issue was. Apparently, she took offense to my most recent newsletter and "that building," which - it's safe to assume - was the Old Town Hall that I wrote about. Perhaps even referring to it as the Old Town Hall is too traumatic for some.
To summarize: the issue with the Old Town Hall is that we're not allowed to talk about it. We recognize it's a city asset and it's slowly deteriorating to the point where we are looking at long-term financial issues if we don't do something about it. We are kicking the can down the road to ensure that a future Council will be saddled with the only option of bulldozing the building. It's been suggested before, and our Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) has quietly put a stop to it. But that's where it's been for years, now: a stalemate.
So when I published my newsletter on the issue because it has been a topic of discussion at the recent HPC meetings, she claimed it was "almost like a false accusation." What was? No clue. She didn't say.
Former Council Member Moores then did something that I have seen far too many times; it's a pet peeve of mine and it's really unprofessional when elected officials do it: she immediately threw staff under the bus. City staff are there to carry out the orders of the majority of the City Council and operate the city. They are not there to support or undermine any particular position of a Council Member. They aren't there to be our shields or our punching bags. We are each responsible for our decisions as Council Members, not the staff.
Yet time and time again, whenever a question is asked or I take a position that is not in line with the status quo - the first thing my colleagues do is throw staff in front of it. It's not only unfair to them, it also puts them in an impossible situation and it misleads the public. In this case, it implied that our streets manager was responsible for the condition of the building - but it's the Council who has repeatedly made the decision to let the building deteriorate and not put any plan in place to deal with the historic site.
After that, former Council Member Moores claimed that I had no solution, which she knows is total nonsense. During those budget discussions I have repeatedly said that we need to know what the budget impact is - a report has been eluded to on what the costs are to protect the building from further deterioration and what it would cost to make it publicly accessible. But that's as far as those conversations have ever gone. My suggestion - which was not accepted - was to review those costs and plan for them so that we aren't backing ourselves into a liability trap in the future. It's not difficult to plan for a repair over the next 5 or 10 years as long as we know what's coming. However, the status quo has been: as long as we don't look at it, it can't hurt us.
Over and over again, it's just been repeated that it's cost prohibitive - but that's a conclusion, not a fact. No one has even been able to give me a number for me to even make a decision - it's a topic that we just don't discuss. And that was kind of the point of the article: the HPC has been rebuffed so many times that they don't even bring it up, anymore. I don't blame them - but the stalemate has to end.
The nonsense often gets to the point where I am told that I am not allowed to hold any position that would see us potentially spending money to figure out how much money we would need to protect city assets because I am opposed to the reckless and unnecessary spending on a municipal fire department. It's an argument that is laughable on its face. The same argument was made during the budget discussions, and I jokingly made the comment that we're going to have to hold a bake sale. "That's going to be a lot of pies." Ok, how many...
What former Council Member Moores still doesn't realize is that she completely substantiated my argument for me. Though much of her comments were incoherent, she let it slip that it's "not fiscally responsible" to spend money on a building that we're just going to get rid of anyway.
Oh really? Is that the decision that we have somehow made? Where is that documented? I bet we have neglected to tell the HPC that we're going to bulldoze the building. And - perhaps more importantly - where are the funds that have been set aside in order to handle the demolition of this historic building? It's not difficult to see why she couldn't make a logically consistent argument, and why this has become such an emotional issue: by simply asking the question, it has put a spotlight on the failure of the Council to perform any due diligence.
Rather than own up to that negligence, the professional, mature, and productive thing to do is... toss out baseless slurs about mental health. I made a faux pas, because we're just not supposed to talk about it, so I have it coming, I guess. I've been screamed at and called all sorts of names before - mostly by people who can't articulate why we need our own fire department - but this was a new one. Had it ended at the public comment portion of the meeting, it would have been just another former Council Member trying to make a point and failing to connect any meaningful dots.
But it didn't end there.
Former Council Member Moores took to Facebook to make matters much, much worse. While residents were commenting that her statements on the record could be considered defamation and put her in a difficult position, she made the conscious decision to exclaim that she was, in fact, a mental health nurse and that I showed signs of a mental illness...
First, in case it's not obvious, former Council Member Moores has never conducted an exam or a consultation for me - and even if she had, I would never have allowed her to discuss any ailments or conditions that I may or may not have. Second, using mental health issues as a slur sort of undermines the whole nursing thing... she tried to couch it in "care and concern" for me and my wife but at that point I had already heard enough. After those social media comments, I filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Health to review her actions for unethical behavior and professional misconduct.
Public Safety Commission Special Meeting
The Public Safety Commission met on Tuesday for a special meeting. This meeting took place because the regular meeting had to be rescheduled due to a conflict. This meant that the Public Safety Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission meetings overlapped, to some degree. As a result, I was only able to attend the last half of the Parks and Rec meeting.
Public Safety Commissioners held their annual election of officers, and then heard a brief update from Allina Ambulance. Following that, the Wright County Sheriff's Office provided an update on recent events. The WCSO will start using bodycams around the end of May. Commissioners then took a tour of one of the new fire trucks.
Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
The Parks and Recreation Commission met on Tuesday to discuss two main items: a plan for the Lily Pond Park renovation, and the Highlands of River Pointe natural resources management plan developed by the Friends of the Mississippi River.
The July meeting for the Parks and Rec Commission will be held at the Lily Pond Park for a community engagement session. This will be to gather feedback on some initial designs and see what the neighborhood would like in the park.
Next Week
Planning Commission Meeting
The Planning Commission will meet on Monday at 7pm at Prairie Center. In addition to the annual election of officers, there are four items on the agenda, all public hearing items:
Amber Meadows (172 lots east of Martin Farms) - PUD and Preliminary Plat
Zachman Meadows - Environmental Assessment
Linco-Praught Property - Zoning Map Amendment and Preliminary Plat
Zoning Ordinance Amendment - M1 / Mixed Use District
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization (LBOAE)
The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization will meet on Tuesday at 6pm at Prairie Center. The Local Board for Otsego is made up of the members of the City Council. As of the time of this writing, there are no scheduled appointments. Residents that may have already agreed to a reduction with the County Assessor will be included in a list that will be considered by the Board at the meeting. Additionally, any residents that walk in or schedule an appointment prior to the meeting will be added.
Please keep in mind that since there are no appointments currently scheduled, the meeting may only be a few minutes long. If you would like to be heard on your property valuation, I strongly recommend that you contact the Wright County Assessor on Monday or Tuesday at the latest.