[0:02] with roll call. >> Blackwell

[0:04] » present. >> Ashcraft

[0:06] » present. >> Lantry

[0:09] » present. >> Yosi present.

[0:11] » Thank you. Item two on the agenda, joint discussion with city council and Eldrich

[0:16] Volunteer Fire Company, EVFC, regarding future fire protection services. First

[0:23] of all, I want to thank the leadership team of the El Volunteer Fire Department

[0:27] for their attendance tonight along with their attorney But before we delve into

[0:31] that discussion, um I feel it's important to share with the public how

[0:35] we got from August 17 until tonight because a lot has transpired in those

[0:40] several weeks. When we were all together last,

[0:46] it was left that at the recommendation of Councilman Yosi that we would try to

[0:50] schedule a joint meeting between the county, the city council, and the fire

[0:55] department to try and develop a path forward and get all three entities on

[0:59] the same page. In the days after that meeting, I did a

[1:04] lot of thinking and talked to several people.

[1:07] And after those discussions, I made the decision to schedule a committee of the

[1:11] whole meeting where the county, city, and fire department would all be

[1:16] represented. My reasoning was that every council member needed to hear what

[1:20] everybody had to say, and they should all have a voice at the table. It's the

[1:26] same message that was delivered to the fire department last April when we told

[1:29] them in meetings that going forward we should include the entire council.

[1:35] I then had a lengthy phone call with assistant fire chief Dave Angler and

[1:39] broached the idea of a committee of the whole meeting with him. He was on board

[1:44] with the exception that he didn't want the county involved at this time. He

[1:49] thought their involvement was premature and that the city and fire department

[1:54] needed discussions first. I listened and told him that I would tell the county

[1:59] they would not be needed at that meeting.

[2:03] Also during that week, it became very clear to me that council Dr. Ree and I

[2:10] need to clear the air, especially after I made the public comment that I

[2:15] perceived he had a competitive interest with the fire department.

[2:20] It should be noted for the record that Brian and I had been friends for almost

[2:25] 35 years. We were neighbors. Our young daughters were best friends growing up.

[2:31] We served on the fire department together and often on calls during the

[2:36] middle of the night, Brian would stop by and pick me up and we would ride to the

[2:40] station together. Over the years, I had been supportive of

[2:46] his time on the city council and in my role as editor of the North Gap Press, I

[2:51] wrote several editorials endorsing him and we saw eye to eye on many things.

[2:59] There is no doubt that Brian brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to

[3:03] the council and as he finally says, he speaks his mind.

[3:09] On the website, he encouraged me to run for city council two years ago and was

[3:15] supportive last fall when I told him I was asked to run for mayor.

[3:20] Lately, we have gotten a bit sideways and we both knew that that needed to

[3:26] change. Brian and I met on Saturday, August 27th

[3:32] or 22nd in a two and a half hour meeting that started in the afternoon and went

[3:38] well into the evening. I was able to outline the various

[3:43] reasons why I and others perceived that he had a conflict of interest when it

[3:48] came to the fire department. and he meant no words in telling me his

[3:54] perceptions concerning my role as mayor and more importantly my leadership.

[4:01] It is no exaggeration when I say that it was brutally honest as it needed to be.

[4:09] We cleared the air on numerous topics and not just fire department. We both

[4:14] listened, processed, and were reflective.

[4:19] Did we agree on everything? No. But we were respectful of each other's opinions

[4:25] and agreed to try and see things through each other's lenses.

[4:30] I feel and I think Brian would agree that he and I are in a much better place

[4:36] tonight. At the end of that meeting, we agreed

[4:41] that he and I needed to try and solve this issue with the fire department

[4:44] together and more importantly, in his words, heal the division, however big or

[4:49] small it may be, in our community. I share with him the plan to schedule a

[4:56] committee the whole meeting without the county, and Brian was supportive.

[5:01] I also shared that it might be beneficial for him and I to meet with

[5:04] Assistant Chief Angler and firefighter Andrew Doyle to talk details about

[5:09] moving forward with the committee as a whole.

[5:13] Brian said he would go to the fire station the next morning and make it

[5:16] happen. He did. That meeting was set for 5:00 p.m. on Monday, August 24th, one

[5:22] week after our last council meeting. That meeting with the four of us lasted

[5:28] about 30 minutes. I talked about trust. I said that I'd

[5:32] known Dave Angler for probably close to 30 years and that I trusted him more

[5:37] than anybody else on the fire department.

[5:41] I told Andrew that I had only had brief interactions with him in our meetings

[5:46] last March and April. I said that he had never given me a reason to not trust

[5:50] him, so I had to trust him. I outlined a plan to prepare for

[5:56] tonight's meeting. I proposed that both the city and fire department develop

[6:01] written plans on how we could move forward. My only stipulation was that

[6:06] both entities needed to present plans with the end result being that the fire

[6:11] department would eventually transition to a municipal department much like they

[6:15] asked for in May of 2025. And whether that transition would be

[6:20] now, 6 months from now, 18 months from now, that had to be our end goal.

[6:27] that we all agreed on. We also agreed that in the meantime, the fire

[6:32] department would not reach out to individual council members because it

[6:35] was important for all council members to hear the exact same thing at tonight's

[6:40] meeting. Over the course of the next two weeks,

[6:44] both the city and fire department worked on their proposals with Councilman Yosi

[6:49] taking the lead for the city. Last Saturday, September 5th, Assistant

[6:54] Chief Engler and I exchanged those proposals and forwarded them on to our

[6:59] respective colleagues. And in all transparency, they were provided to you

[7:04] tonight, this meeting. And that brings us to tonight where

[7:10] hopefully we can have an honest and open conversation.

[7:16] This is a public meeting, but it is not a meeting of the public.

[7:22] This is the conversation between the 11 of us out here at the front of the room.

[7:28] We respectfully request that there be no demonstrative reactions to anything that

[7:33] is said. No applause, cheering, or negative reactions of any kind. You are

[7:41] simply interested observers and are expected to sit quietly. If you can't,

[7:47] you will be asked to leave. This is a conversation between those of us at the

[7:51] front of the room. Before we start, it should also be noted

[7:56] that even though Seth Porter is sitting at this table, he is the insurance agent

[8:01] for both the city and fire department, and he will do his best to navigate that

[8:07] fine line if any questions arise. As a way of starting, we're not going to

[8:13] go through each other's proposal word for word. Instead, we will start by each

[8:18] entity sharing what they like and dislike about the other entity's

[8:22] proposal. Jeff Martins will pick up a coin and uh

[8:28] heads go fire department tails. It's us.

[8:34] » Heads. >> Heads. So, the fire department, if you

[8:37] would like to speak first, that would be a great way

[8:41] to start.

[8:47] Well, um yeah, I say we've exchanged these agreements. Um couple things that

[8:52] when we look through one that we received from the city that is probably

[8:56] going to be a sticking point that we'll need to talk through is the anticipated

[9:00] transition to a city department in 12 months. Uh it's not something that that

[9:05] if we're going to entertain the idea of us hiring a chief and going through all

[9:10] of that extra effort to set up the board, do that hiring process. Doing

[9:15] that for a 12-month period is not fruitful for us. It's kind of a waste of

[9:21] time, which is why I think in our proposal, I think we've got that set to

[9:26] three years. And then, you know, during that three-year period, there would be a

[9:30] time where we would check in to see how things are going, making sure that we've

[9:35] have we are rebuilding that trust and we can, you know, work towards that

[9:41] ultimate end goal down the road at some point in time.

[9:45] Um, beyond that, I mean, that's the rest of it I think are just details.

[9:51] I'll call them details. I mean, obviously those things are have to be

[9:54] worked out. Um, but that's probably the biggest sticking point that we see from

[10:00] the along the city side. Anything else to add here?

[10:06] I also think fundamentally we're not terribly far away from each other on

[10:12] overall structure. Um I think we just again would kind of need

[10:18] to go through a more detailed plan of you know kind of who's responsible for

[10:23] what from a budgetary perspective and um the cadence of review in terms of

[10:33] you know review of um some of the metrics here that were defined for you

[10:38] know response time um you know training volunteer retention

[10:44] I think just outlining really clear benchmarks in regards to that I think is

[10:49] obviously a great idea across the board. One thing that stuck out to me I think

[10:54] that I would want to address is sections three and four as it pertains to trust.

[11:00] Um I think a lot of it I understand the goal of that. However, I think it's a

[11:07] lot of um relitigating of the last 15 months. I don't know that it's because

[11:13] you're right, trust is subjective and it's really hard to assign

[11:18] a KPI to regaining trust, but I think ultimately the goal of everyone up here

[11:23] right now is to retain as much the volunteer membership as possible and we

[11:30] need to take into consideration um the overall

[11:36] temperature of the department as we kind of move through this. And you know, if

[11:40] things are going great and both parties decide to, you know, continue the

[11:45] agreement as is, fantastic. If they're, you know, everything the the trust is

[11:50] being restored and we feel like it's in the best interest of the community, you

[11:53] know, mutually to have it transition to a fully municipal department, that's

[11:57] also a great outcome. Um, I think it's just going to be really hard for us to

[12:02] define in such strict parameters um when that takes place. I think we set review

[12:08] periods But to to define it and capture it in 12

[12:12] months, as Dave said, I think would be really difficult because it's going to

[12:15] be dependent on sort of the cadence of interaction and going through a budget

[12:20] review cycle. I think there's a lot of a lot of opportunities for both parties to

[12:25] demonstrate uh you know, mutual cooperation and and really thoughtful

[12:31] leadership um as a as a as an entire whole. So those are the I think the the

[12:37] key things I want to highlight myself

[12:47] anybody else

[12:54] city perspective Ryan I'll turn it over to you since you kind of led the putting

[13:00] this together. First thing I want to make sure is

[13:04] really clear is this started listening to council doctor listening to the fire

[13:09] department. You know, these ideas were thrown out there. And honestly, I really

[13:13] had a difficult time wrapping my head around these theories, this simple talk.

[13:20] I'm not saying simple because it's not simple, but it was just talk. So finally

[13:24] after we had met that Saturday um I just sat down and started

[13:30] hitting the computer trying to figure out something that could get in writing

[13:34] and that's that's how this document is formed. So you know in full transparency

[13:39] it is a working document. Of course I've had people review it. I

[13:44] asked for the feedback from council but for me it was something just to get the

[13:47] ideas on paper. And I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with all the ideas.

[13:52] I'm certainly not saying that all the ideas are are viable options both

[13:56] legally um and when you look at insurance side of it and everything else

[14:01] but it was a for me it was a starting point um and I don't know I probably

[14:06] shocked you guys a little bit when I brought the document to you but in my

[14:10] eyes it was the only path we had going forward um you know like like you guys

[14:15] mentioned the the key to this is to to transition without losing Well, and I

[14:23] think that's that's the biggest takeaway here. There there has to be a win for

[14:29] the citizens. That's the bottom line. So, um was it initially what I wanted?

[14:34] No. But but the more I saw it on paper, it kind of started to make sense. Um

[14:39] again, my my thoughts now and I want holes poked in. I want to be able to

[14:45] look through everything in there because as a working draft, some of the things

[14:49] just might not be possible. Um, there's going to be tweaks, there's going to be

[14:54] adjustments, and everything is there to be discussed. Um, and there's a lot of

[14:59] stuff there to be discussed as far as defining how, you know, some of those

[15:03] things take place. the operational control, the hiring of the chief, the um

[15:09] the financial oversight, all that stuff is, and I changed this document, I can't

[15:14] tell you how many times, trying to not put things in there that seemed

[15:19] promising, but not lose perspective on what the end goal was. Um, so again, it

[15:25] is what it is. It's it's not, you know, it's not something that can't be

[15:29] adjusted. um when I look at you know the proposal

[15:33] from the EVFC um it's it's a different style proposal but at the end of it you

[15:40] know obviously I have a few questions the the first one for me would be um the

[15:46] the financial oversight how does that look and and again it's needed document

[15:51] defines how that works but but what I do understand is if we you know originally

[15:56] we talked about a process of hiring that chief together whether it we're going

[16:01] down the municipal route or whatever that that would be a combination of us.

[16:06] And to my understanding is we have a county entity, we have a city entity. If

[16:11] we bring in the fire department as a nonprofit entity, now we've created a

[16:15] new um structure that has different liabilities with that. Um I'm not saying

[16:21] it can't be done. That would be where legal and assurance advice would come in

[16:25] as to to how that plays out if that was something that we did. Um I don't like

[16:32] the idea of just the fire department picking the chief. I don't like the idea

[16:36] of just the city picking the chief. You know, there's there's got to be that

[16:39] compromise that we've talked about from the beginning. But on the structural

[16:43] side of it, the legal side of it, that's what I don't know. And that's what we're

[16:47] going to have to reach out to people that are smarter than us that can help

[16:50] figure that out. Um, the other thing that stands out to me too,

[16:56] let's back up here. One one thing I I want to make very clear, and I know it's

[17:00] state law that that the city is obligated to supply fire protection. I I

[17:05] want to be very clear that it has always been my opinion and the opinion of the

[17:09] council that that it does include EMS as well. That that can't go anywhere.

[17:13] That's equally as valuable to our community. So, um, as we're discussing

[17:20] this, the fire and EMS need to be paired together on that. U, but what I what I

[17:25] have a hard time understanding is is how it comes together to

[17:32] um have this chief in place. However, we we get that person he or she picked that

[17:39] the chief, in my opinion, needs to be in control of the department. They need to

[17:43] be in charge of the budget. They need to be in charge of the members. And it kind

[17:47] of stood out to me like this document said that that chief would report to the

[17:52] volunteers. And maybe I just read it wrong, but that would be that would be a

[17:55] concern of mine as that chief ultimately, you know, needs to to take

[17:59] command of the department. Um, again going going back to to uh the

[18:07] trust issue, can't fix what you can't measure. And

[18:12] and that's my biggest concern there is I don't want to relitigate the past. It

[18:16] it's not been always great. But I do think there has to be some defining

[18:21] points that I talk about on the city's behalf where we went wrong and if

[18:26] there's something on the fire department's behalf so that you outline

[18:29] it and you have a path moving forward that you can measure the success of

[18:33] fixing that because if you don't measure it, you can't define the fix. you're

[18:39] asking at that point just for time to heal the wounds. And I'm not saying

[18:42] that's not possible, but I think it would be a lot more efficient of a

[18:46] processes if we were able to outline some of those issues. And um

[18:53] and so I think that's I think that's really important. Um

[19:01] and again, a lot of this stuff here comes down to the legal side of it, you

[19:06] know, with a 28 agreement. Um, you know, again, can certain things be done

[19:13] legally? Yes. Is it advised to? In some cases, no. So, those are the questions

[19:18] that we've we've got to go to, you know, the people in the room smarter than us

[19:22] to ask those questions. But I think the biggest takeaway tonight that we need is

[19:27] that we're in the same room talking. We're we're coming up with ideas. We're

[19:30] not going to fix everything in one night. Um, but if we can move the needle

[19:34] just a little bit when we leave here, I think that's that's the definition of

[19:38] success in my mind.

[19:51] Don't be shy. Um, first of all, thank you guys, you

[19:57] know, for first of all extending that October one date. Otherwise, when we be

[20:01] here today, our hands could be tied in a different direction.

[20:05] Um, I understand your concern over the 12-month period. I have the same thing.

[20:13] Uh, have 12 months and do first evaluation in 90 days. Nothing's going

[20:17] to get completed that can be really measured 90 days. I always thought to

[20:23] the minimum of two years would be the time frame then do quarterly things and

[20:30] uh as far as the chief goes my opinion and this is just my opinion

[20:37] not necessarily the opinion of the council

[20:40] that if candidates

[20:44] turn it in we had some I don't know how many would still be in it if the fire

[20:47] department hired it versus the way it was advertised I don't have an answer

[20:51] for that. But I think one way that might go in a proper direction is is if the

[20:58] city vented the candidates, you know, who who's acceptable in the

[21:04] city for the fire department to pick the person. You guys got to have buy in and

[21:09] selection of the chief in order for this to be successful. my opinion. Uh the

[21:14] other thing that's not in either document that we as a council need to

[21:20] keep pursuing is we have to get that upstairs done and how we do that because

[21:26] that's key to um

[21:30] success to all this too. Not just leadership but we got to get another

[21:34] mechanism to get more members. on um the city's proposal. Uh one of the

[21:42] things and I know Ryan's just got notes down firefighter retention.

[21:50] You know, from my eyes I look at that that's got to be fire department members

[21:55] the number because over the past 120 years people come to Bavello in a

[22:00] volunteer fire department. you know, you may lose some just because they're tired

[22:05] or they moved away or I mean that's my case when I got off the fire department.

[22:10] I moved to St. Louis that has no bearing on whether it's successful or not

[22:15] successful in the policies. So there's little things like that. Um and the EF I

[22:22] always say this wrong. EFC I still say EFT old school. You know, there's one

[22:28] part in there that uh we're after three years and that's a term of your proposal

[22:35] that the assets go back to the city.

[22:39] If we can't figure this out within 3 years, that's the least of our problems.

[22:44] You know, I don't to me I think that part is not

[22:49] necessary in there because we'll know beyond that.

[22:53] Um everything is a timing on this the process. My gut feeling is we're not far

[23:00] apart. Not at all. Uh everything's along good

[23:07] as far as the service you guys companies provided to the community. I think

[23:13] that'll continue on. I think that will help rebuild trust. Yes. from our side.

[23:20] Uh there's got to be some trigger mechanisms that set it up and I don't

[23:25] want to go back and rehash it all. Uh but I look at the stuff behind us is

[23:30] behind us. We as a group of leaders of the community got to figure out a way to

[23:37] take from this point forwards and to move forwards.

[23:42] Um, I don't like eating a crow, but sometimes we may all have to leave

[23:49] eat a little crow to keep moving this forward. You know, the best possible

[23:53] outcome would be a solution that the city's not 100%

[24:00] what they wanted and it may not be 100% what the fire department want. If we get

[24:05] to that point, that's probably the right place to be to be. Now, this is a

[24:10] process. Um, I know with the 2080 agreements, we

[24:14] can't have a 2080 agreement with a privately held

[24:19] uh nonprofit corporation. I think that's just government entities.

[24:24] » No, we can have a 2080. >> Um, but I I think a service contract

[24:30] similar to what they've been providing is the same thing and not title it a

[24:34] 2080 agreement. There's a lot of things. insurance.

[24:39] I think uh if the fire department has a truck go down right now, Dave mentioned

[24:44] it I think at the last meeting that if they have to go out and lease a truck,

[24:49] they provide insurance for it. You know, if we can come up a way where the city

[24:55] does own the ancest and we lease them back to the fire department and the fire

[24:58] station in the big picture, the general public won't know any

[25:04] difference than in the past. Most people think the fire department's own by the

[25:08] city now, which it's not. So, there's a lot of things. I mean,

[25:14] insurance is a big one. We got to make sure both the fire department and the

[25:19] city's covered, whatever those thresholds would be.

[25:23] Um, we have to make sure the agreements are done in the proper order because I

[25:29] understand if it's not done properly, it could lead to more problems.

[25:35] If we join oversight committee with the city and the fire department, we've got

[25:43] to verify that doesn't create another problem.

[25:47] But we also need the fire department to supply us

[25:52] uh funding and expenses just to monitor them. We got to figure out what Andrew

[25:58] said earlier on what's the city going to pay, what's the fire department going to

[26:01] pay, what would we have to pay the fire department to cover the expenses they're

[26:05] paying and all those things. But I am just glad

[26:10] we are all in the same room. I am very very happy that social media has not

[26:17] been knocking the doors down or burning up the airway. You know, this is this is

[26:22] what we need as community. was about and I sat down basically. Yeah, we did have

[26:28] a pretty harsh conversation, but we both decided we have to heal this

[26:34] community. That's what it's all about. Doesn't

[26:38] matter who's sitting at the table. It doesn't Well, other than calls, but

[26:44] you guys, same thing. At some point in time, we'll all be replaced. We have to

[26:48] set a path for the future. But we have to heal the community first.

[27:05] » Any thoughts from the fire department on that?

[27:12] » Oh, I kind of agree. I think we're not that far apart. And I think you know a

[27:17] couple things that we talked about I think you

[27:20] know with that operational control um you know Brian mentioned you know you

[27:24] could take the candidates you've already received um for the municipal fire

[27:29] department reach out to them obviously as a you know you can't just hand hand

[27:33] us their resume if we're going to be the one hiring because I wouldn't be without

[27:37] their permission but if they would still agree to that you guys got them out and

[27:41] then at that future date down the road if it turns over to minister fire

[27:46] department, you've already got a pre-qualified candidate that the city

[27:49] approves and we we choose from that versus us, you know, if we advertise our

[27:54] own and then hire somebody that wouldn't meet it, it would

[27:58] create a problem we don't none of us want to deal with. Um, and then, you

[28:04] know, I think it boils down to, you know, Brian said, the insurance part,

[28:07] right? Is how are we going to work through what

[28:10] is it going to be 100% of the assets we turn over? Maybe not. maybe it doesn't

[28:14] make sense to turn the turnup up here over as an asset. Maybe we retain that

[28:19] because we've currently got a grant um that we can get reimbursed for purchases

[28:25] of that. So stuff like that. But to me, those are the detail when we get into

[28:29] the weeds. Um the biggest thing is, you know, us having that operational control

[28:34] to be able to hire that chief. Um you I think to Ryan's point too of that person

[28:40] needs to be in charge. I think they would be in charge from an operational

[28:45] you know fireground all those things but the business side of it I think is

[28:49] unless we change our constitution and bylaws that's where the president you

[28:54] know vice president and the treasure of the department

[28:58] are actually managing the business side of it u but I think beyond that um

[29:05] yeah I mean that chief would be in charge

[29:09] they're going to decide who the officers are going to decide egg, you know, all

[29:14] all of those kinds of things that a normal chief would would do.

[29:27] » Adrian

[29:33] has been the discussion tonight. I'm not sure if this is the right

[29:39] time to discuss. Obviously these are work working documents. Thank you for

[29:44] time spent extra time that the council fire department is spend on this.

[29:50] So my particular questions may come up

[29:54] again later depending on this but I think right now it's all legal

[29:59] insuranceances here just to see with with them to have an

[30:04] opportunity to view the documents what whats are there.

[30:09] Sorry if you know that they say well there's more just

[30:14] white black is gray and better. So we're looking at this what what can

[30:19] we do to support the ideology moving forward but

[30:24] and still incorporate respectfully what the bar department is asking because

[30:28] we're not very that that far off. You know I'm trying to look at what was

[30:31] presented in April or what's now. pretty similar looks like

[30:37] but just want to see as as we move forward here especially if you have 28

[30:42] you know is that I understand that's necessary

[30:45] if it's not there how does that affect insurance how does that affect from the

[30:49] gallery standpoint items items like that the other questions are kind of right

[30:54] now important but minuscule so I got to look at the large large portion as we

[31:00] move forward here and then these other question. We can decipher those at a

[31:06] later point to

[31:11] » Alice. I'm going to talk a little bit about the 28 because that's something

[31:14] that we were kind of we didn't talk about that at all last spring when we

[31:17] were going down there because we don't have a 280 is now. Is that correct?

[31:21] » There is a document that's filed with the state that's identified as a 20e

[31:26] agreement but it doesn't meet the requirements of 2080. So, we're not

[31:30] currently operating consistent with 2080. Countyy's aware of that. The

[31:34] city's aware of that. Um, so going forward, we would have to create a 2080

[31:42] agreement. If under any circumstance, it would look different. If it's a city

[31:46] department, it would be between two parties. My understanding is the county

[31:50] would contract with us for their service area. If the volunteer fire company is

[31:55] continuing to provide fire protection services, it would be a 280 agreement

[31:59] with three parties. Um the city, the county benefited fire district 3 is what

[32:04] I mean when I say county and then um the volunteer fire company would be the

[32:09] private party to that agreement. And there are several different requirements

[32:13] for the 2080 that require financial oversight, operational oversight. Um and

[32:20] depending on how that is structured and set up, there's different requirements

[32:25] um that attach to that. So the city's proposal included sort of a joint

[32:30] oversight board and if that is the operational decision going forward that

[32:36] would create a fourth entity. Um I had connected with Seth because it was my

[32:40] understanding you know under under the law that creates a fourth body it

[32:44] creates a governmental body. So, chapter 21, chapter 22, foya open meetings, all

[32:50] of that would govern all the meetings and dealings and operations of the fire

[32:55] company going forward if we move forward in that structure. And so then I won't

[32:59] speak for Seth um but there would be four operative parties at that point and

[33:05] each of them would need insurance. And so, you know, from the underlying

[33:11] purpose of 2080 requires the city to move forward in the way that's most

[33:16] efficient. That's the underlying purpose of chapter 280. So when analyzing, you

[33:21] know, the different relationships and the costs that are involved, especially

[33:25] with the city being the primary funding mechanism for the volunteer fire

[33:29] company, when we say the volunteer fire company would need insurance and the

[33:32] city would need insurance, inherent in that is the city's responsibility to be

[33:37] funding that on the volunteer fire company side. Um the county also

[33:41] provides revenue um in a much smaller amount is my understanding. I don't have

[33:46] the exact numbers. If somebody does, feel free to chime in.

[33:49] um as far as that goes, but we would need to move forward with the 2080

[33:54] agreement that meets all the requirements of of Iowa code chapter

[33:57] 2080 um regardless of it's whether it's a city department because county is

[34:03] looking for that provision of services for that area and it would be between

[34:07] two public bodies. So it has very different requirements if it's between

[34:10] the city and county. Um if a private entity, the volunteer fire company is

[34:14] involved, 2080 requires different provisions. um with the oversight and

[34:20] things like that. So, it depends. If it's a 2080 purely with private public

[34:24] entities, excuse me, um there's less restrictions or less requirements, but

[34:28] when a private entity is involved, 2080 has additional requirements that have to

[34:32] be captured in the contract and in the arrangement.

[34:36] I don't want to speak Seth for you on the insurance piece. So, I don't know if

[34:40] you have anything to add.

[34:50] Thank you, Alison. Um, so as the mayor mentioned, uh, we serve both, uh,

[34:56] Eldidge Volunteer Fire Company in the city of Eldridge. Um, and I'm grateful

[35:00] both of you were here tonight speaker. Thank you. Um so as I sit here and and

[35:06] whenever provide advice um it's it's purely based on insurance coverage

[35:13] knowledge of what what could be possible and what's not possible.

[35:16] Um uh overall we react to um obviously the entities and legal legal

[35:24] arrangements through a 28 agreement right so um if we can do something

[35:29] through a 28 agreement um that it's possible for right a lot of times we can

[35:35] solve the insurance anyway um from our vantage point uh I would

[35:42] urge everybody to avoid complexity um complexity problems and potential for

[35:49] possible situations that insurance can't resolve or can't resolve well. Okay.

[35:55] Um so um as I look through some of these agreements um both parties agreements

[36:02] um there's discussion of transferring assets

[36:05] um and you know and obviously that introduces some complexity um I hope

[36:11] that would be streamlined um for example if it's feasible to

[36:15] transfer the building the equipment the vehicles um to city ownership um I uh

[36:23] then want obviously extreme amount of clarity of who's responsible for for

[36:27] maintaining um that equipment. um certainly wouldn't want to have the

[36:33] department being responsible for vehicles and life safety would um uh use

[36:40] of it obviously in the city having to maintain private to me there's there's

[36:45] possibility miscommunication I would want that so responsibility of all the

[36:48] maintenance and upkeep right so um under the two arrangements

[36:54] that I read um uh if the assets are going to be

[36:59] transferred to the um some sort of lease agreement um

[37:03] obviously using them back the eligible volunteer fire company u for all use and

[37:08] maintenance um would make a lot of sense from an insurance standpoint that's very

[37:13] clear any questions with that

[37:24] um I think if when it comes to uh the various scenarios of of employment and

[37:29] supervision um of of chief. Um that introduces

[37:34] complexity, right? We have a under the proposal a chief uh

[37:40] that's employed uh by the fire department, but could um have employment

[37:45] oversight by uh an independent board, right? Well, that would mean that that

[37:50] independent board would have to react uh with an appropriate insurance protection

[37:54] measures. Um, so again, the wording and structure of that

[38:00] would be very important. A lot of details that aren't going to

[38:03] get ironed out tonight, but just things for everybody.

[38:10] Questions? >> Yes. So, I have a question. So, if this

[38:16] independent board has stakeholders from the city, fire department, from the

[38:22] county, um is there not some sort of insurance component that can transfer

[38:28] with the entity that they're representing to the administrative board

[38:32] so that it would make it less complex?

[38:36] So can I I just as a matter of law under chapter 28E when we create that board it

[38:43] is a new governmental body under Iowa law. So I don't know if there's some

[38:48] sort of transfer pro provision but it would be treated separately. It would

[38:51] have its own meeting requirements and so the policies would have to be insured in

[38:56] the name of that new body because it meets that definition and that's that

[39:00] 428.

[39:06] » What would happen if that oversight committee was not for?

[39:13] So, chapter 2080 requires if there's a public body to have an oversight

[39:18] mechanism built into the 2080 agreement. So, we wouldn't be compliant

[39:24] with 2080 if we didn't have that oversight mechanism built into it

[39:30] if we had a 2080 agreement with a private entity

[39:35] » and we'd have a service agreement instead of a 28e agreement with a

[39:40] private entity. So for the provision of fire protection services is a

[39:46] governmental function. Uh we cannot contract for fire protection services

[39:50] without having a 2080 agreement. We could call it that, but it it needs to

[39:55] be number 28.

[40:04] The questions that I had too was um and I know the EVFC's, you know, they talked

[40:10] about indemnification and that's common everywhere. I mean, when you you have

[40:14] certificates of insurance, but um according to Iowa code 364.16,

[40:21] it appears as though, and I may be reading it off a little bit, but the

[40:28] city has certain obligations when it comes to fire protection, and we can't

[40:32] necessarily just hand off those obligations because we have a service

[40:36] agreement or a 2080 agreement. The city still assumes liability. Is that

[40:41] correct? The city remains at all times responsible for providing fire

[40:45] protection services. So even if we enter into a valid 2080 agreement, that's

[40:50] where the oversight mechanisms are a requirement. You cannot fully delegate a

[40:55] governmental function and the provision of fire protection services is a

[40:58] governmental function. So that's why 2080 requires that continuing oversight.

[41:03] You cannot write a check and then not have any further oversight or say so

[41:07] because at the end of the day if fire protection services are not provided the

[41:11] city is ultimately responsible for that even if we have a service agreement with

[41:16] them to provide that >> but if we run the finances through the

[41:20] city's books that have oversight does that qualify

[41:27] » I don't tell explain that to me just so I understand run the nonprofits for the

[41:32] city's books Yeah. Instead of us handing them money,

[41:35] we budget amount that is spent and they get a bill, they submit it, the city

[41:39] pays it, so we have oversight of the finances.

[41:44] » Yes. So, some sort of oversight as far as that goes. I mean, that's sort of

[41:48] operating like a city department. And if they do go that way, under 2080, all

[41:53] bills that are approved for the fire company have to be published in a

[41:56] newspaper. I mean there is they essentially become subject to all the

[42:00] public oversight requirements of 2018. So

[42:05] some oversight mechanism whether it's you know running it through city

[42:08] approval in some way that is going to be required under 280

[42:13] » and they'll have to post their meetings also

[42:17] » for the joint board. Yes. Correct. >> And then publish their minutes as well.

[42:23] Is that correct or >> Yes. and they have there's individual

[42:26] requirements regarding publishing bills that are approved um because they're

[42:31] funded with public funds in a newspaper within 20 days of those meetings. So

[42:35] there's some actual there's some additional administrative hurdles that

[42:39] apply.

[42:43] Is there any strict requirements about how that joint board is formed? Like in

[42:49] terms of there needs to be representatives from the city, from

[42:53] benefiting fire district 3, from the fire company itself, but is there any

[42:59] sort of structure requirement to how many members, what the representation

[43:04] um looks like? >> There is a requirement. So if there are

[43:08] public bodies that are part of the 2080 agreement, the public bodies have to be

[43:12] represented on the board.

[43:16] Andrew, my recommendation if we have to do those two from the city council, two

[43:22] from the fire company and one from fire district 3 to get a odd number.

[43:28] That's what I was asking is if there's a minimum requirement of representation or

[43:32] equal representation from everybody or what that what that revolved around.

[43:38] » No, there's not a specific makeup composition. They just have to be

[43:43] represented is how 2080 is written and then it would be subject to the regular

[43:47] budgetary restrictions for spending public funds outside of that or

[43:50] budgeting processes. All of those things will also apply.

[43:57] However, this this advisory board is not in essence forming like a new 501 sub3

[44:05] um or anything similar to that. So why does it why does it need the complexity

[44:12] of additional insurance um let me start there and then get your answer to that.

[44:17] » Yeah. So I mentioned that because under one well one of these uh outlines it

[44:23] talks about that board having employment oversight and and the ability to manage

[44:27] the chief um that means okay >> liability.

[44:37] So let's say if the role of that board does not manage the chief the complexity

[44:44] goes away. Well, yeah, it simplifies it, but then I

[44:49] would say what what other decisions is that board making, right? It's going to

[44:53] have an impact somewhere, which liability. However, under the 280,

[45:00] unless I misunderstood, if we sign a 280, we have to have some

[45:05] sort of advisory board. Is that correct? >> There has to be an oversight mechanism.

[45:11] And so there's either an administrator or the joint board represented by the

[45:15] public bodies. >> When you say administrator, what does

[45:18] that mean? >> That's how 2080 is written. It mentions

[45:22] an administrator or a joint board. The proposal I received from the city

[45:25] suggested a joint board. >> Okay. I was just interested that I

[45:29] hadn't heard just an administrator, so I was just curious as to what it meant by

[45:32] that. >> Okay.

[45:39] » I mean, yeah. throw out there.

[45:44] » So, hey, I'm working for the company. Um, so

[45:49] we haven't really had a chance to discuss it too much here because I think

[45:51] we're all still kind of feeling each other out with respect to these

[45:54] agreements, but I think one opportunity because I've seen this done in a couple

[45:58] other cities I work with, is again saying this with the caveat that I

[46:03] haven't discussed with my client much in detail. Obviously we want to discuss

[46:06] with the members but potentially instead of transferring assets directly to the

[46:11] city in that way maybe Seth you can comment too is if this new joint

[46:16] administrative bodies created transfer our assets to the joint administrative

[46:19] body which is then governed by whatever the board looks like council member

[46:23] doc's opinion uh comment sorry and then if everything works out three years four

[46:30] years whatever the time frame is then that 2080 comes to a close city direct

[46:35] cities in charge of the fire department as I think everyone agreed was the

[46:38] ultimate plan. If it doesn't work out then basically you include disposal

[46:42] language in the 20 creating this joint administrative agency that says if this

[46:46] all breaks down then this you know the assets go back to the fire company and

[46:52] whatever that would look like. We'd have to talk about that but would that make

[46:55] things any simpler at all? I guess it would minimize this agency would then

[46:59] kind of be doing the heavy lifting. It would be doing the one holding the

[47:02] assets. it would perhaps be doing the one even hiring the chief and being in

[47:06] charge of that. Would that simplify things at all from an insurance

[47:10] standpoint? >> Well, so under that scenario, the fire

[47:15] department would basically operate as it does today with the oversight of

[47:19] working, right? Um

[47:24] assuming that's legally feasible. Um and it's got the proper definition, I think

[47:30] that's

[47:35] Except um Daniel did maybe and maybe I misunderstood. So um so you're saying

[47:42] creating a brand new entity that just handles basically all the things that

[47:49] are we need clarity on from a complexity standpoint and that entity would handle

[47:54] all of it so that it would make it less complex from an insurance standpoint. So

[47:58] it' be a a brand new entity. Correct. >> Correct. And that as Alison said, that's

[48:02] what ultimately would happen in this kind of context here. It just depends on

[48:06] what scope of authority we're going to give to it. And I think that would be

[48:09] something possibly worth considering that might make things possibly a little

[48:13] bit simpler and give the opportunity with obviously my client having

[48:16] representation on that board, the city having representation on that board and

[48:19] the benefited fire district being on that board as well. um every member

[48:24] having a seat at the table working through conflicts hopefully building up

[48:27] trust long term and if that ultimately come which I think is again the goal

[48:31] would ultimately make things easier then at the end is that joint administrative

[48:35] body transfers things to the city it dissolves everybody then ultimately a

[48:39] new agreement would be needed between the city and the fire district of course

[48:42] for continued 280 uh excuse me for continued fire protection

[48:48] we still have to talk about what that all looks like but I like I said I've

[48:51] done that in at least a couple different cities that have gone that route uh here

[48:55] in eastern Iowa that have ultimately it's a little bit reversed in that case

[48:59] the city owned the assets they had a city department the fire department they

[49:04] got crossroads with each other and then ultimately city transferred these assets

[49:07] to this joint administrative board it owned it insured it did all the stuff

[49:10] for it had oversight over those things uh and then ultimately you know the

[49:15] budgets would be budgets would be prepared by these new joint

[49:19] administrative agency and then submitted to the respective bodies In this case,

[49:23] uh, Eldridge and the fire district for, um, payment based off that. Of course,

[49:28] Eldridge and the fire district would have input on those things in terms of

[49:31] what they could legally cover. I'm throwing a lot out. I realize that now

[49:36] I'm just thinking of another ideas where everyone's been discussing that might

[49:40] make possibly make things a little bit simpler.

[49:42] » It It's intriguing. I think it's different, Seth, from what you were

[49:45] thinking is that it would just revert to sort of the the model that Eldidge Fire

[49:50] has now. You're talking about a brand new I don't know what it would be. It's

[49:54] not a governmental entity. It's not a 501c3, but it's something that's

[49:59] separate from this entity and separate from that entity and separate from the

[50:03] county. >> Correct. Yeah. Bas it is technically a

[50:05] new governmental governmental agency as Allison pointed out. That's that's

[50:08] correct. It would be a new government agency sub subject to um open records

[50:13] law, public meetings, all that. But it would exist within the confines of the

[50:17] 28e. it wouldn't have a new corporate structure uh that you might be familiar

[50:21] with in terms of a nonprofit or anything um like like that. So that's true. It

[50:26] would be in that entity. I don't know if you're familiar with the I know we're a

[50:29] little bit but Musket Musketine Musketine Communications it's emergency

[50:34] uh dispatch is is basically a joint administrative 2080 entity. It exists by

[50:39] a 2080 agreement between Musk County and a couple other areas to handle it 911

[50:43] and emergency services. That's kind of what I'm thinking might be a

[50:47] possibility. Sorry, I keep moving the bike. Might be a possibility. Um, again,

[50:52] with the caveat is I'm I'm kind of dumping this on my client thing right

[50:55] here at the meeting. Uh, so maybe it's something we would want to talk more.

[50:58] » Oh, come on, Dave. What do you think? >> No, I'm just kidding. Just kidding. It's

[51:02] intriguing.

[51:08] » I think the important thing is we have options to try to get this resolved, you

[51:14] know. One might be a little more challenging

[51:17] than the other, but it doesn't mean that's not the right way to go. So, it's

[51:21] just crossing the tees and dotting the eyes through the process.

[51:26] But if we can't get this figured out and the trust is reestablished, what

[51:34] whatever that text or whatever the definition of that is, it's shame on all

[51:38] of us. We've got time. We've got willing people sitting at the table trying to

[51:42] fix that. So I think there's different

[51:47] possibilities. You probably need a flow chart to figure some of this out to

[51:52] insurance. Basically, if we go this route, this is what we have to do. If we

[51:56] go this route, this is what has to be done.

[51:59] And we can figure it out, guys, from both sides.

[52:10] Scott, you messed by tonight. Are we talking two years or three years?

[52:17] Where is the two and three years are coming about? Because that that's a big

[52:21] the big jump of a year and think a lot of pursuits and they're going to want to

[52:24] know what's with that one year. So I'm asking you know the three years from

[52:31] your proposal where's that number coming from?

[52:40] I think typically it would be great to look at a 30 6090, you know, as you're

[52:45] deploying a new position. However, this is obviously infinitely more complex.

[52:51] I think by the time we get that new chief hired, get things established and

[52:55] get into a cadence. I mean, by 12 months from whenever this agreement launches,

[52:59] we probably will may or may not have run through a budget

[53:05] cycle together. I think that would be really important. But really, it's just

[53:08] from an employment perspective, I think hiring the chief and giving them a

[53:15] longer runway of, you know, I think I think I would be hesitant to take a

[53:19] position if I knew that in 12 months, um, there was going to be an

[53:23] organizational restructure guaranteed. Um, so we just wanted to put a a bit of

[53:29] a longer runway there that we felt would be

[53:34] just bring comfortability but not not as the we're not going to talk for three

[53:39] years and then we'll we'll see in three years and we can re-evaluate. I mean to

[53:42] to build benchmarks and and you know um points to

[53:48] reapproach and say hey what's working, what's not working.

[53:52] I think having you know clauses where we can mutually agree to amend the

[53:57] agreement if we're finding that h you know this expense for example would be

[54:01] more efficient in this bucket you know let's do a little bit of a restructure

[54:05] or you know the the board needs restructuring or a different cadence or

[54:10] it needs oversight over this specific area because we feel like there's a

[54:14] operational blind spot right I think um having you

[54:20] know set parameter around, you know, a 12-month review, 18th month review as we

[54:25] go and, you know, keep the conversation going. I think those are great

[54:29] opportunities to review. And I think it's going to give

[54:33] the public a great um a great opportunity also to see a lot of well,

[54:39] hopefully they don't pay attention to it at all. That probably means that it's

[54:42] working great. No one sees anything online. I think that means that

[54:45] everyone's doing their job and that's that's fantastic. So, um, but I think,

[54:50] you know, for us, it'll just give us a lot of opportunity, especially with some

[54:53] of these ideas floating around tonight about, you know, um, sort of mutual

[54:57] ownership over governance and what that could potentially look like. I think

[55:01] that gives us a lot of opportunity for collaboration and to build that rapport

[55:04] and that trust back and and figure out what that looks like more long term. As

[55:09] things evolve and the community grows, the needs will change and we'll kind of

[55:13] address that as it comes. That answer that right?

[55:17] » That's right. I mean, that's great because um now I think the public will

[55:20] have that now that timeline to what to uh to expect out of a three-year um time

[55:28] frame. Does this say three years out there and not have any you know detail

[55:33] that would have been I have been answering more questions than you know

[55:36] or been asking more questions myself and I didn't have the answer. So here that's

[55:40] a great that's a great u thing for me to take out to people I'm talking to saying

[55:44] hey here's what's going to happen over the next three years. I think uh the

[55:48] people of our community will really appreciate knowing that there is a plan

[55:52] not just we're throwing up random numbers. So I I appreciate answer

[55:56] appreciate your answer and I'm had a lot more clear idea what that three years

[56:01] means. And I think I think we could clearly define dates from you know

[56:05] contract you know this is the initial contract start term um you know and

[56:11] schedule your calendar is 12 months from today or whatever that is and actually

[56:15] set hard dates on you know when when we're going to be coming back and doing

[56:19] a formal review and talking about it from a public perspective and give them

[56:23] the opportunity to you know at least optically be be in the room hear what's

[56:28] going on hear what's working not working and what needs to change I think that

[56:31] would be a great opportunity for them as well. So, um, yeah, I think that should

[56:36] hopefully clarify that a bit. >> Do you feel confident, Andrew, that

[56:42] you'll be able to hire a sheep? Yeah, I mean I think again that mutual

[56:48] ownership over I think the idea was always to have you

[56:52] know some sort of joint hiring effort you know and having you guys vet the

[56:57] candidates for example you know we can have conversations with some of the

[57:01] candidate we already have a good scope of candidates for example have those

[57:04] conversations and have you guys bet through those and if they're willing

[57:08] like yeah absolutely I think you know we've got a lot of uh great insight ight

[57:14] into sorts of qualities that we would be looking for in that role and and what

[57:20] our expectations would be and I think we'll uh I think we'll be able to

[57:25] mutually land on a great a great uh great chief of that position.

[57:31] » Well, one thing I'll disagree with is the the three years. Um and if you you

[57:36] stop and think back, we had we talked about it a year and a half or so ago. if

[57:42] we wouldn't have gone through the past um mess that it would have been a

[57:48] turnover would have been issues. Um in my mind two things number one

[57:54] I think we're creating a lot of complexity in order to fix the trust

[58:00] issues which is needed clearly. Um but I also feel that um if 18 months ago or 12

[58:09] months ago that trust was not lost, why is it going to take three years to fix

[58:14] it? Is my mind and and I truly believe I'm on the opposite opinion. I think

[58:21] that that um 12 month and I agree 12 months

[58:26] probably but by the time everything gets set up and you go through the process,

[58:29] you don't know how that's going to look. It might take four or 5 months to get a

[58:32] chief in position. But, you know, could that be done in 12 to 24 months? Um, if

[58:42] if my um thinking is right, I think that ideal

[58:46] chief's going to want to have an end date. They're going to come in here

[58:50] knowing that the goal is to transition into a city entity. And to have that 3

[58:57] years out, that's that's kind of a long time that you're hoping and and you're,

[59:02] you know, he's already going to have his hands full or she's going to have her

[59:04] hands full with whatever they're doing, trying to to um come in and take over

[59:09] that that command of the department. So, I think the right chief, I think that

[59:15] right relationship with the members, um I think that's what's going to heal the

[59:22] problems. Um, obviously the city has a part to play in that, but I I just don't

[59:27] see it necessary to push this out for years and I don't like the complexity of

[59:31] it. I mean, I'm looking at different case laws from going back to 2019 and as

[59:36] much as you want to sign away liability, the city's assuming it. And then on top

[59:41] of that, that's additional cost that we're we're encountering there, that's

[59:45] additional liability for potential for making mistakes. and we've been trying

[59:49] to fix the fact that we're constantly getting sued. Um, we're trying to fix

[59:55] potential of not having a renewal for the insurance company. These are all

[59:59] things that I'm taking in account here on top of this is that if this is a

[1:00:05] mission that we've set forward to do, I think stretching that mission out over

[1:00:10] three years is just not a it's not a smart move in my opinion. Well, maybe

[1:00:15] the first compromise that we consider is compromising the split between both

[1:00:19] proposals, which one proposal is at 12 months, the other proposals at 36

[1:00:23] months. Maybe we consider a 24-month proposal to

[1:00:28] each give a little bit as we heard a little bit earlier and have some

[1:00:32] provisions maybe that uh Andrew was alluding to it in other ways I think but

[1:00:36] you know we could have some provisions that if things are going well we could

[1:00:40] look at uh making that transition happening sooner if we think we've hit

[1:00:45] the benchmarks that everybody's happy with. Um so maybe that's an option.

[1:00:55] Yeah, I think um just from a comfortability standpoint, moving

[1:00:58] through a couple budget cycles would be great. Um so a term that would stretch

[1:01:03] across even two, I think would be helpful. Just again, I think no one here

[1:01:09] tonight can make any decisions. You guys can't. We can't either. We both have to

[1:01:13] discuss and you know, ideate amongst our bodies here. Um, and so ultimately we're

[1:01:19] just trying to bring back what we feel is going to retain the create the most

[1:01:24] comfortability and and retain the highest number of folks. And so I think

[1:01:28] just getting through a couple at least a couple budget cycles where they can see,

[1:01:33] okay, things are properly being properly funded. we're not being, you know, we're

[1:01:38] not short-handed on assets or or or resources that we truly need, but that's

[1:01:43] a responsible and then seeing that in practice um over at least at least two

[1:01:48] cycles, I think would be really helpful. So that that's I think where we're kind

[1:01:52] of shooting for that term. Um but you know, again, if things are going great

[1:01:58] and we want to review ahead of time and eventually decide to make a change, then

[1:02:03] so be it. That's I think that's a great outcome also. So

[1:02:11] » these documents they mirror each other rather

[1:02:16] to mirror the evidence reflection one maybe along with the other but they

[1:02:20] still have the similar ideologies for protecting the city of Elbridge and

[1:02:24] providing services both fire and EMS. One important thing that that occurred

[1:02:30] tonight was the questions regarding the 28

[1:02:34] which we are um operating like we do have one but we don't officially have

[1:02:40] one now according to Alison so thank you came about that was a new governing body

[1:02:47] a board which legal representation Daniel there so

[1:02:52] be will be on board as well I I believe that is a strong catalyst for us as we

[1:02:58] move forward with with those because we have parties on both sides that will be

[1:03:05] together that will work together. So I think that's I think that's one huge key

[1:03:08] that occurred tonight regarding these discussions uh regarding time link and

[1:03:13] so forth. It be not to say that we have to go three years but at least this this

[1:03:17] gives us a a a time frame and a way to transition in there and that'll be

[1:03:23] transitions can't be made throughout there but knowing that hey at 3 years

[1:03:28] this this this whole transition needs to take place. If it gets done sooner, bad

[1:03:33] news. But if it doesn't, we know that we are at the table and this new governing

[1:03:38] board working collectively together to ensure that the best interest for not

[1:03:43] only the citizens but also the individuals of the city that that this

[1:03:47] is this is coming together from a legal standpoint, from an insurance

[1:03:50] standpoint. We we we have everybody we have everybody here and

[1:03:57] and with what what was saying here we may not know what that really looks like

[1:04:01] right now and what what insurance it's going to it's going to look like what

[1:04:06] cost it's going to look like too until we get this proposal down but I believe

[1:04:10] with this governing board I feel that that would help help us out a lot you

[1:04:14] know with that and and possibly you know reduce any type of

[1:04:19] liability with us had to move forward with this. So great, great idea, Alison.

[1:04:25] Thank you for for your for your input and thank you Dan for you adding that as

[1:04:31] well. So I think that's very important. >> I just want to say on on the on the

[1:04:36] legal side of it, I I would express some concerns about creating a new body.

[1:04:42] Chapter 280 commands with the city and the county do this in the most efficient

[1:04:46] way possible. And so creating a new body that has to go through all their

[1:04:50] requirements and comply with chapter 1 and chapter chapter 21, chapter 22,

[1:04:55] those are not small legal requirements. You'd have new individuals who may or

[1:04:59] may not be properly trained on that. There's a lot of complexities to that.

[1:05:03] Those are lawsuits that involve attorney fees and significant liability. And so

[1:05:08] creating another, you know, target um for that new training requirements as

[1:05:13] opposed to public bodies who are already operating and functioning within those

[1:05:17] realms to me would be a conversation to have as to whether or not the council

[1:05:21] views that as effective efficiency. Um I'm hearing, you know, sort of goals

[1:05:27] that are aligning with regard to efficiency or simplicity and an ultimate

[1:05:31] transition to a city department and if a chief, you know, is hired. things I

[1:05:36] would ask on the employment side that be at least considered is if you hire a

[1:05:42] chief and they're intended to go from a nonprofit environment, that's very

[1:05:45] different than a municipal environment. Um, different rules, different

[1:05:49] regulations, you're not training them to work and operate a city department on

[1:05:55] all in all respects. Um, if you're going to mirror a city department and mirror

[1:06:00] those requirements and that's the direction of the chief, that's not going

[1:06:04] to fit entirely in a nonprofit. Um, so if that is the command, you know,

[1:06:11] I would ask and recommend that there be some consideration as to if a chief is

[1:06:15] hired into that structure and they are, you know, told to create and make

[1:06:21] policies, what are those policies and are they they're for the nonprofit or

[1:06:25] are we creating those for a short period of time, one, two, three years, um, or

[1:06:29] are you building a city department, but it's not fully functioning because we're

[1:06:33] in a nonprofit environment. um and whether or not that's in the interest of

[1:06:37] efficiency the best use of a chief's time. And then to the fire department's

[1:06:41] point about hiring a qualified candidate who's interested in some sort of a

[1:06:46] forecasted or guaranteed reorganization, um if the plan is hire, work in the

[1:06:52] nonprofit environment, different supervisors, different structure,

[1:06:55] different government, different rules, and then in one, two, or three years

[1:06:59] you're transitioning here, um will that impact your candidate pool? and is that

[1:07:04] an efficient use of resources and taxpayer funds, especially when on the

[1:07:08] city side, you know, we really are dual funding that we're funding the insurance

[1:07:11] for the city. We're funding the insurance for the volunteer fired

[1:07:14] company. So, I think just giving a lot of thought to actually implementing what

[1:07:19] those structures look like and just reminding yourself that chapter 280

[1:07:24] requires you to come up with a plan in the interest of efficiency. And if the

[1:07:29] plan is to go towards a city department and that's everyone's collective goal,

[1:07:33] you know, look at what resources are being expended during this transition

[1:07:37] community and make sure they align with that.

[1:07:41] » You make a great point, Allison, about the complexity that we're creating. You

[1:07:44] know, we're creating all this just because the lack of trust that that's

[1:07:49] kind of where we're at because you gentlemen have told us that if we would

[1:07:52] have created a department a year ago,

[1:08:04] call. Okay, you guys good?

[1:08:07] » Yeah. >> Okay, I got a crew. I mean, you guys

[1:08:10] have told us that if we would have created this department a year ago, we

[1:08:13] would have been 100% on board. Um, and so now we got to figure out it's been

[1:08:19] about lack of trust. And I kind of go back to what Ryan said earlier. Um, I

[1:08:22] think it would be so much easier than creating this complexity

[1:08:27] of your governmental body if we would uh just address the trust issue a little

[1:08:32] bit. I think that would that would go a long ways and our time would be better

[1:08:36] spent. We knew what we did wrong in the last 6 8 10 months. You know, we would

[1:08:44] be better off. I again I I think walking down relitigating the last 15 months

[1:08:51] when we know where things went wrong pretty well I think is a is a bit of a

[1:08:55] waste of time. >> I think it's we don't know what went

[1:08:58] wrong. I I think you do though. We've had conversations about it u at length

[1:09:03] about things that I mean you've even by your

[1:09:07] own admission said I really wish I hadn't said that. you've said that

[1:09:10] publicly and I appreciate you've said that but we can't pretend that it wasn't

[1:09:14] said and I think you know to to Allison's point yes working in a path of

[1:09:20] efficiency is the responsibility honestly of everyone here but I would

[1:09:25] rather as a taxpayer take on you know maybe some additional insurance expense

[1:09:31] rather than a million dollars annually in labor and I think when we talk about

[1:09:35] efficiency that's the other side of the consideration because that's really

[1:09:39] what's at risk here. That's what we're trying to

[1:09:42] move through to is keeping the membership

[1:09:46] um volunteer for as long as humanly possible because that is what's going to

[1:09:52] be the most um the most efficient use of taxpayer

[1:09:57] funds. We can if we can retain that for as long as possible. So if we need to

[1:10:02] create a little bit of complexity and and put in the work to do that and that

[1:10:09] the offset of that is that we can retain that volunteer structure longer. I think

[1:10:13] that's an effort well undertook and and well worth its time.

[1:10:30] I think one thing that hasn't been discussed, we we keep toddling around

[1:10:34] with eventually being a municipal department. There are several

[1:10:38] departments within the Hawaii cities that are as we're talking about that are

[1:10:43] managed with the volunteer staff and the fire department. If we get to this

[1:10:48] two-year mark, which we're discussing, and things are going great and things

[1:10:52] are moving along well, it goes back to a comment that's been made in the past. If

[1:10:57] it's not broken, why fix it? I think if we move forward and it's doing well and

[1:11:02] we're moving well and we've got, you know, the legal aspects in mind, we've

[1:11:07] got the insurance aspects in mind, and it's working well as a hybrid

[1:11:10] department, why change it? I look back in Bentonorf, they were up to 37,000

[1:11:17] people before they had five full-time firefighters.

[1:11:21] I don't see us going there in the near future. Um, just to put that in

[1:11:26] perspective, we have a great volunteer program. I think the question that I

[1:11:31] really have on this board and as a community member is what are we doing to

[1:11:37] get the upstairs finished? because it really doesn't matter which side is

[1:11:41] managing this process. The upstairs is critical for all parties. I think one of

[1:11:47] the things we're missing out on if we move away from the volunteer side is a

[1:11:52] lot of the federal funding which is then going to also affect taxpayers.

[1:12:05] It appears to me that we both all both sides have discussions to have.

[1:12:11] I don't know how we can do that at a public meeting

[1:12:14] how we're going to do that moving forward. Um I would take suggestions

[1:12:19] if all council members are present. It has to be done in a public meeting.

[1:12:23] Correct. Um

[1:12:29] yeah. I mean, I also understand Pat's point. If we get this leveled out from

[1:12:33] the way it used to be, everything's running efficient.

[1:12:38] Do we have to change it right away? Well, I think you probably need to

[1:12:45] decide that before you set up a document and hire a chief because

[1:12:50] that's going to be important to how the whole structure set up. So, I mean, this

[1:12:55] is new, and I'm not saying it's not a a terrible idea, but, you know, this

[1:13:00] started with the fire department wanting to have the

[1:13:05] city get involved. I think it I think that's a dangerous move um to look at

[1:13:12] getting partially through a cycle and then all of a sudden you're changing

[1:13:16] your goal post. And I don't think that's I don't think that creates a safe

[1:13:20] environment for anybody. Um I would not feel comfortable as a representative of

[1:13:25] the city um trying to fiscally be responsible with how the taxpayers money

[1:13:30] spent, how the budgets performed. Um I certainly would not be excited about

[1:13:35] that if I was um a candidate looking to come out here. I think that's going to

[1:13:39] play a big big factor. I think what eight nine applications and they're all

[1:13:47] they're good applications. I think that's going to change that pool. Um and

[1:13:51] again this hasn't been discussed for this

[1:13:56] entire process. So I guess

[1:14:03] I think I didn't know we had nine. I haven't seen any of them. But you know I

[1:14:09] think we should ask those candidates two things. if this affects,

[1:14:15] you know, their outlook and if we can share their applications with fire,

[1:14:23] there might be somebody in there that everybody's

[1:14:26] 100% agreeable to, which could also change just

[1:14:34] and in the U and all all respect

[1:14:40] moving forward. And I

[1:14:43] regarding the don fire department I believe there was some members and maybe

[1:14:48] council members and I don't recall names or one but that that doesn't matter

[1:14:54] to put it out there maybe hire the chief but that that chief oversee that project

[1:14:59] but all due respect if we have funding right now we know that this is going to

[1:15:03] be a catalyst to get more recruits and what that funding looks like can be

[1:15:09] allowed is it okay not the king. This is the this is the

[1:15:14] entity right now. Maybe give him permission as we move forward with this

[1:15:17] to get votes or to kind of look at that layup so you get that so you can get

[1:15:22] that going. So so at least started when that cheap does come come about. Maybe

[1:15:26] it's built by then maybe it's not but at least it's it's it's going it's going in

[1:15:30] the right direction and then that can that can spur some some potential

[1:15:34] growth. So can we is it okay? Can we at least agree on that?

[1:15:44] I mean I don't know has has any firms has has anybody first of all has any

[1:15:47] firms come out to look at that? Have you guys presented any type of ideas any

[1:15:52] type of blueprints any type of drawings?

[1:15:57] » Technically we already voted on and approved it.

[1:16:00] » We did that. >> We did that in July I believe. Right.

[1:16:03] » So So to your question Adrian we've already approved it. We don't need to

[1:16:08] vote again. Um, we did it at the same time that we initiated the ordinance uh

[1:16:14] being creative. I think it was that night.

[1:16:17] » Not that we have to vote, but just to give them just the courtesy of just

[1:16:21] respectfully to move forward. >> I don't think that they need the council

[1:16:26] permission to get estimates. >> No, we we've started that process um and

[1:16:32] can kind of stay in communication with you as we start to pull bids for what

[1:16:36] that's going to look like. And I think there is a little bit of question we

[1:16:39] answered. >> Oh, probably.

[1:16:42] » Okay. So, we would need to work with the city a little bit because I think there

[1:16:45] was some ambiguity around the potential need for an elevator which obviously

[1:16:51] would add significant expense. >> So, I could work with the city on that.

[1:16:56] That would be helpful as well.

[1:17:01] » Thank you. >> Only go up, right? Because you hear they

[1:17:03] have a poll about that, right? >> It only goes up. What's up? Well, back

[1:17:08] to your point, I just want to say I think we probably do need to have an

[1:17:10] endgame. I appreciate the idea of, hey, if it's not broke by the time we get to

[1:17:15] whatever the time period is, why mess with it? Um, however, I think we all

[1:17:22] need to be clear on where we're going. Um, and I think if the idea is that

[1:17:28] we're not having a fully municipal department like what Bentonorf

[1:17:31] eventually has turned into, but more of a hybrid department, more of like what

[1:17:35] we know other smaller communities likelair have. I think that's the hybrid

[1:17:42] municipal department that we're all looking at, not a fully staffed um,

[1:17:47] fully employed municipal department within two years. I I agree with you. I

[1:17:53] don't think that's I I don't think that's the direction that we're going.

[1:17:55] But I do think that we're looking at that hybrid where the city has

[1:18:00] responsibility for everything, but the volunteers are still the there's still

[1:18:04] the point of sword.

[1:18:09] I guess my question is I'm sure everyone is looking at their clocks and figuring

[1:18:13] out when we're going to wrap it up. What would be

[1:18:17] next steps both sides? What was actionable items that we can both take

[1:18:23] away from this and then set a review to come back? Is it I mean I think there's

[1:18:27] a couple things we need to discuss. of the term length. I think there's um some

[1:18:33] discussion around that and you know potentially maybe we both um work with

[1:18:39] legal counsel and Seth here to present a couple potential options for how that

[1:18:46] joint board um would look potentially and the insurability that would go with

[1:18:52] that and what would be cleanest from that perspective. then maybe we can

[1:18:56] bring back those findings and have a discussion based on the results of that

[1:19:00] that scene. >> That's what I had done. I had to have

[1:19:03] timing. I had um I had how the what the difference is between this

[1:19:08] administrative board and what this administrative entity that you talked

[1:19:10] about is um how we move forward. It seems to me um and if I'm out of bounds

[1:19:16] here, your honor, please tell me. Um it seems to me it might make sense for um

[1:19:21] Allison and Daniel and Seth to have a conversation about how that can be done

[1:19:26] in some way that's very clear if it can be done in a very

[1:19:31] clarified way with as little complexity as possible because it sounds like our

[1:19:36] our biggest challenge in that regard is is that it has to be exceptionally clear

[1:19:41] um so that liability, governance, accountability is all covered so that if

[1:19:47] something goes wrong, we know um we can we know what the expectations are as to

[1:19:53] what's going to be covered and who's going to be responsible in some way. Is

[1:19:56] that fair? But I think for us to sit here, it's it's really you three that

[1:20:02] probably need to have some conversation about whether that oversight board or

[1:20:07] whether that oversight entity um is an option and then let us take a look at

[1:20:11] that. Then Andrew, maybe let you guys talk about timing and how hiring the

[1:20:16] chief works and let us maybe do the same thing in I don't know some sort of

[1:20:19] format or or you know let Ryan and the mayor or Ryan and Brian and the mayor

[1:20:24] kind of work that framework and see how that looks and let the council take a

[1:20:27] look at it and then come together for another discussion.

[1:20:33] Does that sound reasonable? >> It does. I I think

[1:20:38] for sure the two attorneys need to talk. Now granted, the fire department's going

[1:20:43] to incur more costs that will be we paying, but we have to get this right.

[1:20:47] » Right. >> You know, is there an avenue through

[1:20:50] 2018 agreements without forming that other oversight board?

[1:20:55] You know, those are the questions I don't know.

[1:20:59] Um, yes, Seth has to be involved. Very familiar with additionally insured

[1:21:04] accord certificates and all that fun stuff that you deal with.

[1:21:09] Um, if two entities have to ensure the same

[1:21:14] apparatus, yes, we will have an additional cost for a short period, but

[1:21:20] we don't recover uh the 24 months or two years versus

[1:21:26] three years. Um, I believe your guys's fiscal year is uh January 1 to December

[1:21:32] 31 where ours is July 1 to the end of June. So it might be a weird number. It

[1:21:40] could be 30 months

[1:21:44] something. We have a budget cycle coming up. We're going to be starting that

[1:21:48] process here in about 3 months. We can have communications back and forth and

[1:21:54] maybe try try for lack of other terminology a dry run on your budget to

[1:22:00] see how that looks. But if it is something like 30 months, it'll get the

[1:22:06] timing to get two complete cycles in. I mean, it might be 28 months because

[1:22:12] we're already in September, but something like that. But I'm glad that

[1:22:17] we're all willing to at least sit down and discuss the options

[1:22:22] because all of us like I said everybody at this table or specifically the

[1:22:26] council members we have to make a choice you guys have to make a choice we both

[1:22:32] have to make a choice what's right for the citizens

[1:22:37] you know and if it is whatever I said 28 or 30 months doesn't if everything's

[1:22:43] going smooth a it could potentially stay the same or b you guys might vote you're

[1:22:49] comfortable with everything and say let's transition to the city paying the

[1:22:54] per call and that kind of stuff and we still have options.

[1:23:03] Um Allison, I think one of the things that I'm just concerned from the

[1:23:07] backside that you guys when you talk and I'm sure Seth would be included in this,

[1:23:11] I just want to make sure when you're talking about the the overall obligation

[1:23:16] that the city has, you know, in terms of um even if we're held to harmless, that

[1:23:22] we're still liable for that fire suppression. And it even goes into

[1:23:25] detail in in code uh 670.2 to um and employee definition of employees even

[1:23:34] whether direct or indirect. I just want to make sure that all that's very clear

[1:23:37] when you're looking at the the insurance and then the level of risk that we're

[1:23:42] doing. And that's another reason too, guys. I I don't like the level of risk

[1:23:47] even if it's 12 months. I mean, if we extend it to let's say we agree upon 24

[1:23:51] months or whatever that looks like. To me, that's just it's unnecessary

[1:23:55] exposure that we really want to look at limiting. Um so that's my only that's my

[1:24:00] two cents on that. um with with our budget cycle currently um if we did a a

[1:24:06] 24month transitional period would would they be

[1:24:10] able to sit through they be able to sit through two of them or they would

[1:24:13] probably just fall behind on the first one but if we're in September so that

[1:24:19] budget uh we'll still be working on that through

[1:24:23] March March April >> goes to the state in April

[1:24:29] » just as an idea And but again, I like the idea that regardless of where we're

[1:24:33] at, if you you're sitting through that process, I think that's that's

[1:24:36] important. I don't you probably know numbers better than me, but I was

[1:24:39] completely confused my first time sitting through it. It's easier to

[1:24:43] understand the more times you do it.

[1:24:48] So, I'm hearing that we'll have Daniel and Allison get together and talk and

[1:24:53] you maybe step if necessary to see what's possible and then maybe Allison

[1:24:58] you can bring some recommendations back to us after your discussions with that

[1:25:01] and thoughts on that and then we as the council can figure out what our next

[1:25:05] steps might be. >> Can can we put a two date on that

[1:25:08] figure? We need to put a schedule another committee to full meeting like

[1:25:13] this whether 3 weeks is reasonable, two weeks, four weeks but we have to have a

[1:25:19] date. I mean, also at our next council meeting, the

[1:25:26] ordinances that we tabled, we need to come up and turn those down, get them on

[1:25:32] to

[1:25:39] » Is that the wish of the council? >> Absolutely. No more than a month. But I

[1:25:44] think the sooner the better. You know, obviously it's going to be around your

[1:25:48] schedule what you know type of communications you're going to have. But

[1:25:51] I don't we we've got to keep rapidly moving forward. And I think that every

[1:25:54] time we have a meeting like this, we need to set another date. I don't want

[1:25:58] to I don't want to wait for feedback. I want to keep setting dates and keep you

[1:26:03] moving forward.

[1:26:07] I mean, we could do that our first uh we'll meet again October, do we not?

[1:26:14] » Yes, we could. >> If uh legal representation has enough

[1:26:20] time to discuss and get through it, I mean, if they're comfortable, we can

[1:26:24] shoot for that and hopefully they can communicate back and forth and come up

[1:26:29] with some options. At least then we have a a timeline or a goal. It's not that I

[1:26:35] don't enjoy all the quality time that we've spent together in Missouri once.

[1:26:39] But if we can get it back onto our regular schedule and and if that works

[1:26:42] for you guys, that'd be great. And if it doesn't, then you have the option, I

[1:26:46] guess, or call another special committee that will

[1:26:50] » I agree with you, Brian. If it if it fits in the background, if they can man,

[1:26:54] I'm not quite you're dismissing the opening night event.

[1:26:58] » Your honor, if I may, when is that first cow meeting in October? We have

[1:27:03] » I believe it's Monday.

[1:27:10] » You said your honor and city administrator answered you.

[1:27:17] » I'm staying out of that. >> Any other comments for anybody?

[1:27:23] » We clear on where we're going. So RB is is that right now tentatively we are

[1:27:29] doing the committee a whole on the 5th that would be the same night as a

[1:27:33] regular schedule correct council meeting >> if Allison and Daniel can get together

[1:27:38] » would you be I mean I obviously we don't know what's going to be on the agenda

[1:27:41] and so for since this is important and it's it's taking almost two hours do we

[1:27:47] need to have the CO on the 7th instead if everybody's available just

[1:27:54] Let's wait and see how fast Allison and Danielle can get together and if we need

[1:27:58] to call a special meeting before that we can do that and we'll set the date.

[1:28:03] » I I agree. I think we should consider setting a special meeting sooner if that

[1:28:07] opportunity comes up and it can be completed quicker. We should always look

[1:28:10] at movement options. >> Sure. And on that first meeting, we can

[1:28:15] always set the your honor, you can set up the agenda. Committee of the whole

[1:28:19] and the council meeting starts five minutes after the conclusion of

[1:28:23] committee the whole so we're not bound by 7 p.m.

[1:28:26] » Correct. >> Andrew and Dave and Patrick, you guys

[1:28:30] have anything to add or questions? >> I think that works

[1:28:35] » right. That will be our plan then. That is our only item for business motion to

[1:28:41] adjurnn. So >> second,

[1:28:45] second by Ash. All in favor say I. >> Motion carried. Thank you all.

[1:28:53] » Thanks, guys.

2026-09-09 Special Committee of the Whole

Transcript