Public Fire Protection Charges...

I received information from a Germantown resident who has asked that I not use the person's name.  I will certainly honor that request.  Both name and telephone number were provided.  This is not a trustee, by the way.

The Public Fire Protection charge is where the cost of infrastructure/water system capacity to enable fire fighting to occur is assessed to the citizenry.  It is also sometimes called a 'hydrant rental charge' according to my source.

This cost has been carried as part of the property tax in Germantown for many years.  It is part of the Fire Department budget.  The reason that it is on the property tax roles is so that people who are not on the municipal water system, and who, therefore, don't pay for the costs of that system are fairly charged for the fire protection they receive.

Germantown currently has a 2009 budget deficit of something in the range of $900,000.  Trustees are wrestling with how and where to find the means to cover this shortfall.  I am told that some discussion has been had that would see this hydrant rental charge removed from the fire department budget thus freeing up about $491,000 of expense to the General Fund and shifting it to the water utility alone.

This would make it easy to avoid a "tax increase" or cutbacks even while nearly another half-million dollars was made available to cover wants and needs. 

My source has indicated that there are some 5,825 water utility customers each of whom would see an average annual increase of $84 in their water bills.

This would also mean that those citizens not using the water utility for water but still being afforded fire protection would, in essence, not be paying a fair share of fire protection costs.  The fire department tankers are filled from hydrants in order that fires outside the water utility coverage area can still be fought.  The supply capacity must still be made available, etc.

Citizens must speak their mind on this subject but that is difficult since virtually no one is aware that this approach is being considered as a solution to part of the shortfall.

This would obviously not be a real solution.  Nothing would be cut from the budget to remove the shortfall.  We'd simply be playing a bit of a 'shell game' by transferring money from one pocket to another and adversely impacting the residents who live within the water utility's system reach.

I don't believe this is a good public policy approach.  The hydrant rental costs have been quite properly spread across all users and should continue to be managed in that manner in my opinion.

We have already been tapping surplus that has been accumulated in certain funds in order to have some money available for known future needs as well as emergency needs that might develop.  That 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' approach has already caused some future issues that are not yet fully understood.  Someday we'll be paying that bill and we'll be scratching to cover the needs.

Garbage Costs To Become Fees?

Another discussion topic is that of removing garbage pick-up costs from the village budget and making those costs into fees that would be assessed separately on the tax bill.

This is not necessarily a bad idea on the surface if everything is made known to the residents and if the change is done in a fair and equitable manner.

One such thought would be to move to a bi-weekly pick-up of recyclables such as was recently done in Menomonee Falls.  I understand that some trustees are exploring that idea and gathering knowledge so that they will be able to propose a reasonable package if anything does come forward.

Sendik's...

My first visit this morning was fantastic.  These folks know how to do markets!  Every employee had a ready smile, each was willing to be helpful and created a great experience.  Prices seemed to be very competitive.  Food appearance was superb; selection seemed wonderful; ambiance was excellent...who could ask for anything more (great title for a song, huh)?

If this holds true after they've been open for a month or two, and other locations indicate that to be the case, we've got ourselves a real jewel!  Business seemed to be very strong with few parking spaces available.  However, all went very smoothly inside.  And, samples abound!

MIA?

Our fire chief has been under fire (no pun intended) for some time.  He has been the subject of a remedial program that was cause for his 'cost of living' increase being withheld.  To my knowledge, that money still has not been paid.

There have been repeated rumors that he is not always on duty when he claims to be on duty, as well.  He is required to log in and to log out through the central dispatch system when he comes on duty and when he goes off duty throughout the course of every day on which he is scheduled to work.  I happened to drive west on Willow Creek road on September 3rd and noted that the chief's vehicle was parked in the driveway of his home at precisely 11:00AM.  Another source confirmed that the chief was shown as being at the Waste Management facility during that time period.  I thought it strange that he wouldn't be driving his assigned vehicle.  This morning I learned that he apparently was not at Waste Management since another person was looking for him at the same time and was at that location.  That person, I'm told, was Don Otter, the chair of the Police and Fire Commission.

If this is true, and I believe it to be based on my sources, there ought to be some form of action taken.  I am led to believe this happens with some regularity.

Why A Temporary Committee Appointment?

The General Government and Finance Committee met last evening to deal with budget issues.  Three of the four members were present thus constituting a quorum.  The fourth member, Trustee Langer arrived about an hour after the meeting had been convened.

Why did the Committee Chair, Art Zabel, feel it necessary to appoint another trustee, Mel Ewert, to sit in Langer's place?  Code section 2.09 authorizes such an appointment if a quorum is not present however that was not the case last evening.

Karthauser Greenhouse Construction...

I received an email asking what was being built in front of the Karthauser Greenhouse complex along Hwy 145.  I hadn't noticed this and asked Trustee Al Vanderheiden if he could shed light on this for the reader and me.

He responded that it was a berm.  A contractor involved in a DOT project was apparently looking for a site where dirt could be disposed of and thought to ask this firm if it would like a berm.  Unfortunately, apparently nothing was discussed with the Village Planning Commission and a halt has been called until that can be accomplished according to Vanderheiden.

Special Committee of the Whole Meeting Wednesday...

A Committee of the Whole meeting has been called for this coming Wednesday evening and will be conducted behind closed doors.  The indications are that this meeting has been called to review several personnel situations.  Fire Chief Gary Pollpeter's performance is to be discussed as well as that of Village Administrator Dave Schornack.  The inclusion of Mr. Schornack is a bit of a surprise from my perspective.  Chief Pollpeter has come under criticism from Trustee Jim Langer as has been reported.

In terms of unofficial 'buzz', I had thought that Mr. Schornack had been felt to be performing well based on comments, Board meetings, etc.  He had been tasked with a plan of action aimed at curing issues the Board seemed to feel were apparent with the Fire Chief.  I don't know if the two discussions each involve the other or not.

A third agenda item is said to be a discussion of the search for a new Public Works department head. 

No action is able to be taken in such meetings, so it is likely some time will pass before we begin to discern what has taken place and on what, if anything, action will be taken.

There can certainly be intrigue and infighting even at the village level.  Although few will ever admit this.

There are apparently some rules regarding the conduct of exit interviews when an employee (or volunteer in the case of firefighters/EMTs) leaves the position.  Those don't always occur and, in some cases, could become an adversarial encounter depending upon circumstances involved.

Trustee Jim Langer has, I think, an excellent idea and that is requiring exit interviews and requiring that those be done by the human resource director.

I'd hope for there to be some caveats included:

The exit interview would be recorded (audio at least) from start to finish and the tapes would become public records.  The interviews would follow an agreed upon routine with all interview guidelines and questions published as part of the village policy statement concerning employment or volunteer positions such as those in the fire department.  The person being interviewed would have the right to be represented by counsel by providing notice prior to the hearing to that effect.  These new policies and procedures would supersede any and all existing policies and procedures.

All people who leave an organization leave for at least one reason and often more than one reason.  Those retiring may elect to retire early for some reason.  Those being terminated should have the opportunity to state their opinions and vent their grievances.  Those who have found a better job may be able to offer ideas or thoughts that will be helpful to the village in the future.

Exit interviews can be rewarding to both parties, one party or neither party.  That is simply the way it is.  But, there is a certain check and balance process that is triggered through exit interviews.  If, for example, one department loses three people in short order and if each has similar complaints that they claim led to their decision to leave, some initial conclusions might be drawn.  Leaders might conclude that there is a need to counsel the department head or to review compensation tables or any of a number of other things.

Exit interviews should be done by a person as disinterested as possible since the immediate superior may be the reason for the departure.  The recordings will, ideally, establish the full story of the departing person.  That story may be simple 'sour grapes', or it may point to very real issues needing resolution.  The weight of multiple departures with the same 'sour grapes' reason(s) claimed as part of the cause should serve to point to a possible problem even though it sounds like 'sour grapes'. 

Our village relies on relatively few people to make it work.  The loss of a key person can be problematic.  The loss of several people at the lower rungs can be problematic.  The loss of volunteers can be problematic.  The loss of anyone should give leadership the reason to pause and reflect.  Was there some underlying issue that could've caused the loss to be avoided?  If pay scales are the issue, then there may be a need to review that structure if we expect to be able to continue to attract solid performers.  If management styles are the issue, then village leaders need to reflect on those and make adjustments to avoid that becoming a continuing issue.  Managers can be 'in the dark' about their personal management styles, and exit interviews can help focus their own attention on personal shortcomings.

There is, inherently, relatively lower turn-over in villages and cities than in the private sector workplace.  Once one is employed by the Village of Germantown, for example, there is a clear set of expectations, there is a decent income, there are good benefit programs, there is stability of employment, and there is a decent working environment.  Turn-over rates of 15% to 20% are not at all unusual in the private sector, and yet those rates are unheard of in the public sector where 5% to 7% or even less might be closer to the norm.

We all want Germantown to be a good place in which to live and work, and we cannot reach and maintain that 'nirvana' unless those who help keep everything working as we expect also see Germantown as being a good place to live and work.

Exit interviews such as described above will certainly help us get to and stay at that point.

President Kempinski has made his committee assignments for the coming year and the Board has approved those assignments.

Notable, and laudable, is the fact that Trustee Langer is no longer Chair of the Public Safety Committee and does not sit on that committee any longer.  Given Trustee Langer's former role as a POC firefighter for the Germantown department, this removes any appearance that might have suggested a personal agenda present in decisions made on that committee.

President Kempinski is to be thanked for this action to assure good governance and to reassure the community at large that local affairs will be decided without obvious biases. 

The new Chairman is Trustee Dean Wolter and the committee has a new member in the person of Trustee Jeff Werderman, newly elected as a trustee.

This committee deals with serious issues that affect our public safety: the police and fire departments and public safety in general.  These are among the most visible services provided by Germantown for its citizens, and are certainly among those services that impact life itself more than most other village functions.  Our firefighters and EMTs and our police officers are, in my opinion, doing a great job.  If there are ways in which the two departments might be improved, Trustee Wolter will likely work in those directions.  His service to this point has been very solid and there is no reason to believe that will change during this term in office.

Again, thanks to President Kempinski for this decision.