I was sitting in the Doctor's waiting room, all prepared to camp out for another hour long wait. I did not spend much time with the newspaper this morning, but brought it with me so I could pass the time. In the MJS today is an article about the direct legislation petition which fills in some of the blanks left by the LCR article on Thursday.

The question left unanswered by the LCR article is what criteria did the petition not satisfy. I was looking around in the statues and had a couple of ideas, but then the MJS article pretty much spelled it out.

Village Attorney Mark Blum told the board that trustees could approve the petition as written, submit it to residents for an advisory referendum, or take no action if they believed it wasn't legally enforceable. Blum said the petition wasn't legally enforceable because it narrowly targets an administrative decision, and it would contradict the contract the village has with the City of Pewaukee for fire service.

I had suspected the administrative decision portion of it, but I was thinking it may have issues due to the zoning because Direct Legislation connot be used to change zoning. (Thank the maker for that!)

The fire services contract is interesting however. Unenforcible by the very contract the petition seeks to enforce. Speaking of that contract, I have obtained a copy from the City and have a PDF of the contract here. I highlighted a couple of things. A couple of key points, some working off of Jeff Knutson's comments from Tuesday.

It states that a fire station should be in the general geographic vicinity of the Village. Jeff stated that we are in breach of contract because we do not have a station in the Village. Well, that language is pretty vague. Did you know that fire station No 1 is less than 1 mile from the border with Village? To some, less than 1 mile is general geographic vicinity.

The contract also states that the City intents to build a station in the Village, or alternately, in a location that will provide adequate response time to areas within the Village. There was no definition of adequate response time. If I could get from fire station No 1 to Pick 'n Save on Ryan St in 5 minutes, is that adequate? I don't know that I could do that in the car, but I have to wonder about a 40 ton ladder truck with lights and siren.

It is acknowledged and understood by and between the parties that it is necessary for continued provision of service under this agreement that the City maintain a station at 119 Hickory St., Pewaukee Wisconsin, or within or near the Village of Pewaukee. Again vague with that near.

The terms of the lease of the 119 Hickory St station are month to month with a 60 written notice required for termination. However the entire agreement requires 18 months notice and is automatically renewed every 5 years. Now did the City break the terms of the lease by not using the station and notifying the Village after the fact? I do not know, but in that case, I would think the City owes the Village 2 months rent. Are the response times adequate? That depends on who you ask, I am sure. It would be helpful to have some solid data on the subject. I hope to have some in the future. Are the Village response times any slower than a response time to Glacier Rd or Linsay Rd? On average, probably not.

Clink told me that we stopped using the station because the the Village did not maintain it properly. There is nothing in the contract that specifically states a level of building maintenance. There is the following: The Village hall assure that the City will have continue use of the leased premises .... by assuring that the necessary Village authorized permits, approvals, access and ingress and egress shall be provided to the City. What the building unsafe? Was an occupancy permit withdrawn? Unless the Village did not provide the requirements, the City violated the lease requirement of 60 days notice. Still I say we may owe the Village 2 months rent.

Oh, and I was in and out of the Doctor's office in 20 minutes. You just cannot plan these things.