Eric Tadsen
Deputy Chief Brad Ingersoll (in white) of the 115th Fire and Emergency Service unit in 2018.
The Air National Guard currently provides firefighting services at Truax Field and the Dane County Regional Airport.
Some Dane County supervisors want stronger restrictions on the use and cleanup of PFAS at Truax Field in a pending contract with the Air National Guard. But in a Dec. 18 letter obtained by Isthmus, they say county staff have been lobbying supervisors to approve a contract preferred by the military rather than negotiating for the modifications supervisors requested.
In a Dec. 1 letter to airport and county staff, five supervisors originally requested modifications to a proposed joint use agreement, which details how the Air National Guard and Dane County share space and responsibilities at the airport. They asked for the agreement to require the military to use PFAS-free firefighting foam and establish more legal protection for the county from cleanup costs due to future PFAS contamination. But in their follow-up letter, those five supervisors say county staffers never took steps to try to secure those terms, instead collaborating with the Air National Guard to persuade the board to approve the military’s preferred language.
“County board attorneys are conferring with an opposing party in negotiations to formulate talking points to lobby the county board,” wrote the supervisors in the Dec. 18 letter, citing emails between key county staffers and the Air National Guard that they had requested in their earlier letter. “Taking a collaborative approach to negotiations rather than being adversarial is important to mutually beneficial results. But it is clear that county staff did not make firm requests of the Air National Guard…. No negotiations occurred.”
Supv. Yogesh Chawla, who signed both letters, tells Isthmus the emails between staffers and the Air National Guard “show coordination with parties we are negotiating with.” He says staff are “treating this as a political issue to respond to with talking points rather than a public health issue to respond to with policy changes and contract improvements.”
Airport spokesman Michael Riechers says that “As with all contract negotiations, every attempt was made to create the most favorable contract terms for the airport, the county, and its residents.”
The county’s personnel and finance committee will consider the agreement Dec. 18 before the full board makes its decision Dec. 21, unless the item is postponed. The other supervisors who signed the Dec. 1 and Dec. 18 letters are Heidi Wegleitner, Sarah Smith, Jacob Wright and Michele Ritt.
“Over the past few weeks, many inconsistent statements from staff have added to the uncertainty around the content and impact of the [Airport Joint Use Agreement],” reads the supervisors’ follow-up letter of Dec. 18. “As Dane County staff and the Air National Guard developed this AJUA behind the scenes and only brought it to the county board in recent weeks, contradictory comments and a lack of transparent information generated further concerns from supervisors and constituents alike.”
The Dane County corporation counsel referred requests for comment to airport staff.
As the agreement was waiting to be considered by the county’s environment and natural resources committee, which Chawla chairs, email records show airport and county staff collaborated with the Air National Guard on a message to present to committee members.
Airport director Kim Jones asked Air National Guard Lt. Col. Michael Dunlap through a deputy if he could be present at the Nov. 9 meeting to answer questions from the committee. “I’m available. I also plan to make up some quick bullet points for you to have if you’d like,” replied Lt. Col. Dunlap.
“We’ve also prepared some bullet points, so we could certainly compare those to what you put together,” responded Adam Ussher, assistant corporation counsel for the airport.
“Can you send me your bullet points? I don’t want to recreate the wheel,” replied Lt. Col. Dunlap.
The two parties then exchanged notes ahead of the meeting, but committee supervisors voted 3-2 to recommend the full board deny the agreement. After that vote, county and airport staff contacted Dunlap again.
“Without everyone’s support we would not be able to respond and handle the questions as well,” Jones told Dunlap in a Nov. 10 email in which Ussher and Dane County assistant corporation counsel Amy Tutweiler were copied.
The next Monday, Nov. 13, Tutweiler asked Dunlap for more support.
“Kim[berly Jones] will be talking to the county board chair. She is hearing that the risk of the AJUA not passing may be higher than anticipated,” wrote Tutweiler. “Have you been able to identify other communities that refused to sign and what effects that’s having for them? Also, would it be possible to get a letter making clear that the negotiated agreement is the best deal the County can get with reasons why?”
Tutweiler did not respond to requests for comment. A representative for the 115th Fighter Wing public affairs office was not immediately available for comment.
The five supervisors say the collaboration between county staff and the Air National Guard is concerning.
“It does not represent the interests of elected county supervisors and the county residents they represent to have our concerns about modifications to a major 10-year contract dismissed in favor of crafting talking points with a party who we are negotiating with,” reads the supervisors’ letter. “If this is how the process works, who is the legal counsel for the county board? Who is representing the interests of the elected officials who were elected by the people of Dane County?”
Chawla’s concerns are serious enough that he wants to delay a vote on the agreement.
“We ask that, based on the emails provided in the open records request, that the resolution is postponed so that airport staff and the corporation counsel's office can re-engage the Air National Guard and Air Force in earnest on AJUA negotiations," he says.
