[0:02] This conference will now be recorded.

[0:08] » I think we're recording.

[0:16] » We're recording. >> Here it says

[0:21] it does. >> We should be live.

[0:25] » Yeah, we can hear you. >> Okay.

[0:29] said something. >> Did he?

[0:33] » Pause recording. Maybe >> then,

[0:45] » but we can't hear.

[0:53] Okay. Well, we're we're on camera. We think

[0:57] we're also recording. It is 6:31 p.m. on Monday, July 27th, 2026. I'll call to

[1:04] order the Cabbage Grove Fire District Commission meeting. Uh this is a hybrid

[1:08] meeting taking place at town hall and on go to meet. Uh we do have a quorum and

[1:14] the agenda is properly posted. So we'll move to item three, public appearances,

[1:18] public's opportunity to speak about any subject that is not a specific agenda

[1:22] item. Have anyone in the room? Uh, we can try

[1:28] to incorporate Zoom if anyone from the public has something

[1:32] that they would like to speak about. I don't see any hands or anyone in the

[1:39] room. So, we'll keep moving to item four. Discuss and consider the minutes

[1:42] from the June 22nd, 2026 meeting. Uh, any uh comments, edits, or consideration

[1:49] for us? Anything? >> One change on the

[1:53] dating for when this meeting was supposed to happen. I had the 20th down

[1:57] as I >> the 27th.

[2:00] » And with that change, I move approval. >> I have a second.

[2:07] » A motion and second to approve the minutes with an edit.

[2:10] » I have one more edit also. Well, a few more edits to add. Um, in section 7, 9,

[2:16] and 10, Cameron's name is spelled wrong. It's missing the

[2:21] So that's in section 7, N, and 10. Right.

[2:28] So, we have um

[2:34] C E R O N is missing. E R O N.

[2:41] » Sorry, camera. >> Um so, you're good with amending your

[2:45] motion also those edits. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second uh with a

[2:51] couple of edits. Any further discussion on the minutes from June 22nd?

[2:56] Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> Any [clears throat] opposed? Any

[3:00] abstained? Motion carries. Thank you and thanks for preparing your minutes. Uh

[3:05] we'll move then to item five, the chief's report.

[3:09] » All right. Uh we are currently at 41 staff. have nine officers, three driver

[3:15] operators, 21 firefighters, six probationary, zero explorers,

[3:21] one chaplain, and one. Uh, the time of the report, there was

[3:27] 222 calls for service plus one exposure, averages out to 1.09 calls per day. If

[3:33] that were to [clears throat] continue, estimated number at the end of the year

[3:36] would be around 399. Breakdown of the calls is 57 in the town

[3:42] of Cottage Grove, 30 in Pleasant Springs, 102 in the village of Cottage

[3:47] Grove and 33 Mutual.

[3:53] Various charts for the times of day and come in.

[3:58] Um so for apparatus letter one went in

[4:02] person service that's been fixed.

[4:08] Fender one's having several issues including the air horns randomly

[4:11] activating while driving. Some lighting issues and air conditioning issues

[4:16] lighting issues and air conditioner fix. Uh the horn issue is still being

[4:23] worked on to find a solution. Engine 3 is having an issue with drafting. Lion's

[4:28] going to work on addressing issues with three one

[4:32] and brush one both had flat tires earlier this month.

[4:36] One had a puncture to the tire and was repaired. Brush one had a weld fail on

[4:40] the rim. Spare tire and rim were put on brush

[4:45] one. Brush one due for new tires in 2027. So replacement rim and spare tire

[4:49] will be included with the capital budget for that.

[4:54] Uh permit info. Fundraising for the village allowed the department to

[4:58] purchase two drones. Department's working on training operators and we'll

[5:02] put them into service soon. Um training for July is rural water

[5:07] movement and the officers worked on planning for

[5:11] rural operations and practice drafting operations from the dry hydrant on in

[5:15] the town.

[5:18] Um department added one new member in July and the staff participated in

[5:23] market policy 16 members. Adam Menberg 2018 was brought on by the staff to

[5:29] probationary status and Evan is the first candidate to complete the core

[5:34] program. It's a big deal. Um staff milestones for Kyle Wheeler for

[5:41] four years and Mitch Dao with seven years.

[5:50] Break down the calls are attached also. Thanks so much Chief. um questions about

[5:58] the chief's report. >> Yeah, go ahead, J.

[6:02] » Um just want to confirm for the drones um are the we're going to have any

[6:08] annual cost for those u because I know some drones require some annual

[6:13] subscriptions uh for some of the software that goes with them.

[6:16] » Um the drones themselves don't need it, but we're subscribing to a service that

[6:21] helps maintain our records. So there is going to be a little bit of cost. I

[6:26] think it's pretty

[6:30] not

[6:37] other questions. >> I do. Um I have a meeting next week with

[6:45] D County Highway regarding the bridge over Little Door Creek Netfit.

[6:51] Um, you know, over was it on Uphoff? We put

[6:57] in that dry hydrant over there.

[7:02] Um, with the Houston's having their big development right there

[7:07] in the area. There seems to be a fair amount of water down in the creek there

[7:13] and stuff. Is there

[7:17] any interest possibility whatever maybe putting a dry hydrant in if it meets all

[7:24] the criteria obviously down at that location seeing the county is going to

[7:29] be redoing the bridge here next spring. >> Yeah. I mean if it met the criteria and

[7:34] it was feasible then >> I mean the criteria that I was looking

[7:40] at was >> is there sufficient water for what kind

[7:44] of draw you would have >> right

[7:46] » you know um >> yeah so I mean if if there's enough

[7:51] water which I don't know if there is or not I guess I haven't looked at the

[7:55] water in that area um if there's enough water and if the county allows you to do

[8:01] that or the DNR allows you to do that because you have to have permission to

[8:04] do that. Can't >> because I don't think we got had to get

[8:07] permission from the DNR when we did the one up on Uphoff if I remember correctly

[8:12] when you when we redid the bridge. Um >> I'm not 100% sure.

[8:17] » Yeah. I'm just >> Is there I guess probably the bottom

[8:22] line is there any interest? Would that be any of of any assistance in the event

[8:29] all hell would break loose or is it I mean

[8:31] » close enough to run into town here? >> It saves a little bit of a trip but

[8:35] realistically like the the closest hydrant's right here at the fire

[8:38] station. So you're talking maybe a mile, half a mile that you're saving. So, I

[8:44] don't know if it's >> Hey, I just, you know, like I said, I

[8:47] only bring it up because of the fact I've got a captive audience and if there

[8:51] was anything to be done positively about it, that would be the time to plant the

[8:56] seed and stuff. So, >> I mean, I just don't know how how much

[9:00] it'll get used. The one that we have on up get used.

[9:04] » Nope, that's fine. Um, but with how close it is to the hydrants,

[9:09] I mean, if the hydrants ever went down, you'd have another water support, water

[9:12] source, I guess. But, um, I I just don't know if it's if it's feasible or not. If

[9:19] it is, I don't think there's very much cost to actually install one. I don't

[9:22] think they're very expensive to do. >> No, I don't recall it being much of a of

[9:27] a cost at all >> to have it done. So

[9:32] um how quickly I mean what kind of draw I

[9:39] mean [snorts] strike that if

[9:43] you were to throw the suction hose onto that

[9:48] how much draw down I mean how many gallons at a crack would you be sucking

[9:53] out of there? I just you know don't want you to suck it dry and have to wait for

[9:57] the creek to refill and It depends on what we're filling. I mean, the truck

[10:02] that we would use has 2,000 gallons per minute pump on it. So, you could be

[10:05] anywhere from, you know, a couple hundred gallons all

[10:08] the way up to 2,000 gallons per minute, but it'd be pretty rare to pull that

[10:12] much at a time, especially from a draft. So, I mean,

[10:18] maybe a couple hundred gallons per minute would be pretty pretty

[10:21] reasonable. So maybe like 500

[10:26] » 500 to 1,000 gallons a minute somewhere in there.

[10:31] » All right. Maybe I'll just pursue it and just ask the question just see if it

[10:35] floats or not and I'll get back to you and let you know

[10:39] what I find out. >> Okay. Thank you.

[10:45] » Any other questions on chief's report? We'll send our congratulations to Evan

[10:52] on completing the Explorer program.

[10:59] » All right. So then we'll keep moving to item six. Discuss and consider sending

[11:03] root vent propou to each municipality. Um thisou was added on to the packet. U

[11:12] the agenda was properly posted. The attachment was just uh sent later. Um so

[11:18] there's

[11:21] discussion of the the use and ownership of roof vent. Um we originally approved

[11:29] this uh the use of the Pleasant Springs funds um March 23rd of this year

[11:36] um to pay the half out of the Pleasant Springs funds.

[11:43] The other portion was the Ascendium Good Grant I think. um

[11:49] this part used for the other portion um from

[11:54] CG volunteer fire department

[12:01] since the commission isn't the group uh ownership but we' just be

[12:06] voting to send this then to um each municipality for their um review and

[12:13] consideration. doing this again. Which one are we

[12:16] looking at here? >> It's a little bit shorter. It's got it's

[12:20] four pages. Starts out memorandum of understanding by the village town and

[12:26] fire district

[12:30] » regarding use and ownership of certain streaming equipment. I don't know if

[12:34] there's anything that you want to add or discussions you had with.

[12:38] » So, I mean, it's probably worthwhile to have your attorneys review it. Um, this

[12:42] was drafted by our attorney and it's basically just to establish like we

[12:46] talked about that, you know, if the village and town are going to take

[12:50] ownership of it with the vir

[12:54] um it's just to kind of protect their rights to use it and make sure it

[12:58] doesn't get sold without um some kind of agreement in place or um in regarding

[13:05] the usage of the of the crop. So, um I think the our association's okay with

[13:12] the ownership thing, but we just want to make sure that we're doing this in a way

[13:16] that protects our interest in using it. So, like if down the road the village

[13:21] decided they wanted to sell it, we wouldn't be just like to dry. I guess

[13:27] not that that's going to happen, but um just kind of prepare or just to

[13:33] protect our assets, I guess. So that if if you guys ever decided to sell it,

[13:38] there'd be some kind of say that the fire department had and if you wanted

[13:42] somebody else to use it, we'd have to discuss that. It's uh just trying to

[13:48] protect our investment in it. So it's not like fire department bought half of

[13:52] it, but going forward, we really have no say on how it's used or operated or

[13:57] sold. So >> you two say protect your assets or

[14:02] protect your ass? >> Assets.

[14:04] » Okay. I just I couldn't hear that.

[14:09] » So you recommend this goes to the town and the village attorneys

[14:14] » and then after that >> recommendation for sign off.

[14:19] » Yeah. >> Why did we do this in the beginning?

[14:23] » Um >> what made it a problem all of a sudden?

[14:26] I guess we didn't anticipate the I guess the fire department didn't

[14:30] anticipate the >> spending any money or

[14:34] » no we were we were prepared to spend the money if we didn't anticipate that once

[14:38] we spent the money that fire department wouldn't own any part of it I guess and

[14:43] that's what that's what's being that's what the interpretation on the

[14:48] service agreement was by the village attorneys and Cameron

[14:54] and So, I guess we weren't we weren't anticipating buying half of it but then

[14:59] not owning any of it. So, this is to protect our investment in it. So, if if

[15:05] that's the way it's going to be that the village and town own it solely without

[15:08] the fire department, we're still entitled usage of it. So,

[15:14] » we got to get some more involved. >> Lawyers are good.

[15:18] » Is that Oh, go ahead. I mean, unfortunately, in the past, we've

[15:21] operated on the handshake agreement, and it just doesn't work that way anymore.

[15:25] So, unfortunately, we have to put something in writing to make sure that

[15:30] when the time comes, that fire department still has their rights

[15:35] protected in this. I guess what I'm what I'm looking at.

[15:40] So, >> that's what I was going to ask. Is there

[15:43] other equipment that has been jointly purchased in the past?

[15:49] I don't think we've ever really done anything jointly like so every truck

[15:54] that's been bought the association has chipped in stuff like if there's

[15:58] something we would like to change on the truck or make it a little bit more

[16:00] usable for us. Um we've part we've donated to that cause but our donation

[16:09] was a fraction of what the truck is. So like the last truck we bought was the

[16:13] squad. I think that truck was $680,000. I think we put in 10 or $15,000 for a

[16:20] couple things that we wanted to put on the truck that it wouldn't really be

[16:25] like a standard truck item, but it was something that we thought would be nice

[16:29] to have. So, we paid the money to help >> bring it to that and then we contribute

[16:35] a little bit or we buy equipment to put on the truck. Um, so we've never done

[16:39] anything where we like joint own it. Um we have done stuff where we've bought it

[16:45] um and then maintain ownership of it like the UTV association currently owns

[16:50] that but the municipalities aren't paying for the UTV.

[16:54] » Okay. >> Or didn't pay for the UTV. So

[16:58] » thank you. >> Um I did have one other background

[17:03] question. So, we'll be taking this to each of our own attorneys, but some of

[17:08] the other joint committees have like a commission attorney. So, you know, now

[17:15] we're each going to spend on our own attorneys, but there it's kind of

[17:19] » we don't need another attorney. >> I know,

[17:21] » but we just between theirs and our two that's more than enough to look at it.

[17:27] » Yeah. Just historically, I was wondering if that there was any reason why we

[17:30] didn't go that route here versus Okay. Okay. Go through this again. What So

[17:36] where where are you? You're you're saying you want to vote on some

[17:39] something every time if it was going to be sold or what what's

[17:43] » We're we're trying to protect our our investment in it. So basically what we

[17:48] bought the we bought 50% of it, right? The fire paid for half of it,

[17:52] » right? >> And the way that the contract was

[17:54] written, it says that basically the fire department doesn't own any of it even

[17:59] with us paying for half of it. So this agreement is to put in in place some

[18:04] kind of a agreement that like yes, we don't own it, but if there's anything

[18:11] that's going to happen with it, we would like to be involved with the decision-

[18:14] making. Like if the town and village decide they don't want it anymore, they

[18:18] want to sell it, that there needs to be a consensus with the fire department for

[18:22] selling it. or if the town of Village decide that they want to let somebody

[18:27] else use it, then that has to be agreed upon with the fire department as well.

[18:31] You know, it's there's a few things in there that just kind of protect our

[18:35] investment because we've invested in it, but at the end of the day, it's going to

[18:40] show up that the fire doesn't own it at all, even though we're technically paid

[18:45] for more of it than both municipalities did.

[18:47] » Well, why don't we just turn it over to them then?

[18:51] Why? What's What's this about? Is it turn about turning this over to them

[18:55] totally? >> No.

[18:56] » Or the we we keep >> it's just basically

[19:00] saying that the town and village are not free to

[19:06] dispose of it or use it the way we would want.

[19:10] » Okay. Okay. So, >> the fire department is an basically an

[19:14] equal party in [clears throat] the decision making with regards to that

[19:19] piece of >> so they would vote on it between the

[19:21] town and the village >> and them would vote on this

[19:26] » what >> if it was going to be sold or something

[19:28] if we went ahead and said it was going to be sold. They could walk in and say,

[19:32] "Well, I we want our opinion and that's it."

[19:37] » Pretty much. >> Well, that that doesn't that doesn't

[19:39] make sense. >> Why? Why not why not give them a saying

[19:42] in >> why not give them the equipment?

[19:46] » Like if you look at page three and put it simple.

[19:49] » Yeah, I understand that. >> To put it simple is the association

[19:53] decided after we got into this because we hadn't done it this way before.

[19:57] We could have we had several options, right? Reimburse, buy the whole thing.

[20:02] And instead we decided that as an association we decided, you know what?

[20:08] It's yours. And the only thing we're asking for is to be able to control its

[20:12] usage because it's a fire problem. >> But you you decided it's ours just like

[20:16] you said. But then you want to say and you don't have a vote.

[20:20] » Well, but the other option is when if you choose to sell it, if you look at

[20:23] this agreement, we we're asking for a first right. There's a we could purchase

[20:29] it back. >> Right of first.

[20:31] » A right of first refusal. Wow. >> First right of refusal. Yeah.

[20:37] » Okay. Whatever. Makes no sense to me, but that's okay.

[20:42] » You think it should go directly to the fire department?

[20:44] » Yeah, I would think so. Why do we go through this with because there's a word

[20:50] is spelled wrong or something in an agreement or something. Geez.

[20:55] » Just out of curiosity, who owns fire trucks?

[21:01] » But so you own >> We own nothing over there. Like we don't

[21:05] So we own the stuff that we buy ourselves. So like the UTV, there's a

[21:08] couple pieces of equipment that we bought ourselves, but like the trucks

[21:13] are owned split between the town and village. The two tenders are owned

[21:17] solely by the town. So the village did not

[21:22] like purchase half of the tender when that came up, the new tender. So the

[21:26] town bought those flat out right by themselves. Every other truck is owned

[21:31] by the town and village depending on equalized value. So the ladder is like a

[21:35] 50-50 split right now because when it was purchased engine three is like a

[21:40] like a 6040 split with the village owning the majority and so is um squad

[21:48] and then engine four was like a 50/50 split. So it's based on your equalized

[21:53] value. So like when the new ladder comes payment's going to be based on your

[21:57] equalized value for who owns the majority of it and who pays for the

[22:01] majority of it. So, >> okay.

[22:04] » But it'll be a town and build own truck. The fire department doesn't own any of

[22:07] it. We're just operators of it. >> So, the roof apparatus

[22:13] we own just the same as all the other pieces of equipment. [clears throat]

[22:16] » That's the way the agreement. >> It gets unique. It gets unique when it

[22:20] comes to specialized equipment or special purchases. There's different

[22:24] language about special equipment and then there's language about items

[22:30] purchased by the fire department or personal property. So, there's a couple

[22:34] different sections in the agreement that talks about ownership of different

[22:38] items. There's specific language about the building, spec specific language

[22:43] about apparatus and equipment, and then there's language about personal items.

[22:48] So, it depends on what the items are and who owns it. Like Nick said, there's

[22:52] certain apparatus that's owned specifically by the town. Um, there's

[22:56] joint apparatus and then this just happened to be a very unique item that

[23:01] we use Pleasant Springs funds for. So, it got really complicated with this

[23:05] specific item because we went 50/50 on it with personal department funds and

[23:11] Pleasant Springs funds. And it's the first time we've ever done something

[23:15] like that. So, it became a complicated situation really quick. But, you know,

[23:21] it seems to me then that if we were going to have a vote on on selling this

[23:25] or something that that they should have 50% of the vote and we should each have

[23:29] 25. Why Why are we making this a big issue

[23:34] over this when they paid for half of it? >> I mean, you guys technically paid for

[23:39] half of it, too. So, >> we paid a quarter piece.

[23:43] » Yeah. You each paid a quarter, but between the two of you, you paid for

[23:47] half of it. >> Mhm.

[23:51] Wow. Okay. >> Um so the consideration then is to to

[23:59] take this agreement to have um as part of each of village and town board

[24:05] meeting. Have your attorneys review it as you see necessary. Is that some of

[24:11] the next steps you envision? And if approved at each municipality, then we

[24:16] bring it back to you for signature. Also,

[24:18] » I don't think we'll probably need a lawyer for this, Steve.

[24:22] » We could sure talk about it, though. [clears throat]

[24:26] » It's on our for our next agenda for the town board.

[24:30] » Good. Good. >> Other comments, questions?

[24:36] » The only comment I'll make is that, you know, you get

[24:45] Every attorney's going to have their own spin on this. I know.

[24:49] » And okay, if we were to the town were to send it off somewhere, Mr. Cole would

[24:55] say, "Well, I how about writing this?" So then we got to send it back to their

[24:59] guys. I mean, it just could become this really ugly

[25:05] circle with a lot of expense involved unnecessarily. So,

[25:12] and >> how about the dog? Is that going to be

[25:16] 50/50 town village? >> Well, we'll talk about that in a little

[25:20] bit, right? Okay.

[25:26] » I'll move that we send this agreement off to the respective boards for

[25:32] approval. >> I do have a couple comments first.

[25:37] hold that motion or do you want to second and then comment?

[25:41] » We can second and then comment. >> I'm just afraid my comments might

[25:46] adjust. That's fine. I'll just do that. We'll second and comment. Um,

[25:50] so [sighs] couple clarifying things I think might

[25:53] be worthwhile for us to have a conversation with before we send it on

[25:56] for our lawyers to look at. Um one thing was uh in the after the

[26:05] whereas section three possession registration and insurance.

[26:09] Um just want to ask is there a reason why

[26:14] the uh Ber fire department would be covering that with their insurance

[26:20] versus all of the other assets are typically under um our insurance that we

[26:26] do here. Um,

[26:29] so you haven't I'm laughing because we went through

[26:33] this a couple years ago. So >> the way that the insurance is set up is

[26:37] that all the insurance is in Cottage Grove Fire Department's name. That's the

[26:41] way it has to be because we're the employees or the operators. The trucks

[26:46] are on our policy, but they're showing ownership to you guys. So if a truck is

[26:51] damaged, you guys will get a check for the damage to the truck, pay for the

[26:56] truck, but we'll get a check for our employees or medical bills or

[27:02] which is the way that set up for volunteer departments all over the

[27:06] country. So a couple years ago when Sarah was on the same question came up

[27:11] and he brought all the insurance people in and they they reassured that yes,

[27:16] this is the correct way to do it. If something happens, [snorts] the

[27:20] municipalities will get their, you know, any equipment that's owned by the

[27:25] municipalities will be paid to the municipalities where anything that

[27:29] happens to the staff will be towards CGVF, Inc. because they're technically

[27:34] our employees. So, thank you. So that's why it says for us because we have the

[27:39] insurance policy but you guys are I think the tech technical word is the

[27:46] leis or the I can't remember what it is but it it shows that you guys are the

[27:50] owners of the yeah the apparatus. So >> do you have any other questions?

[28:00] » Sorry I just want to double check my notes based on discussion here. Um,

[28:06] and going back to Mike's point over there, uh, part of the reason why this

[28:10] is complicated and what April mentioned is there are the two agreements. One is

[28:14] the district agreement that talks about assets, but then also our agreement with

[28:18] the volunteer fire department, which really talks about assets in here. Um,

[28:23] and so that's why it's kind of coming into

[28:27] this kind of discussion is what kind of precedent are we going to set for items

[28:32] like this um, and assets as a whole? Do we want to have a process for items

[28:41] that the fire department uh, contributes a significant amount?

[28:47] What's that determined in there? We have that conversation.

[28:51] um or if it's that um kind of as chief mentioned they

[28:58] contribute to but the vast majority is kind of covered on under us and thus

[29:01] it's property of the district in there. So current to both agreements right now

[29:07] they both point to that it would be part that will be owned by the district in

[29:12] there um unless uh stated otherwise. Um, so that's where the like April was kind

[29:18] of mentioned that special equipment type part in there. So that's why this um

[29:23] conversation is necessary in there. Um, so for me

[29:33] the principle of this of giving you all a say is absolutely I think

[29:38] something that's worth definitely worth considering going through that. Um

[29:43] it's just I want to make sure that uh we are very careful in the precedent we

[29:50] set in there that I don't want to open I don't want to lead to further

[29:56] confusion down the line when other assets are purchased in there. And so as

[30:01] we go through this one of the things I'll just kind of ask us to think about

[30:04] is um what can we do to avoid this mess in the future? what are some of the

[30:10] things some guard rails that we can to make this whole process easier

[30:13] especially when it comes down to like these specialized training equipment or

[30:17] things along those lines. But of course again my point is did you

[30:22] spend 25% he spent 20 we did they spent 50 but they're not going to have a vote

[30:29] if anything comes out they'll be able to say I don't think it should be done big

[30:33] deal so what that means nothing they could do that anyway it is if it

[30:40] trying to speak entirely for our board the association board I think this whole

[30:44] process is good going forward we're not going to do this again it's either going

[30:48] to be complete fire department >> fire department buy it all right on

[30:53] their own >> or they're going to ask the

[30:56] municipalities to pay for it all right on their own so there's no confusion as

[30:59] to who owns it because >> and this turned into something far more

[31:02] than it really needed to >> no I I'm with you and that's what I

[31:06] don't understand about we this was all done in good faith you know and we all

[31:11] have good faith but we always have to have a lawyer decide if our good faith

[31:16] is good faith that should good faith.

[31:21] » It's [snorts] crazy. >> On our discussion, I think

[31:24] [clears throat] our our opinion is going forward, we probably won't do something

[31:27] like this. Again, we're a 50/50 split. We'll just

[31:31] buy it, then maintain it, own it, >> or municipalities will buy it, own it,

[31:36] and maintain it. And there's no gray area. It's just cut and dry.

[31:44] » Yeah. The purchase kind of came in March, too. So we hadn't planned it in

[31:47] the budget. So we hadn't had that conversation like kind of in advance,

[31:51] you know, where in the future like we'll have those kinds, you know, plan the

[31:55] purchases, you know, I think >> it's probably yeah, we'll

[32:01] this is a learning experience it seems for everybody. Yeah,

[32:05] » I would actually be willing to take it to my board to give

[32:12] back some of the money we paid >> toward it to the fire department

[32:19] » so that they actually own more than 50%. I would go

[32:22] » that way this it's wholly owned, you know, they have a controlling interest

[32:27] and >> we don't have to have this or subsequent

[32:29] documents like this in the future. I mean, they're insuring it themselves

[32:33] already. Um,

[32:36] and again,

[32:40] from my perspective, we were just being the good guys, if you will.

[32:46] » Yeah. trying to provide

[32:50] um a great piece of training equipment for the fire department that number one

[32:56] didn't cost I'm looking at it from the town's perspective that didn't cost the

[33:01] town an arm and a leg. It's going to be around forever and ever. maintenance and

[33:07] um you know I it's documented that we gave

[33:12] the fire department I don't even remember how much we paid x amount of

[33:15] dollars but okay we did I it's just like we buy other things that we don't keep

[33:22] track of exactly as to >> who paid for what where and why and I

[33:27] just um you know I mean let me ask this question

[33:33] because I don't know that I know the Sir, who asked that this agreement be

[33:38] initiated? >> Um,

[33:42] who asked that we do anou? >> Yeah.

[33:45] » Talking about we so when we found out >> was it in house? I guess

[33:50] » I guess it was it was more on our end because when we found out that we

[33:54] weren't going to own any part of it like we were recommended because we talked to

[33:59] our attorney like, "Okay, so what should we do there?

[34:01] » Where we go? That's where we went. Unfortunately, I understand where you're

[34:07] coming, Mike. Yeah. >> Coming from, Mike, but unfortunately,

[34:09] the days of you just have a handshake agreement and everybody goes on off in

[34:14] the sunset and everything works out. Those days don't exist.

[34:17] » Well, we but we could have been sitting here talking without the memorandum

[34:20] first before it was even made. Well, so what happened is like when we went to go

[34:26] register it, I got an email from that was forward to me from Kim that would

[34:32] came from Rick and Larry from the town or from the village that said that the

[34:38] way they interpreted the contract that the fire department didn't own any part

[34:41] of it. So that's how it started is that we got a thing that said basically

[34:47] you're paid for half of it but you don't own any part of it. So, there's an issue

[34:52] right right off the top. Like, we were expecting to own half of it cuz we paid

[34:57] for half of it. We weren't expecting to not own any of it. So,

[35:02] » I thought you did. Honest to God, I didn't think this was any kind of big

[35:06] deal. >> Who said that you didn't own any of it?

[35:09] » That was the interpretation from the village attorneys.

[35:13] What's that? They and then your guys's attorney didn't review it at all because

[35:19] the village was like, "We already did it." So, if you you can have your

[35:22] attorney review it if you'd like, but just to save some costs like this is

[35:25] what our interpretation is. So, that's Go ahead.

[35:30] » So, this is based off the two parts and I have the two agreements up. So, if I

[35:34] can call out what those sections are. Um so with the agreement to with the

[35:40] volunteer fire department um it's under the

[35:45] section two part B ownership of assets specifically

[35:51] through I think this would fall more into four

[35:55] miscellaneous equipment personal property um

[36:01] which states ownership of miscellaneous equipment and personal property not

[36:04] described above shall be determined by the district in consultation with the

[36:10] volunteer fire department. So that's our agreement with the fire

[36:14] department. So unless we say otherwise >> by default it seems like it's going to

[36:20] go to the district ownership of any asset.

[36:25] » Town and village. >> The district. Yeah. The when I say

[36:28] district town and village [clears throat]

[36:30] » fire department isn't part of the district. We're a contract.

[36:34] » Yeah. municipalities.

[36:36] » We just are contracted by the district to do a service. We're a contractor. So,

[36:40] we are no part of the district. >> So, clarify that.

[36:45] » Thank you. However, that agreement does not prevent the fire department from

[36:50] owning an item >> or

[36:53] » they are not specifically prohibited from lo

[36:56] » or maybe the district donating or relinquishing

[37:03] equipment to the to the uh fire department.

[37:06] » Well, they could say something, but we'd still have to vote on it then, right?

[37:10] » Right. Both villies and towns. It's got to

[37:13] » this is my in my opinion based off my reading of this again cave I'm not a

[37:18] lawyer but what it's saying by default goes to the district unless the district

[37:23] states otherwise. >> So that's why I was saying like if this

[37:26] is something that the commission wants to do that's where theou comes into play

[37:31] and that's why uh the fire department's bringing it forward. Um because

[37:36] otherwise uh

[37:39] when I look at sorry because our so our attorney reviewed the same thing the two

[37:44] agreements right and it's it's a gray area because one it could be considered

[37:49] an app a vehicle because it's on trailer right

[37:53] » or it could be for special item because it's a trading prop. So he's like we

[37:59] could push either way. It could be it could be an it could be equipment or it

[38:04] could be the other one. So it's like technically if we push hard enough we

[38:08] could say it's ours because it's special equipment. But in the interest of not

[38:13] [snorts] this up we thought that the easiest

[38:16] method would be okay we'll just relinquish ownership so

[38:21] that we meet what the district's looking for.

[38:25] But our caveat to that is okay we have no problem doing that. But let's make it

[38:31] so we have some protection. That's that's where we're at. I guess that make

[38:36] sense. >> Okay.

[38:50] So, I just want to make sure to kind of summarize the intent of the MOU is to

[38:55] ensure that um

[38:59] you will have the right to

[39:04] determine how the uh asset is used. Uh so say if you another fire district

[39:14] were to come to us and say hey we want to borrow that this district this

[39:19] commission cannot sit cannot say we approve that without your agreement.

[39:25] That's one part there. Um,

[39:31] two is if the district decides that we no longer want the asset and we want to

[39:39] sell it off, then you all have first right of refusal.

[39:44] » I'm trying to like summarize it all. Is that covered like the main parts?

[39:47] » That's the main part. And then like if we chose to purchase it, it would

[39:52] explain that it' be at the depreciated value. It wouldn't be like, "Oh, you're

[39:55] buying a brand new prop that's 25 years old." You know, like, so there there's

[40:00] stuff in there about if we chose to buy it, how that would happen, who gets to

[40:05] write it off for the taxes, that kind of thing. But it's our attorney was

[40:12] supposed to be here tonight, but uh I don't know. He didn't call in yet. He

[40:17] had a funeral, so I was hoping that he'd call in and help answer some of these

[40:21] questions, but

[40:25] So I mean if that's the case then one of the other kind of comments I have

[40:31] is underou after the whereas section two

[40:35] operational control um

[40:39] it seems like the volunteer fire department has sole decision and how

[40:46] it's used versus the district. Um, but so what is it called? A

[40:52] training. Is it called training equipment?

[40:56] » I would not call it a vehicle just because it happens to be mobile as

[41:00] opposed to on skids. >> So we're looking at it. It could be gray

[41:04] area. It could be considered the other area of the two

[41:08] » rather than you thought it was a training thing,

[41:12] » but now because >> it came to you and said boo. No, could

[41:17] be gray area. Could be either one >> which is miscellaneous equipment is that

[41:24] » yeah whatever >> which is the statement I read.

[41:27] » Yeah that's determined by ownership determined by the district.

[41:31] » Yeah.

[41:35] » If they didn't have the money to buy it and we came to them and said

[41:40] we don't want this anymore. They didn't have the money to buy it.

[41:45] They're screwed.

[41:50] Oh, is that not correct? >> True. Or the town and village or the

[41:54] district could say, "Here you go. That >> take it." Yeah.

[41:58] » Give us a buck, you know, or something. >> I mean,

[42:02] » yeah, they could. Yeah.

[42:08] » There's no >> We could do that now, couldn't we? Same

[42:11] thing. We could >> I

[42:14] » I think all I'm saying is I think there's a lot more to this

[42:17] » than just all of a sudden coming up with the

[42:20] » this thing. You know, I I just I read it and you know, it's whereas and whereas

[42:26] and whip dip and what happens here and gray area here. And

[42:33] » sorry, I just want to make sure I check my understanding about the operational

[42:36] control in there because again, it seems like that's written so that you all have

[42:41] sole authority of how it's being used versus the district asset. I just want

[42:47] to confirm with the group. Um, that's kind of the intent and how we do with

[42:52] other our other assets in there or is um again I just want to protect us as a

[42:58] commission as well just like you're looking to protect uh the dis the fire.

[43:03] » Yeah, I guess we've never had to write one of these before. So I mean I don't

[43:06] know. I mean maybe that's not >> one time in what 85 years.

[43:13] » How long? >> I mean that might be re revised. Like I

[43:18] said, I was hoping that our attorney would be on so he could help explain

[43:22] some of the reasons why this was drafted by him. You know, it wasn't our writing

[43:26] on. >> Of course, it wasn't.

[43:29] » So,

[43:33] well, I think it's good conversation, Steve, at our next meeting and you guys,

[43:37] too. Same thing. >> Yeah, I do want to take Fit's comment

[43:41] into >> Yep. Near we got it. Um, I know

[43:45] Pleasanton Springs is just the don the source of income and we have no right to

[43:51] state anything, but I'm concerned and maybe it's in here and I just can't read

[43:56] it. Okay, so you have it, you're using it and it breaks. Is it the city and

[44:03] village who pay for it? Is it the fire department or is it collaborative? All

[44:07] three of you pay for the repair. Who pays for repairs in this? I don't see

[44:12] it.

[44:16] » Thank you, Faith. We're repairing.

[44:19] » You've got insurance, but you know, how does that filter out? I mean, and to to

[44:27] your thing, this is the first. There's always going to be a first in this

[44:31] world. And this is a new century. Sadly, and lawyers are part of everything.

[44:37] Can't do anything without a lawyer.

[44:42] Typically repairs would come out of our operational budget. Um we've got a

[44:46] training budget. So if something were to break, if we could fund it out of our

[44:49] operational budget, that's where we would try to go first or our equipment

[44:53] repair fund if it's something minor. Um this device isn't likely to have a

[44:59] serious type of situation that would be incredibly costly for repair unless it,

[45:05] you know, I don't see it having something like that. Well, my only

[45:09] thought is going down the highway, taking it from one space to another, uh,

[45:14] you know, and you doing a training session with the city of Stoton Fire

[45:17] Department and you're coming back and somebody runs a stop sign that falls

[45:22] under your insurance. I would assume >> it's also has it also has a warranty,

[45:26] Nick. I don't know how long that warranty was for. Um,

[45:29] » I don't remember. I'll stop ahead. Sorry. if you did add more things onto

[45:33] it above and beyond the barebones basic and that needs to be made sure that it's

[45:39] followed under your insurance because I recall being in this room in

[45:45] March when you're telling all about this and sadly half of you people on the

[45:49] board weren't here had no idea all of the discussion these poor people have

[45:53] gone through all of these questions before.

[45:56] » No kidding. Yeah. >> Yes. And that's the sad thing about tra

[46:02] change over as quickly as you do it. That's my opinion.

[46:09] » And you're sticking to it. Um, so we we could send these to our

[46:15] boards and our attorneys um and uh actually consider it when we're

[46:22] together at our joint meeting if there's any changes that either board wants to

[46:26] make >> in September.

[46:30] » Nick, do you want to see if Bill is on? If Bill is any of those people? I don't

[46:35] know if >> I think he was I think he was trying to

[46:37] get on. P Dallas CB, whoever that is, Katie,

[46:44] Paula, Eric Lang, and JW and us in the room.

[46:52] » I don't know. >> There was a waiting there was

[46:54] » Bill might have been our attorney might have been trying to get on. Um, and just

[46:58] to be clear, like I don't I think he did a good job in of drafting something for

[47:03] us to help to support the concept of what we're trying to achieve for

[47:09] I mean, I don't I don't necessarily disagree with the language he put

[47:13] together just to try to make a step forward and what we're trying to do. So,

[47:18] um, I want to be supportive of what he what he documented. Um, it's just trying

[47:24] to make a step forward. That's >> who documented who you talking about?

[47:28] » And trying to help do something for us to make progress. So

[47:37] » yeah, >> because right now it's just sitting back

[47:39] there unregistered. So we we've got to do something. And I think that's

[47:43] » wonder if we even just said this is a piece of training equipment in the first

[47:46] place. Would this have been over? >> No. Still would. Well, well, so but

[47:53] because the village lawyer looked at it

[47:57] and said, "No, maybe it's not a training piece.

[48:01] Could be something else." I mean, I don't think he just went ahead and come

[48:05] up with this on his own. >> Again, this go I would just refer back

[48:11] to our contract with the volunteer fire department. That's the direct language

[48:15] that is causing or part of the reason why we're having this conversation in

[48:19] here. Um again first time we have to go through

[48:23] it. So this is a speed bump in trying to figure out the best way to move forward

[48:27] and once we establish a process then it >> should be changed there rather than have

[48:32] a memorandum agreement.

[48:36] » I mean we could open up >> you know what I mean. I mean,

[48:39] » but I think that could be a conversation down the line, but right now we need to

[48:45] have some kind of agreement if we want the fire department to have any

[48:50] ownership of this. Otherwise, by default, it goes to the district in

[48:54] there. And I do want to echo uh what April is

[48:58] mentioning about I do appreciate how your lawyer draft this up and having the

[49:02] first draft is always the hardest point in there. And I hope my comments are not

[49:06] coming across as argumentative. is more so constructive and trying to find a way

[49:11] to address or bring up some things before we get the lawyers involved in

[49:15] there. >> Yeah.

[49:16] » Right. Changing the agreement will only hold this up longer. This might be and

[49:20] if this doesn't come up very often. >> Oh yeah. Once in 90 years

[49:24] » just have theou for this piece again either.

[49:29] » Yeah. It won't come up again. Yeah. >> Department's board is gonna have a big

[49:34] fat No. No. We're not doing that. >> Right. Pay either pay for all of it or

[49:41] » um so to open up the whole contract with fire department to put the language in

[49:48] might not be. >> Why don't we just acknowledge that the

[49:51] fire department owns the piece of equipment?

[49:55] » Well, that is yes, that's the the option we can take to the village board. we can

[50:03] approve thisou um

[50:05] » but we don't have to have theou if we as a commission decide that we

[50:12] » uh >> we'll give them

[50:15] that give them ownership >> formal ownership of that piece of

[50:20] equipment this would be moved

[50:24] » and this would be moved >> the commission has the authority to do

[50:29] that >> yes

[50:32] I would like to consult with my colleagues on the board before

[50:37] » you want to part of that motion guys want to just say

[50:41] » but that's >> take this as an option to your the board

[50:44] is he's going to bring that to the town correct

[50:51] » that those are options theou or we just make the ownership to cottage grove

[50:57] volunteer fire permit >> all right Let's muddy the waters a

[51:01] little bit more.

[51:04] » What happens? This is it doesn't want it to sound petty but

[51:11] what happens if I were to donate $10 to the town of Cottage Grove who in turn

[51:17] gave that to the fire department under the opaces of here you go you now own a

[51:25] majority of that piece of equipment or you have you know and

[51:34] It's, you know, they have a majority stake in it. It's not 50 and 50.

[51:39] » It's I don't think it's even, it's not even the 50/50 split. It's that

[51:45] » yes, we paid for 50% of it, but there's interpretation of are we even allowed to

[51:50] own the 50% of it is what >> Yeah, that's a

[51:57] I don't you're being allowed, as you put it. I don't know that I would um

[52:03] I don't know that I heard anything in the or read anything in the agreement

[52:07] [clears throat] that would prohibited you from owning anything. You know, by

[52:13] by you saying that say if you went out and

[52:19] » Well, obviously you can because you guys went out and bought the UTV,

[52:22] » right? So I mean >> and the trailer and probably think about

[52:26] those other things that you guys about this 100% we wouldn't even be talking

[52:29] about this right just because >> or even a majority of it.

[52:34] » So but because that's the way that the contracts are written. I don't know I'm

[52:40] I'm not an attorney I guess either. So um I'm just going by what I'm being

[52:45] told. >> So

[52:48] in the district write up is there anything specific to like

[52:53] We're talking about a piece of the training equipment versus a piece of

[52:55] operational equipment or

[53:00] » so in the agreement with the Ballinger Fire Department under ownership of

[53:04] assets there are four categories real estate and improvements

[53:11] vehicles specialized equipment and what I'll go

[53:16] into that because that's >> um so specialized equipment unique to

[53:20] the nature of services to to the town such as paint trucks, brush trucks as

[53:25] determined by the committee and ratified by the town board shall be owned by and

[53:29] the financial responsibility of the town.

[53:33] Next paragraph is specialized equipment unique to the natur of services provided

[53:38] to the village such as fire hydrants as determined by the committee and ratified

[53:42] by the village board shall be owned by and the financial responsibility of the

[53:47] village. That's it for specialized equipment.

[53:51] And section four is miscellaneous equipment and personal property.

[53:54] Ownership of miscellaneous equipment and personal property not described above

[53:58] shall be determined by the district following consultation with the

[54:01] volunteer fire department. >> Nothing.

[54:08] » Yeah, >> that's it.

[54:09] » Pretty broad. Pretty broad with the exception of the specialized listed.

[54:13] » Okay. >> Yep.

[54:17] » Okay. Yeah. >> So,

[54:18] » so almost could almost add a line in there saying

[54:23] [clears throat] was possibly. >> So, this goes back to my point. If this

[54:27] is something that this commission wants to do, that's what the MLOU does. So, it

[54:35] abides by this agreement. We state that's how it is because shall be

[54:39] determined by the district. That's my interpretation again for caveat is I'm

[54:43] not a lawyer. That will give us there. And going back to highspeed, this is

[54:46] probably going to be the quickest way get this going so that it can get

[54:49] registered and used. >> My thought was if you had an additional

[54:55] liner, you wouldn't need the M, >> but then we have to open up the entire

[55:00] agreement again. >> Yep, that would correct.

[55:06] » Okay. So to move the conversation along, I agree to the changes in my second

[55:15] » take those two options back to your respective boards and

[55:22] » and the two options were one note on this

[55:27] » the memorandum or or just okay

[55:31] » give it to them. >> Okay. Donation or memor

[55:37] Okay. So, we have a motion and second to send those uh to our respective boards.

[55:43] Is there any further discussion on this item?

[55:49] All right. Hearing none, all those in favor say I.

[55:52] » I. >> Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion

[55:55] carries. Thank you for um all the discussion on it. Uh item

[56:02] seven, discuss update on service animal policy. Just had that update um as

[56:09] posted there was a the other attachment u was updated in the packet. This is

[56:18] issue 72726. Um, previously this discussion had um

[56:27] was back in May, I think was the last issue of um a service animal policy that

[56:35] was kind of part of discussions. U so that was kind of started as a

[56:42] collaboration. Um and then this was sent to your attorneys. Is that

[56:49] » Yeah. So, so playing with your group

[56:55] had a policy put together and we sent it to our attorney to review

[57:00] again because there still the underlying issue of

[57:05] what is our obligation as an employer when somebody has a conflicting medical

[57:10] concern. So he reddrafted this e this policy in a

[57:15] way that I don't know it it's very restrictive

[57:20] now. Um but he is I wish he was just on he said he

[57:28] would be but >> he did it from the perspective of an

[57:30] employer. >> He's trying to get on but he can't get

[57:32] on. I think the things he's trying if somebody could click on the waiting for.

[57:36] He's waiting to >> well waiting for

[57:39] » Yeah. move over to waiting for. Click on that and you might have to go to the

[57:44] dots and allow >> dots up in the corner there.

[57:50] » What's it say? I can't quite read. >> No, I guess it's not.

[57:53] » It says pin ask to turn on camera. Excuse.

[57:56] » You click on that. >> Which one?

[57:58] » Either one of them. Just go to the side of it.

[58:02] » Click there and see if it lets you bring one.

[58:05] » Double click on it. Oops. No, I think that's probably just waiting

[58:09] on them to do the connections like >> um putting in their name, what's the

[58:15] camera, the mic, all that fun stuff. >> Okay.

[58:19] » Anyways, he he drafted this as a perspective of us being an employer,

[58:24] which we are >> um to provide protections for our

[58:30] employees. Um, so like I said,

[58:35] it's more it follows more along ADA laws now rather than what was originally

[58:42] proposed. And I know it's like I said, it's more more restrictive, but

[58:47] I wish he was going to here to explain it, but

[58:50] from what he saw from the original policy, it's opening us up to issues

[58:57] like if we if there's an animal in the building and something happens with one

[59:02] of our staff, like we could be held liable for not

[59:06] protecting our staff member if it's not an ADA accommodation or

[59:11] um you If it doesn't meet certain criteria,

[59:15] then we could be held liable for it personally. And I guess at the end of

[59:18] the day, like I don't want to get sued because we didn't protect our employee.

[59:23] I'm a volunteer fire chief. So like I like my house. I don't like to lose

[59:29] all my stuff because we didn't protect our employee. So well, you know, my

[59:35] stuff I I like being able my stuff, I guess. But, you know,

[59:42] so he wrote it more following ADA guidelines rather than

[59:48] um a training dog. I don't know what we have for

[59:55] » I think you just follow the ADA and other ADA type policies that are out

[59:59] there. It's more standard approach. Um, it's more consistent with

[1:00:06] uh allowing or reviewing ADA requests and accommodations. Um, I think if you

[1:00:12] read it, you'll understand um that there's a process, a request process, a

[1:00:17] denial process, a review process. Um, I don't know if you have questions

[1:00:25] can ask him. Um, I can see he's still trying to get on. So

[1:00:31] » I guess you know this does make more sense and I think from the beginning I

[1:00:38] think this is what was trying to be established and then in the there were

[1:00:42] negotiations taking place but I know myself for uh writing um

[1:00:49] medical excuses not necessarily excuses but

[1:00:54] following guidelines in the medical world it is following ADA.

[1:01:01] So when I when I read and go through this, it does make sense.

[1:01:06] [snorts] So I guess my question is you're if your

[1:01:11] attorney wrote it as perspective as you as an employer,

[1:01:16] you're not an employer of other entities that share the building.

[1:01:21] So that's like other other employers would have to share

[1:01:27] medical records of other employee. I guess that's where

[1:01:32] I get a little confused like >> that's why they were looking for one

[1:01:36] policy for the whole building. That was the

[1:01:40] initial request. >> So this is viewed as the policy for the

[1:01:45] whole building. Yep. >> Yep. And so a different entity would

[1:01:50] have to supply medical records to a different entity in order to get

[1:01:54] » We all have the same policy. We all have the same policy. Each entity could

[1:01:58] control it on their own. But you follow [clears throat] policy. I'm saying we if

[1:02:03] the fire department has the same policy as the MS who has the same policy as the

[1:02:07] village was trying to do something with their buildings. So everything was all

[1:02:11] the same. So you have a lot of entities trying to have one policy that may or

[1:02:16] » Okay. So what are we trying to have a fire policy

[1:02:21] and not >> one policy?

[1:02:23] » Trying to have one policy >> between the two of you or

[1:02:26] » it says right in the beginning >> who's in charge of it just you guys?

[1:02:28] » No, it says right in the beginning to establish guidelines for the general

[1:02:32] public and Cottage Grove public safety partners. So it's for everybody

[1:02:38] » or the building. So, were the other entities

[1:02:42] given a chance to review this? You know, we're trying to do this collaboratively.

[1:02:46] I guess that's >> unfortunately it is 88. It's Sorry,

[1:02:51] Nick. >> Unfortunately,

[1:02:53] I take full ownership of that because we were supposed to have this. We told them

[1:02:58] a date and it didn't get to us till like Friday last week. By

[1:03:03] » didn't get tacked on to the policy till the very end. So, I take responsibility

[1:03:07] of that because we were trying to get it on the agenda, but I didn't get it till

[1:03:13] literally like I got it and I pretty much sent it right to Lisa and whoever

[1:03:19] up and Kim to get it on the agenda. So, no, your girl hasn't gotten to review

[1:03:25] this other than if he read the packet and the village hasn't reviewed it. um

[1:03:31] we put it on the packet because it was what we were talking about and it was

[1:03:36] delayed. So I apologize for that part of it.

[1:03:43] um in the the facility service dog, you know, doesn't have the same appeal

[1:03:49] process or kind of who the authority is on deciding the

[1:03:54] facility service dog how that

[1:04:00] like it's it's it's set out by the ADA, >> right? Which is not the same as a

[1:04:07] facility service dog. So, who determines whether a facility service dog is

[1:04:11] allowed or not? Like, I don't I don't see that part covered in here.

[1:04:16] » Yeah. So, what I what how I read it, and I'm not an attorney, and it would be

[1:04:20] good to have the attorney, is like the facilities

[1:04:25] dog has to follow what a service dog is, those requirements. That's why I'm

[1:04:33] reading into it, >> right? But they don't have the same like

[1:04:39] it it's not under the ADA in the same way I guess.

[1:04:46] Who determines what? I guess that's the part

[1:04:49] » like who determines the ADA, [clears throat]

[1:04:51] » right? Who reviews other ADA accommodations? Whose disability is more

[1:04:56] severe? Like ranking disabilities isn't really in the spirit of the ADA. I don't

[1:05:01] think one disability is more important than the program administrator is

[1:05:08] correct. somewhat, but then that also an appeal

[1:05:12] and who are we appealing to if it's like outside of your employer and providing

[1:05:18] medical records like because there's so many parties involved, you know, owners

[1:05:24] of the building, age, the town, and the village and EMS and fire.

[1:05:30] Yeah, I think we're kind of splitting hairs in a way, but yet this is a very

[1:05:34] complicated situation. According to the ADA, a disability can be, you know,

[1:05:39] defined as a mental health disability. It can be defined as a physical

[1:05:45] disability um as outlined by ADA. Is that kind of

[1:05:49] where you were headed with that?

[1:05:54] » Yeah. So,

[1:05:58] one of the concerns or challenges I have is that we're trying to complete

[1:06:03] multiple things al together. Um, back in May when I first did this, I think one

[1:06:08] thing we need to be very aware of is while I appreciate coming from the

[1:06:12] employer standpoint, that's one perspective in there. Um, so in this

[1:06:16] case, the employer is the volunteer fire department.

[1:06:21] So there's that one. The other part is ADA and everything.

[1:06:26] you know, ADA informs some of the agreements that go in there,

[1:06:30] but also kind of this next part, but it's still we have to follow all the

[1:06:34] rules to ADA, which is a lot of what Rene was stated

[1:06:38] and then some. Um, but then the third part, and this is kind of where Heidi

[1:06:42] was getting at, that's a challenge for us is the building because the building

[1:06:50] is not an employer.

[1:06:54] So the policy as written doesn't really kind of fall into that. Furthermore, it

[1:07:01] gets even more complicated because now it's a joint asset between the village

[1:07:05] and town. So what is the process?

[1:07:11] And this is part of the other reason why um it was brought up a bit ago why it

[1:07:17] would be great to have a lease for all entities in the ESP because that would

[1:07:22] outline this process. who is the individual when

[1:07:29] um an issue coming from both tenants in this case because that's in essence what

[1:07:33] it is. You have dear girl EMS and volunteer fire department as tenants of

[1:07:38] the building who determine and I'm just make this

[1:07:43] hypothetical situation up. So that determined that they have an employee

[1:07:48] with an accommodation that needs to be u addressed rightfully so.

[1:07:54] So the employer can do anything within their

[1:07:59] part of the building that is per the lease like what they are but then what

[1:08:04] happens to the shared space. So that is one of the challenges that comes into

[1:08:09] play here and why it's important that we make sure we are aware of which bucket

[1:08:15] we're talking about

[1:08:19] and then I guess first I want to check does that make sense so far?

[1:08:25] It does. But, you know, like a bit like I said, this is this is a very

[1:08:30] complicated situation, but really what it comes down to is, you know, it the

[1:08:35] building it is kind of a

[1:08:41] it in a way it matters, but it doesn't. [laughter] It just matters, you know,

[1:08:45] who the dog is is with um and following the ADA. So, you know, it doesn't matter

[1:08:52] really if you're in this building or, you know, the shut out back and who owns

[1:08:57] it. You still have to follow the ADA. >> Yes. But the the key part here is what

[1:09:03] is the reasonable accommodation. So, I took an opportunity to connect uh with

[1:09:09] some individuals that are kind of experts that do a lot of work with ADA

[1:09:12] and specifically right in policy and um in there. And so they had a few

[1:09:17] concerns. Um, and I think this kind of goes to Rene's point here is um

[1:09:25] this I think one area that we need to work through is um the language appears

[1:09:31] to require that uh someone has to rank disabilities

[1:09:38] against one another while ADA does not require encourage public entities to

[1:09:42] determine whose disability is more severe. Instead, it requires individ

[1:09:47] individualized assessment focused on whether reasonable accommodations can be

[1:09:51] made to provide meaningful access to both individuals, whether a requested

[1:09:56] accommodation would create an undue hardship or whether there's a direct

[1:10:00] threat based on objective ev evidence rather than assumptions.

[1:10:05] So, who is the individual that is facilitating that

[1:10:11] process? Because at the end of the day, if there are two requests for

[1:10:15] accommodations, we need to do our best to honor those without providing that

[1:10:21] undue hardship in there. What is your opinion then?

[1:10:29] Okay. Um I I'm from what you're saying is that we have the individual who

[1:10:34] wishes to have the animal, you know, based upon their

[1:10:40] » challenge for lack of a better word. >> Y

[1:10:43] » then who's on the other side of the coin? somebody who says that they're

[1:10:46] allergic to that animal [snorts] or I mean what and and my point

[1:10:52] being is that how do we know that there isn't some

[1:10:59] other force if you will or some other

[1:11:04] situation going on in that building that is maybe

[1:11:08] causing as much of a problem. And I used this example before, somebody coming in

[1:11:14] with just covered in dander from dogs or cats or whatever. All right. Are we

[1:11:19] going to make everybody change into scrubs before they come into the

[1:11:22] building to eliminate any potential unrelated but related,

[1:11:28] » you know, problem here? We can't. And so, um, unless you can remove that

[1:11:36] challenge, would it why would it be incumbent upon

[1:11:41] us to prove to that person that it's it's our dog

[1:11:47] that's causing the problem? >> So, I appreciate the question and it's a

[1:11:52] really good one. I think it will help here. Um, at the end of the day, one of

[1:11:56] the key parts here, and again, I don't know any of the situations, so I'm just

[1:12:00] going to talk about a hypothetical. Um, so the key part here is there must be

[1:12:08] re uh request for accommodations on two ends. If there's not a request for

[1:12:14] accommodation, then you don't have a as much mechanisms

[1:12:24] to address anything that would arise from someone else who has an

[1:12:27] accommodation. So the first question is whether there's

[1:12:31] a request for accommodation out there or not.

[1:12:35] » Okay. So assuming it has and this is part of the reason why it's very

[1:12:38] important that each entity. So going back to a little bit more concrete, dear

[1:12:43] girl, EMS and the fire department have policies so that they can have a request

[1:12:48] for accommodations in there. Now part of the request for

[1:12:54] accommodations actually spells out your that use case. What? So, and we'll use

[1:12:58] your example of fire someone going out on a call that is a place that has say

[1:13:06] dogs, a ton of dogs there um and lots of dandruff in there. Part of the

[1:13:13] determination of the accommodation is what are the steps that mitigate that?

[1:13:17] So maybe it is um from the employer side. Again, this is me throwing it out,

[1:13:22] so don't quote me on this, but it is um >> put that dumb.

[1:13:29] [laughter] >> Um again, not only uh but hypotheticals

[1:13:35] in there, like maybe one of the accommodations is this person uh is

[1:13:39] separated when they uh take off the protective gear or something along those

[1:13:45] lines. I don't know what it is, but I'm just throwing out something. And so

[1:13:48] that's all spelled out as part of the reasonable accommodation. But the issue

[1:13:53] comes down to what happens

[1:13:59] in that shared space that is outside of the employers. And so

[1:14:06] that's why there needs to be a process for an I'll just say an entity outside

[1:14:15] of Dear Girl BMS and Volunteer Fire Department

[1:14:19] to

[1:14:22] follow ADA to ensure that everyone

[1:14:29] has the necessary accommodations to do what they need to do and

[1:14:38] follow ADA as I kind of stated um so that we can find that middle ground

[1:14:47] in there. >> I guess

[1:14:50] my only comment to that would be do we have a request for an accommodation?

[1:14:58] If we don't >> Yeah.

[1:15:00] » We we don't build a whole thing premise to the fact that we have conflicting

[1:15:07] sides here. >> Would you agree?

[1:15:10] » Well, I yes and no. I agree with your point in that yes, if there's not a

[1:15:17] request for accommodation, then we are not required to to to take steps. We may

[1:15:24] as good people try to do our accommodations

[1:15:28] but we're not required to do that. However, I still believe we need to go

[1:15:32] through the process to have something in place. See second um

[1:15:38] to prevent and be ready for that a second request or something comes in

[1:15:44] play. >> Does the village have it in their

[1:15:46] buildings? I mean pre having policies irrespective

[1:15:51] of the dog. Okay. >> Yep. All right. Does the village have

[1:15:55] policies in place that if somebody comes in and says they need an accommodation,

[1:16:03] you know, for I don't know, something in the atmosphere because in their mind or

[1:16:08] or their medical condition that's too dusty in the village hall. Okay. Does

[1:16:13] and I'm using that as a far out example. Okay. The town doesn't have

[1:16:19] plans for accommodations for anything, you know, out of the ordinary. And I

[1:16:26] mean, this is everyday life. You walk into a store, you know, do you check

[1:16:31] with the store to make sure they have accommodations for,

[1:16:36] you know, the types of things that we're talking about here. Obviously, they've

[1:16:39] got the scooters and all that kind of stuff, but for the

[1:16:46] unusual

[1:16:49] type of requests for accommodation. I I I would be very surprised if there

[1:16:57] are standing policies in place to accommodate anybody who walks in the

[1:17:02] door saying, "I have this. I need you. I want accommodations." If there's a

[1:17:07] medical reason for it, Steve. Yes. >> Okay.

[1:17:10] » Yes. >> But again, all right. If

[1:17:14] again, let's go back to my um thing at the village hall or even the town hall

[1:17:19] for that matter. Like somebody comes in and I have allergies to dust. I It's too

[1:17:24] dusty in here. How are you going to accommodate me?

[1:17:29] We're not We're We're not going to reasonably be able to accommodate. And

[1:17:34] that's how I'm almost equating this situation. Somebody's coming in from the

[1:17:39] outside, so to speak, and saying, "There's an animal in here. I can feel

[1:17:43] it in my whatever." [clears throat] >> So, you're not going to get around this

[1:17:48] no matter how much we're splitting hairs. Um, this is a medical issue. So,

[1:17:52] if somebody, you know, I'll I'll use this. Like, say you have an allergy to

[1:17:57] penicellin. Um, there's no way to get around it. when you go to a medical

[1:18:02] facility, they're going to go through allergies and they're not going to give

[1:18:05] you penicellin. It doesn't matter if there's penicellin on the shelves.

[1:18:09] » So, we're really splitting hairs on a subject. So, yeah, there's a lot of

[1:18:14] people that have dust allergies, but is it enough to cause them anaphilaxis? And

[1:18:20] so, there's degrees of allergies, too, and that's going to be in the medical.

[1:18:24] And so, that's that's right there. Um, well,

[1:18:28] » sorry, I didn't want to interrupt you. Um I think the other things to to keep

[1:18:33] in mind is that there are two different parts of ADA too. Uh, one is what we're

[1:18:38] mostly talk about with this agenda item is kind of under the I hate saying this

[1:18:45] the employment umbrella in there providing the space for them to do the

[1:18:50] contracted duties that we have versus your example store that's a separate

[1:18:56] part of the ADA and it has different process of what are reasonable

[1:19:01] accommodations for that because that individual is electing to go into that

[1:19:07] that place to that store versus the other side which is they are hired to do

[1:19:15] a duty contracting etc. So we need as employers need to provide reasonable

[1:19:21] accommodations for that. >> So um April had her hand up a while ago

[1:19:27] and I did have program administrator circled in that because we are dealing

[1:19:31] with two separate employers. So, that's one thing maybe you could cover, but

[1:19:35] maybe have something else you want to add to.

[1:19:36] » Yeah. Process on that would be maybe changing that to um EMS commission chair

[1:19:42] and fire commission chair or something like that. So, you're identifying a

[1:19:45] specific person because we're never going to know who the program

[1:19:48] administrator is. So, that would maybe be a term that you could change that to

[1:19:52] that would make sense to everybody um that would apply. So you could if we're

[1:19:57] going to make this one policy that goes to everybody just EMS commission

[1:20:00] chairfire commission chair and then EMS knows to go to their commission chair

[1:20:05] and fire knows to go to their commission chair and we would be able to use it

[1:20:08] similarly. Um so hopefully that answers maybe a solution for that. Um, the thing

[1:20:15] I just want to mention because I keep hearing you talking about conflicting

[1:20:19] uh, accommodation requests or concerns and I just want to mention how important

[1:20:23] um, hardship is and direct threats and understanding that um, in fire EMS law

[1:20:30] enforcement that's something that really needs to be analyzed from um, an

[1:20:36] employer standpoint. what is the hardship as an employer and what and as

[1:20:42] an EMS commission chair or a JFSC commission chair um what hardship might

[1:20:48] you have when you're reviewing um an accommodation request so and that's

[1:20:53] written out in the policy um and it talks about the severity of each

[1:20:57] individual's disability and I know JP you were concerned about comparing and

[1:21:01] that's really not necessarily I think what our attorney was pointing to doing

[1:21:06] it's really an interaction ive process. Um, and he he does talk about that a

[1:21:11] little bit um and learning um about what's going on with each individual um

[1:21:15] and what alternatives can be presented um for the different accommodations that

[1:21:20] are being requested. Um but also reviewing each individual's job duties

[1:21:25] in public service. Um, and that's important because certain roles and

[1:21:29] responsibilities um don't necessarily allow for that and

[1:21:35] there's case law surrounding um job duties that will say, you know what, if

[1:21:40] you're doing that type of job duty, we can't accommodate you in this type of

[1:21:44] situation. So, that's really important to understand for police, fire, and EMS,

[1:21:48] the case law that surrounds those situations. And then the operational and

[1:21:52] financial impact of the building. So understanding those hardships.

[1:21:56] » You done? >> Yeah. Sorry.

[1:21:58] » What are we trying to stop here? What what's what are we trying to stop the

[1:22:03] dog from doing? >> Well, from this it's not trying to stop

[1:22:08] the dog. >> Well, but the dog but the dog fac is

[1:22:12] this considered a a facility support animal.

[1:22:15] » Is that is that the one out of all these that we're

[1:22:19] » He's a facility service dog. So >> then it says emotional support animals

[1:22:24] are not service or wait a minute now back up.

[1:22:27] » So FSDs can provide services to many people in the facility. They will still

[1:22:34] need to be assigned to a primary handler who will take charge. Now do you guys

[1:22:39] have insurance on your can you get insurance on the dog?

[1:22:43] » The dog is insured by our insurance policy and the dog himself

[1:22:48] for stopping him to bite somebody and Well, the insurance won't stop him from

[1:22:51] biting. >> No, but I'm just saying.

[1:22:53] » Sorry, Mike. >> Wonder if the dog bites somebody.

[1:22:57] » Yes, he's covered by uh uh I think a $2 million policy by Custom Canines and he

[1:23:03] would be covered by our >> Okay. So, what are we trying to stop

[1:23:05] here? That's what I'm asking you. >> I don't think anybody's trying to stop

[1:23:08] anything, Mike. I think it's a matter of following ADA guidelines.

[1:23:13] » But see, it's nothing about disabilities here in this whole thing here. It

[1:23:16] » it is. It's not. It's just talking about behaviors to make people feel better.

[1:23:22] » So, in the world of rental, if you guys are familiar with a making reasonable

[1:23:28] accommodations, I'm managing a property and I get a

[1:23:32] person that comes in and fills out an application for a rental unit. I say, "I

[1:23:35] have an ESA." I say, "Okay, I need your >> and I take that and look at everything

[1:23:42] and if everything goes through the application process, fine.

[1:23:47] the person is in with their ESA. Simple as that.

[1:23:50] » The ESA though is not necessarily an ADA.

[1:23:55] They're not a trained animal. They haven't [clears throat] went through the

[1:23:59] process. They're merely there prescribed by a doctor saying here, this person

[1:24:04] would benefit from having a cat or a dog.

[1:24:08] So when I'm listening to everyone talk and you talked about leases

[1:24:13] where you have the EMS and the fire department as tenants. They are the

[1:24:18] tenants in the building and the tenant wants to bring in an

[1:24:23] animal. To me it's not necessarily about an ADA.

[1:24:29] It has to do with the district and owning the building. It's how they are

[1:24:34] going to manage and how we look and is it safeguarding

[1:24:38] the district from with the building respect. That's that's the way I view

[1:24:42] it. >> Does that make sense?

[1:24:44] » It's a medical and a legal issue is what it comes down to.

[1:24:47] » Right. And we're not even I mean they want it for to benefit

[1:24:52] people coming in. I'm assuming you know as far as having an animal there at

[1:24:58] crisis and trauma situation. Okay. It's almost like a tool.

[1:25:02] » Um, that's on them. It's not necessarily us that has to, you know, write up

[1:25:10] necessarily, we won't be using. We're just there to say, how are you going to

[1:25:15] bring it into the building? And honestly, if they want to bring into the

[1:25:20] building, they can. That's my opinion, the way I see it.

[1:25:25] » Um, so, so to be clear, this the request isn't for a pet or an emotional support

[1:25:33] animal or a therapy dog. It is for a current service dog in training um

[1:25:42] which in as Wisconsin ADAs is allowed for is similar to federal ADA.

[1:25:53] So he doesn't have one person right now that

[1:25:58] well he's not a certified service dog yet because he's in training. So even if

[1:26:01] there was one person identified he still couldn't be that person's service dog

[1:26:04] because he's not a certified service service dog as as yet. Um but he's in

[1:26:11] training to become accustomed to all the things

[1:26:16] um in our our industry. Um, I understand that there may be competing

[1:26:21] accommodations that we'll need to address and uh work through.

[1:26:29] He will be trained and cert he's getting trained. He'll be certified in a year, a

[1:26:35] year and a half. Um,

[1:26:39] so our accommodation is way I view it isn't really necessarily an

[1:26:42] accommodation. It's more you getting permission and drafting a document to

[1:26:46] bring him in. So that's >> on the EMS side of it, we've tackled all

[1:26:51] that already. >> Okay.

[1:26:52] » So from the EMS commission side, now we needed

[1:26:56] » either we needed the building side to say that it is for sure allowed to have

[1:27:01] the service animal in the building along with identifying our partners in the

[1:27:08] building. if they have anyone that requires an accommodation that we would

[1:27:13] » would work >> work with them to to work through that

[1:27:17] accommodation. >> And why would this person need an

[1:27:20] accommodation? >> Because they may have a competing

[1:27:23] medical problem that may be exacerbated by the animal's presence.

[1:27:27] » Okay. >> Do you have people that come up with

[1:27:29] this already about the dog >> from the fire department side?

[1:27:34] » Fire. They need I just dogs barking makes me feel bad or anything like that

[1:27:39] or >> Nobody's Nobody said anything about the

[1:27:41] dog. >> Nobody said anything about it.

[1:27:43] » They said that there's multiple people that have allergies to dogs, not only on

[1:27:49] the fire side, but also on the EMS side. >> So why are they still on the EMS side?

[1:27:54] Because of the fact that >> So you're gonna fire them? Is that the

[1:27:56] plan? just fire them because if there are if there are not ways for

[1:28:01] you to adapt your to your condition in order to do the job that you're required

[1:28:07] to do, >> but you're giving an accommodation to

[1:28:11] somebody else's >> how are you going to give us somebody

[1:28:13] accommodation when you go to a home? >> See, you're literally saying we can't

[1:28:18] give somebody an accommodation because we don't know what they're going to go

[1:28:20] through. But you're also saying we have to give this person accommodation at the

[1:28:24] top because they're they're entitled to it. So how

[1:28:29] are how is this guy entitled to it? But this guy who's also entitled it legally

[1:28:33] titled to it legally not entitled to it. >> This would be a really nasty lawsuit if

[1:28:40] if uh >> frankly like I'm to the point where like

[1:28:44] you guys approve whatever you want. I don't really care anymore. I brought it

[1:28:47] to you. I brought my concerns to you. We brought our legal concerns to you. This

[1:28:51] was done by a lawyer. Not by me, not by the fire department.

[1:28:55] » This is a lawyer. Like, we all sit up here and say like, "This is the law,

[1:28:59] blah, blah, blah. This is how I interpret it." Well, this is somebody

[1:29:02] that actually does that for a living. >> Yeah.

[1:29:04] » That's their whole job. >> Sure. And I bet you could see this

[1:29:06] through AI and any report by anybody. >> So, like really just do whatever you

[1:29:11] want. Like I I really don't care. I can prove whatever you want and when

[1:29:15] something happens I'm not going to be on the hook anymore because I brought it to

[1:29:19] you as a concern. So that's let's just do whatever. I don't really care

[1:29:24] anymore. >> I I do this for a living too. And and

[1:29:27] this this is a big deal. Um like >> this isn't me bringing this up because I

[1:29:32] want >> It isn't your problem. You're not the

[1:29:35] problem. >> No, but I'm an employer and I have an

[1:29:37] employee who brought a condition to >> I just asked you that. You said nobody

[1:29:40] did. >> No, I did not. I said I have You said

[1:29:44] » No, I asked her and she said nobody. >> You said somebody was upset about

[1:29:49] barking. Nobody's upset. >> No, no, I didn't say that. I said did

[1:29:52] anybody come with a complaint? people have brought forward medical concern

[1:29:58] » which is and from a doctor >> apparently doesn't necessarily

[1:30:05] » I think that

[1:30:08] » licensed health care professional provider in the state of Wisconsin if

[1:30:13] you have that and that is not supported then there is potential like April said

[1:30:21] for I mean there there is case law outlining that and it can be very

[1:30:25] serious. I wouldn't want my name attached to it nor be on a board that

[1:30:29] approves something like this because I've worked too hard professionally to

[1:30:33] get where I'm at as well. And it's not that I'm a dog hater. It's not that I'm

[1:30:37] trying to be difficult. This is the law. This is the reality of it.

[1:30:42] » Well, we do have a responsibility to make accommodations for all

[1:30:46] accommodations being made. Um but we do have two separate employers and so

[1:30:53] providing those medical documents to somebody else's employer because we have

[1:30:59] this shared space. I think that's where the the difficulty is like I wouldn't be

[1:31:06] comfortable sending my medical. >> I don't think he's asking you to send it

[1:31:10] to our to us as an employee. I think he's asking for you as an employer to

[1:31:14] verify that somebody has it. Like we would have to verify that our person has

[1:31:18] a medical condition that meets the standard. Your G commission would have

[1:31:22] to verify that their employee meets the standard. I don't think they're saying

[1:31:27] dear Gro needs to send me all their employees records,

[1:31:30] » right? >> That's not what this is saying. But

[1:31:33] » but it doesn't say that either. >> But then how how do we have the other

[1:31:37] employer make the accommodations from the other employer, which is I think the

[1:31:43] missing piece. How do we make sure we're making accommodations across employers?

[1:31:48] And us as owners of the building, the village, and the town have to make sure

[1:31:53] that we're we're making that communication. So then everybody is

[1:31:57] getting the accommodations that they need and following the law.

[1:32:02] » And I just want to clarify again, I I have a dog. My family has dogs. We've

[1:32:07] had dogs our whole lives. Not a dog eater. Um, I I support I understand

[1:32:14] exactly what Chief Link is trying to do with uh facility support animal and it

[1:32:19] just benefits the fire and EMS service. I've said that. I agree with that

[1:32:23] [clears throat] 100%. I am just trying to make sure that my employee is

[1:32:30] protected. That's all I'm all I care about. Like if we can find a way to make

[1:32:34] it so that my employees are protected, it is protected. Everybody's been

[1:32:38] protected. That's all this is about. Like that's

[1:32:41] all I care about. Like I don't I don't want to like pick on somebody or say you

[1:32:46] can't have this or can't have that or I don't even want to be involved with this

[1:32:51] to be honest with you. I just got I'm trying to protect my employee because if

[1:32:56] I don't I'm going to be liable for it and I don't want to be liable for it.

[1:33:01] That's what I'm trying to say. Well, sounds like you this is a real kind of I

[1:33:05] hate the word the rock and the hard place because you're trying to do

[1:33:08] something good and in a sense >> and Chief Wayne is trying to do some

[1:33:12] Keep Jane is trying to do something good too. I'm not

[1:33:15] » No, you >> I'm not trying to pick on him or say

[1:33:18] like I don't want to fight about that. I I understand exactly why he's trying to

[1:33:21] do it. It's a good program. It's beneficial.

[1:33:25] I >> It's just that you have an issue where

[1:33:28] you have a an employee has an allergy. Sounds like

[1:33:32] » yes. >> Okay.

[1:33:33] » There's multiple >> multiple employees. So now it's a matter

[1:33:36] of how you two

[1:33:39] » and Chief Landers offered concessions to keeping the dog in his area and the EMS

[1:33:45] quarters and providing hepailters which we've relayed to our attorney. But

[1:33:52] ultimately this is what he came back and said would be the best path forward. And

[1:33:59] like I said, I'm not a lawyer and I

[1:34:03] » the reason why he came up with this path forward is because it protects the

[1:34:06] people with ADA. The it protects the people who do request accommodations.

[1:34:11] There are reasons why he came up with this and it has to do with the people

[1:34:15] who have actual accommodation requests and competing accommodation requests. So

[1:34:20] » they they have a medical reason. >> They have a medical reasoning

[1:34:25] awareness. >> Go ahead. and raising awareness for

[1:34:28] their >> with their concern. Understandable.

[1:34:32] » What is the fire department offering for accommodations now for these people with

[1:34:36] allergies? >> Uh we have different positions and tasks

[1:34:40] and responsibilities. So when we have a call where that's a possibility, we have

[1:34:44] different roles and responsibilities for people. Um right now when we bring in

[1:34:48] therapy dogs, we schedule, we make awareness, we let individuals know that

[1:34:52] there's a therapy dog coming in. It's oftentimes unfortunate when we first

[1:34:56] learned that we have people with allergies, we weren't aware of it right

[1:35:00] away. So, um, those individuals had an exposure and weren't able to participate

[1:35:06] in our CISDS, which was kind of a bummer for us, um, because that's an

[1:35:12] opportunity for them to decompress and, um, be involved in an after action or

[1:35:17] after incident CISD. And um it was really unfortunate that they had to

[1:35:24] leave the room and we didn't understand why they were leaving the room and

[1:35:27] couldn't participate in that CISD. And it wasn't until after they said, "Hey, I

[1:35:31] can come in that room and be in that CISD with you because you had dogs in

[1:35:34] there. You had therapy dogs in there." And that was when we first learned,

[1:35:40] shoot, we wish we would have known that before because we would have, you know,

[1:35:44] we would have planned this out and we would have scheduled this differently

[1:35:46] and made accommodations for you to be present with us. And so that's when it

[1:35:51] really became a reality for us on how we have to do better planning and better

[1:35:55] accommodating for people who have who have needs or have accommodate need

[1:35:59] accommodations. So, um, we plan things out better now, uh, when we have CISDs

[1:36:05] or want to bring therapy dogs in. Um, so to answer your question, we plan

[1:36:11] » Question. Is that your lawyer under there? No, Patrick or

[1:36:14] » No, that's somebody else. >> That's Patrick. [clears throat]

[1:36:18] No. Oh, >> on the other hand, like when you when

[1:36:21] you talk about it, the the accommodation, somebody comes in, they

[1:36:24] puts in they put in one of >> just say one of the fire people come in

[1:36:28] and ask for a request. JP's point, there's certain and what Steve said too

[1:36:33] on the fire side of things, whether it's a dog, a cat, a horse, a parro or

[1:36:36] whatever, whatever animals may or may not be okayed by the ADA. The question

[1:36:40] is fit for duty. If you absolutely need this or have this whatever reason,

[1:36:45] whatever disability challenge, whatever it may be for that service animal, which

[1:36:50] is defined by ADA, can we accommodate it? And I can't have

[1:36:55] 41 firefighters on trucks with dogs going into fires. There's just I know

[1:37:01] it's a it's a it's a really broad example, but if everybody requested

[1:37:07] that, we we can't make that accommodation because it's harm to the

[1:37:09] animal and the people and everything else that goes on. That's accommodation.

[1:37:12] We can't make that that way. We'd have to go look at the position description.

[1:37:17] Can we rece reassign duties? Now, it comes another policy, which I know Mike

[1:37:22] loves, of okay, you made your accommodation, whatever power that be

[1:37:27] granted through ADA or whatever guideline they decided to use. Is that

[1:37:31] person can they meet? Do they need the service animal to do their job? If the

[1:37:35] answer is yes, does that interfere with them to be able to duty to do their

[1:37:40] duty? And sometimes the answer is no, you

[1:37:43] can't and can't be a member of the fire department

[1:37:48] because of it. So I feel like we've went on a tangent. I want to try and bring us

[1:37:53] back a little bit. So what my understanding is what we need to decide

[1:37:59] is kind of the building side that shared

[1:38:04] services. what happens if there's competing interest especially if it's

[1:38:08] across EMS and the fire >> once we have that determination then

[1:38:15] knowing that fire has their process EMS has their process in there we will be

[1:38:22] all good so the question is how can we set it up so that

[1:38:28] there is an entity that can cross the barriers

[1:38:34] to have the conversations about accommodations based on all the criteria

[1:38:39] for ADA when there's conflicting accommodation

[1:38:45] requests or I think conflict is probably the stronger word but when they yeah but

[1:38:51] you all know what I mean so what we need to make a decision what's that process

[1:38:57] in there

[1:39:01] » right like the the communication of accom accommodations between

[1:39:07] employers. >> Mhm.

[1:39:09] » So we can make the space

[1:39:14] accommodate the space to follow the ADA.

[1:39:25] » So my thought, so there's a couple ways we can go about this.

[1:39:30] One is I'm going to laugh at saying this, but

[1:39:33] I'm going to throw it out there. Anyways, you form a committee which

[1:39:36] could be the two chiefs or whoever else

[1:39:41] that we

[1:39:47] as in the village in town say for EMS you're the ones that will be the I

[1:39:53] forgot what the exact wording is in this draft but the ones that kind of manage

[1:39:58] the competing interests in there and whatever that agreement looks like

[1:40:04] they're the ones that have to um

[1:40:09] kind of finalize the accommodation requests,

[1:40:13] making sure it's all set for the shared spaces. That's one option. The other is

[1:40:18] we could go to the town or village, follow our accommodation request through

[1:40:25] our HR process in there. Um which I know Steve shaking his head in there.

[1:40:31] » I think we keep it in house. We don't have to go outside.

[1:40:35] You know, we've got the chief and his designates who see all the medical

[1:40:39] records for their own firefighters already because they have physicals

[1:40:43] every year, I believe. >> Yep.

[1:40:45] » All right. We've got Chief Lang with the medical records and so on and so forth

[1:40:52] for his people plus the fact a better grasp of

[1:41:02] medical anomalies, you know, more so than No offense, Chief, but just

[1:41:07] probably and let the two fight it out. >> I thought we did that already.

[1:41:12] » So did I. But >> so we established a temporary process

[1:41:17] until this was decided. So now we need the actual final process

[1:41:23] » in there. I think

[1:41:27] » I think it's creating some tensions between the two employers

[1:41:35] to have their

[1:41:40] the the policy administrator, you know, they're each responsible for

[1:41:44] administrating policy for their own employees, but I think that there's

[1:41:51] » it's um It's seems to be challenging. I mean

[1:41:56] that we've been talking about this I think for many months. Seems that that

[1:42:00] there's there's some difficulty in how each is defining is is this an

[1:42:06] accommodation a reasonable accommodation for my staff. So I'm just getting that.

[1:42:12] Would you say that? >> Yeah. Guess the question is what are you

[1:42:16] making the accommodation for? >> Right. And in each

[1:42:22] is the current This is like I I'm on board with Nick

[1:42:26] and everything else. I have dogs. All this stuff.

[1:42:30] You're adding a dog as accommodation for what?

[1:42:38] There's not an accommodation being made. You're you added the you added the dog

[1:42:42] to be trained and that stuff. That's not an accommodation

[1:42:45] for the employee. That's not an accommodation,

[1:42:49] » right? But we're not the employer of that employee. So, we don't know whether

[1:42:53] there's an accommodation or not. >> I mean, I'm not saying that

[1:42:57] » you don't have a trained dog right now. So, the dog's not the dog itself is not

[1:43:03] trained, >> right? So, none of this would apply to

[1:43:05] the dog is what currently this policy. >> So, you're actually violating

[1:43:10] potentially violating ADA. I

[1:43:14] » for the people that >> think it's inaccurate in Wisconsin,

[1:43:17] » not necessarily because of the fact that >> something as simple as a respirator or a

[1:43:22] mask could >> fix the problem. That could be the

[1:43:26] accommodation for that person. Here you are. We are providing you with something

[1:43:31] to prevent, you know, a HIPPA mask, you know.

[1:43:36] So, I'm not saying that that is the answer. No, I I No, you know. All right.

[1:43:41] So even though the the dog does not fit

[1:43:46] this criteria right now because it's still in training yet, [clears throat]

[1:43:50] we could still offer an accommodation to those person or persons

[1:43:57] um for whatever like the old saying goes,

[1:44:01] whatever ails them, you know, kind of thing. I once you're once you know about

[1:44:06] something on once once this board and employers are aware of the law that's

[1:44:14] not uh gloss over until the dog. And again I'm I appreciate both chiefs

[1:44:21] working together. I'm not the anti-dog. I'm looking at this from a medical

[1:44:25] liability issue and following ADA. So, >> well, that's what I meant by virtue of

[1:44:31] the fact that regardless of what status the dog is in right now,

[1:44:35] » we may not have conflicting, you know, accommodations right now. It's

[1:44:41] just in this case on the fire side. And maybe it is something as simple as a

[1:44:48] mask if they are that allergic or or whatever. I'm not saying that it's going

[1:44:53] to be, but it could be something as simple as that.

[1:44:58] Have either of you talked with your attorneys about it?

[1:45:00] » What's that? >> Have either of you talked no reason to.

[1:45:03] » We haven't seen this. This just came on Friday, so no in general about it.

[1:45:09] » But you know, right here it says allergies and fear of animals are not

[1:45:13] valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service

[1:45:20] animals. >> Just asking opportunity to consult with

[1:45:24] your attorneys about the situation in general.

[1:45:28] Uh, >> and maybe that's protected by attorney

[1:45:31] client privilege. So, don't say anything if [laughter] you don't want to say

[1:45:33] » that, you know, we were waiting for something to have them review.

[1:45:37] » Okay. In my opinion, I don't board, but kind

[1:45:42] of, [clears throat] >> you know, why have them hypothetically

[1:45:44] review something when they're going to review it?

[1:45:46] » It just says reasonable steps should be taken to accommodate all individuals.

[1:45:51] Reasonable. Reasonable. Yeah. >> So, I guess here's my

[1:45:59] » Yeah, I'm trying to move this forward here. So,

[1:46:03] I I guess here I will make the motion. >> Oh, it's not discussing kids. It's just

[1:46:08] an update. >> Just an update. Perfect. Um, but I think

[1:46:12] for me it kind of goes back to again the bug. We need to have something in here.

[1:46:16] So I would just implore uh the village in town to find a way to

[1:46:25] look at this not from the employer standpoint but from the building

[1:46:29] standpoint from the tenants to ensure um that we're all good following ADA and

[1:46:37] also provide an avenue to address conflicts because I think Heidi did you

[1:46:43] bring up a point I really want to reiterate

[1:46:46] And I probably should have picked this uh when I stated it, but I also don't

[1:46:49] think it's fair to the chiefs to put them together to fight out if they're in

[1:46:53] conflict in there. That's a disservice to you all in there. So if there's needs

[1:46:58] to be that kind of appeals or whatever that process is, it should

[1:47:04] not be the chiefs. It should be someone else. But the question is who that is

[1:47:09] that's within here because again I don't want to put pit you all against one

[1:47:13] another because that's not fair to either of you.

[1:47:16] » I don't think that's what either of them are saying either.

[1:47:18] » No, it just neither one of them are saying that. I I'm hearing that they're

[1:47:22] really trying to work together. >> Yeah.

[1:47:26] » But again, they have to talk with each other to find out. All right, fire has

[1:47:32] this person, EMS has this person, you know. Okay.

[1:47:37] what is the accommodation that's necessary? Okay. And that person needing

[1:47:44] the accommodation is going to have to provide that information. It's not going

[1:47:48] to be for the two chiefs to figure out [clears throat] uh is it this? No. Is it

[1:47:53] this? No. We have to come with a solution to the to their

[1:48:00] issue. Correct? Yes. However, what if in hypothetical

[1:48:07] the accommodations can be in conflict with one another in there?

[1:48:13] What is the process to adjudicate that? >> Well, that hasn't happened yet. And I I

[1:48:20] view both Chief Archbold and very responsible and and insightful in

[1:48:27] looking into those things. So I I feel that the two chiefs are going to

[1:48:31] communicate well and and uh Chief Lang has worked hard too to um promote open

[1:48:39] communication. So um I I you know I don't think we should plan on what might

[1:48:44] happen. >> At the flip side, I don't want to get in

[1:48:48] the spot where all of a sudden becomes an issue and now we don't have a policy

[1:48:50] in place. This is the time to do it before anything arises. So it's all set

[1:48:55] because again I don't want to put them into conflict with one another or within

[1:48:59] their own staff in there. I want an established process so that if something

[1:49:04] comes up we are good to go. I want to do it right.

[1:49:07] » How would we how would we be doing this without a policy? We wouldn't we're not

[1:49:11] going to be doing it without a policy. You can't you can't start something

[1:49:15] without the solution. >> Yeah. So then what's next? And so that's

[1:49:20] why I say I >> Well, we thought they were there. It

[1:49:22] turned it started off with it was a a a good gesture

[1:49:26] for them to have a dog. That's what it all started with. It wasn't like it was

[1:49:31] any kind of big deal. And the more we deal with it, the more and they they try

[1:49:36] to be accustomed to each other all the way through this thing. Now we're this

[1:49:39] thing. And >> but we got she's got a question back.

[1:49:43] » Yes. Since I go to more than one fire EMS meeting in a month, um I go to many

[1:49:51] and I go to Stoton and Stoton has a policy already. I am sure that you can

[1:49:59] contact other fire departments who already have dealt with this. They're

[1:50:03] not You wouldn't have to start and reinvent the wheel or come up with fire.

[1:50:10] You would have something to work from. I don't know. Um, and personally, I've

[1:50:16] worked healthc care 32 years, and from my experience of patients coming in with

[1:50:22] service dogs, we had to accommodate them right down to walking the dog outside to

[1:50:28] go to the bathroom and making sure the dog had food because the woman was in in

[1:50:33] step down unit from ICU. So, um, that is a bigger deal than all of this, I'll

[1:50:40] have you know, cuz somebody was dying possibly. So, yes, being positive and

[1:50:47] having going ahead and having a policy, you're proactive. I applaud you if you

[1:50:55] actually get it done. But you've worked on this for over half an hour and

[1:51:00] there's no nothing happening. >> It's been five months.

[1:51:03] » Well, that too. And I sat through the first one. It was terrible.

[1:51:08] » Yeah, >> it was terrible. The first time, an hour

[1:51:11] and a half of it, >> none going home.

[1:51:13] » I got I got to clarify something real quick.

[1:51:16] » Do does allow dogs in their building. They allow pets in their dog in their

[1:51:21] building, which is not legal. >> Well, that Okay, so they have

[1:51:25] » They must have a lawyer, too. >> My My thought is there's something out

[1:51:29] there you could work from. I I held out Stoton because I know of it. I I

[1:51:34] » I am I'm incorrect in saying then that it's they they have the perfect policy.

[1:51:40] » I'm not saying I'm not arguing with you. I'm just I'm just trying to say like

[1:51:45] when you say another department uses dogs.

[1:51:49] » There's got to be a policy you can work from that you don't have to reinvent the

[1:51:53] wheel. I worked healthcare long enough to know that. I think I think that's

[1:51:58] where our attorney generated this one from was from other policies that exist

[1:52:02] or he came up with it just based on his pure subject matter expertise. He's a

[1:52:07] municipal attorney. >> So he works with municipalities all over

[1:52:11] the county and state. He's >> I don't I don't see how this document

[1:52:15] anybody could come to a conclusion between the two of you to do anything.

[1:52:20] » I'm serious. >> So first off, I created this

[1:52:26] didn't know I was creating it. Had I known that this was the poop storm

[1:52:32] that was created, maybe I would have second thought my decision.

[1:52:36] But it comes from thinking that I would be uh doing good

[1:52:42] for our responder community in in the region.

[1:52:46] Um and maybe a little bit myself too. there through asking many people there

[1:52:55] is no policy. No one has a policy. Either it is 100% we follow the city's

[1:53:03] policy or we have an unwritten policy that says you pick up after yourself.

[1:53:09] So to find someone else's policy there well there there wasn't one to find

[1:53:14] otherwise we would have used someone else's policy instead of drafting from

[1:53:19] from a blank sheet of paper. Um I think the policy that was presented

[1:53:26] as I reviewed it some of the things that caused me grief were it didn't

[1:53:30] specifically say who was going to be evaluating a person's protected health

[1:53:34] information. Um, and the impression I got would be

[1:53:38] that it would was going to be some somebody

[1:53:42] some overarching entity that wasn't part of EMS or wasn't part of my employer

[1:53:50] group that was going to be evaluating my employees

[1:53:56] protected health information. Um, and and maybe I misread and I think

[1:54:01] some proposed edits that that April mentioned adds some clarity to that.

[1:54:08] Um, and then when [clears throat] it comes to request accommodations, then

[1:54:15] whomever, whether it be uh myself and Nick, we get together and make sure that

[1:54:19] there's no um competing accommodations that we can work to engineer out um or

[1:54:25] not engineer out. But it's all about the working through the reasonable

[1:54:30] accommodation while attempting to accommodate all requests.

[1:54:34] Um, as far as my staff, um, it was initially identified that we may have an

[1:54:40] allergy to, um, dogs. Um, but that has since been

[1:54:45] found to not be the case. So, I have no other requests for accommodations of my

[1:54:50] staff. And if I received any, I would make appropriate accommodations for

[1:54:55] them. Um, it's it's all about working through

[1:55:00] the process. It's way more stressful than it ever needed to be in my mind or

[1:55:07] I ever thought it would be, I guess, is the better the better statement.

[1:55:12] » Yeah. I wouldn't think it would be quite as bad as CO, you know,

[1:55:20] and as as far as if we would never as a part of an accommodation tell someone,

[1:55:25] yep, you're if you're going to come into the building, you're going to have to

[1:55:27] wear a mask. That's not an accommodation. So, we would work through

[1:55:30] that appropriately.

[1:55:35] It's a big thing.

[1:55:40] » Yeah. So again, I just want to say I appreciate all the conversation. Um,

[1:55:45] again, I appreciate Chief and April for you all working through this. I

[1:55:49] appreciate Chief Lang also as well for having through it go through this. So, I

[1:55:55] feel like we've had a great discussion. Um, kind of identified some of the the

[1:56:00] challenges in there and then it goes back to my initial asses. I just hope

[1:56:04] that moving forward uh the town and village can find a way to

[1:56:10] establish a process to make this as smooth as possible moving forward so we

[1:56:14] prevent potential [clears throat] conflict.

[1:56:19] Have you have you guys looked at a way of accommodating your people that have

[1:56:23] come to you with this >> other than saying no, we're not going to

[1:56:27] have a dog?

[1:56:31] » Probably not, right? >> Are you looking at me?

[1:56:32] » No, >> you do.

[1:56:35] » I do. I do not typically handle the medical request. Those go the

[1:56:40] administrative stuff goes with April. >> We have to make the accommodation

[1:56:46] » for us. It would be really complicated. I mean, like Jess said, we have like

[1:56:53] fitness for duty expectations in our SOPs, and I would I I personally would

[1:56:58] expect EMS and law enforcement to have something very similar in their SOPs.

[1:57:03] So, um, they operate very similarly to us as emergency responders. So, um I

[1:57:10] would be surprised if they didn't have f fitness for duty expectations as

[1:57:14] emergency responders, but that's we have something like that in our SOP.

[1:57:17] » Oh, gee, we're we're going to have a dog shortly.

[1:57:21] » What What should I do if I come into a meeting and I don't like dogs.

[1:57:25] » It's not about liking dogs. That's not what Maybe it is. I don't know that.

[1:57:31] Maybe some of your people don't like dogs. You don't have medical stuff that

[1:57:35] says they have they're against having a dog because they have an allergy.

[1:57:40] May they probably do. I don't know. I'm just saying. We got to find out if

[1:57:44] that's true or not. Not just somebody's opinion.

[1:57:52] » I don't think that's anything we've ever said nor accused anybody of. that if we

[1:57:57] were approached with a reasonable accommodation request, we would

[1:58:00] definitely work to to meet it. >> It's in the personal personal protective

[1:58:06] their social protected health information for one. So, it's not

[1:58:09] something we could discuss. >> If there is a request or an

[1:58:13] accommodation, we would at most I would know generally speaking unless it

[1:58:17] directly came to me right away. I would be made aware that there's an

[1:58:20] accommodation being made >> and reasonable steps should be taken to

[1:58:24] accommodate all individuals

[1:58:29] » and that's >> that's 88 or whatever it is

[1:58:33] » dog DA or whatever it is >> the attorney the attorney drafted this

[1:58:38] » and so who determines if a reasonable accommodation has been

[1:58:45] offered and how is that appeal process or how how is it determined

[1:58:52] that I think that's the important part of the policy

[1:58:56] » is how how what is the criteria how do we decide if a reasonable accommodation

[1:59:03] » the employer would have to take and >> sit down or committee whatever sit down

[1:59:09] with each person say what is your problem do you have a doctor's excuse

[1:59:14] » uh are you just saying that or you don't like dogs or whatever And if somebody

[1:59:19] really comes up with one, well then that's not good,

[1:59:24] » right? Well, and what is the accommodation being made? So they can

[1:59:27] what is accommodation and that's where >> is it a mask?

[1:59:31] It might not be that might not be the accommodation. The accommodation might

[1:59:35] be okay. They have a true allergy. They may need ADA.

[1:59:41] Now the question is you have to look at the position description.

[1:59:44] » Is there a combination that can be made? Are they are they fit for are they fit

[1:59:48] for duty? But what is the ch Steve said challenge or disability or ADA approves

[1:59:55] and it comes through and yes they meet the guidelines of the medical provider

[1:59:58] these other things and we go down that list there's just going to be some

[2:00:01] things that >> it becomes a hardship

[2:00:04] » I'm correct in saying this what we're at right now this is really a employee

[2:00:09] employer uh labor law type >> yes exactly

[2:00:13] » I would say so >> for sure not so much anything that

[2:00:16] really has to do with the town or village

[2:00:19] We're just the building owners, >> right?

[2:00:21] » But you establish the process. >> Well,

[2:00:26] » I thought we' done that already. >> Establish

[2:00:28] » five months ago >> by policy. You establish the process.

[2:00:32] We'll follow >> that building policy, which is

[2:00:35] effectively what's in front of you. >> That's that's the two pieces. There's we

[2:00:41] can do that for our building, but then there's still your employee. How are you

[2:00:45] going to manage your employee? That's what the policy tells us how we'll do

[2:00:50] that. >> So again, yeah, goes back to my

[2:00:54] comments. You have debs hazard policy, fire hazard policy. We need the building

[2:01:01] policy which covers the middle and there be sticky. songs.

[2:01:18] » [clears throat] >> I would say it comes down to

[2:01:21] fire department and the EMS to just find something where they can get

[2:01:29] along and nobody's going to be sued because of

[2:01:34] employees or >> you get along great. Just so you know.

[2:01:39] » Of course you do. I know you do.

[2:01:43] I don't think that's ever been a a question, but

[2:01:49] we get this stuff here and all of a sudden we're

[2:01:55] just read it says said that you should make accommodations.

[2:01:59] I hate to say it, but so there's a little bit more to this

[2:02:04] thing here. >> So we're we're at like an update. We're

[2:02:08] not approving anything. >> We're not approving anything. you know,

[2:02:10] we can take it back to our, you know, various attorneys or maybe our labor

[2:02:15] attorney is more suitable to review and provide any comments back um

[2:02:26] on this on this policy or edits that we kind of talked about like policy

[2:02:30] administrator and defining those.

[2:02:37] » Yes. Okay. >> Yeah.

[2:02:40] And if your board has anything that you discuss in the meantime though on this

[2:02:44] topic back to next meeting,

[2:02:49] anything else? >> Anything else on this?

[2:02:51] » No, no more, please. [laughter] >> Other than what you got something else?

[2:02:55] » No more. >> All right. Item eight, discuss and

[2:02:58] consider plumbing maintenance item. Um, so this was um coming up in May. Um um

[2:03:08] we had some sediment build up I believe that was causing some issues. Um we are

[2:03:15] going to bring back some quotes for this month to consider. We

[2:03:20] can still consider approving this maintenance item. If we have um some

[2:03:25] quotes that correspond to this maintenance or we

[2:03:29] » Okay. So, this this repair has been a challenge as can be attested to by Nick

[2:03:33] and and Steve. Um, I reached out [laughter]

[2:03:40] to other vendors. The and I had an email for the last meeting from uh Persorn,

[2:03:46] which is a plumbing contractor in Madison. Um, their quote was roughly

[2:03:50] $1,500, but it's not a mill and jet like um

[2:03:56] Matt or Mickey's or Freddy router. >> Um, so Steve reached out to Rotorooer of

[2:04:05] McFarland. Uh, and they too were reluctant to send

[2:04:10] someone out to write a quote. >> Oh my god. Um they they did send a fella

[2:04:17] out >> um

[2:04:20] » showed him where our bathrooms are and he's like, "Well, we would use our

[2:04:25] knifey thingy to break to break up the sediment and then if that didn't work,

[2:04:31] then we'd have to mill it." So I'm like, "Okay, so you're not Nope,

[2:04:36] we don't do that. Someone else would have to do it." um between Perzborne and

[2:04:41] Readyrooer, they're both a time and materials type of company. So, they

[2:04:46] don't necessarily know how long it's going to take, so they could neither can

[2:04:50] give a super accurate quote. Um if Ready or Rotorooer didn't email you, I'm

[2:04:57] assuming they're not going to because they were out early last week.

[2:05:03] So, I think the whole building basically was

[2:05:08] what $6,500 from Mark's ready router or whatever it is.

[2:05:14] » And then there was an additional $3,000 if if we did something else. I I don't

[2:05:22] have I did not bring that quote with me >> on the last one. Um,

[2:05:30] and it the

[2:05:34] it was a big challenge. You know, Chief Lang tried himself. I tried. I mean, I

[2:05:40] was calling all the way to Walkishaw trying to find someone explaining the

[2:05:46] situation and what was actually occurring here. And everybody wants to

[2:05:51] jet. You know, jetting is the way to do it. But when you have

[2:05:57] » tree, >> the minerals

[2:06:00] » that are just attached to the inside of that pipe

[2:06:04] blowing high pressure washer water on it isn't isn't

[2:06:10] the hot ticket. >> I think with Marks coming out and taking

[2:06:14] a toilet out and scoping it, they know what they were quoting. It's does on the

[2:06:18] face of it look like a a lot of money, but it's probably the most realistic

[2:06:22] quote. This the second quote milling all the

[2:06:26] bathrooms lines to the city main then jetting out the city main to flush out

[2:06:30] the system after milling $6,400. Is that the

[2:06:34] » from Mark's ready router and plumbing that second portion of that quote also?

[2:06:40] » That was the second part up into two parts. The first part was $3,200 just to

[2:06:44] do the two bathrooms >> and the quarters

[2:06:48] » and then the 6,400 is all the built the bathrooms to the city main. I would

[2:06:54] make a motion. >> Caveat quickly though.

[2:06:57] » Go ahead. >> My I don't know where my mind was the

[2:06:59] day Mark came out or I don't even know if it was Mark, but the dude came out to

[2:07:03] to do the the quote of I forgot about two bathrooms. I don't think they're

[2:07:08] probably going to have to do anything with the upstairs bathrooms because of

[2:07:14] » the but the main ones would. So, it might come in higher than that. I don't

[2:07:20] know for sure.

[2:07:25] I I think the main ones and the EMS ones need need attention.

[2:07:28] » Everything on the first floor. Yes. To include the EMS quarters, the

[2:07:34] » public one behind the kitchen and all that area.

[2:07:37] » So, what was the burst? 6,500. >> Yeah.

[2:07:41] » Downstairs. >> Well, I make a motion.

[2:07:44] » Those pipes go right past it. So, they're effectively milling out

[2:07:47] everything as it goes past the basement toilet. But I would to make a motion

[2:07:52] that we spend no more than $8,000 on on this uh on this

[2:07:59] what's the company? >> Mark's ready rotor

[2:08:02] » on Mark's ready rotor bill. No, no more than

[2:08:08] a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second.

[2:08:11] » Okay, I have a motion and second uh to approve that maintenance. Um, as of last

[2:08:15] month, just a side note, the building maintenance line we had 15,500 for 2026

[2:08:21] budget and um, Kim ran the report 2400 2420 had been spent. So, um, we have

[2:08:29] room in that it seems in that building maintenance according to last month's

[2:08:34] report. >> We need a motion to say that's where

[2:08:39] it's coming from to >> versus the ESB repair fund. Mhm.

[2:08:45] » You think that's fine. >> You good with

[2:08:48] » Go ahead. >> Yeah. So, add the building maintenance.

[2:08:50] » Yeah. >> Item. Okay. You're good with the second

[2:08:53] on that. >> And where does it come from?

[2:08:57] » Maintenance fun.

[2:09:00] » Okay. We have a motion and second um >> not to exceed uh is that 8,000 for the

[2:09:09] plumbing maintenance item from the building maintenance fund. Uh any

[2:09:12] further discussion on that item hearing? None. All those in favor say I.

[2:09:16] » I. >> Any opposed? Same sign. Uh abstensions.

[2:09:21] Motion carries. >> Okay. Some additional building

[2:09:24] maintenance stuff. It wasn't agenda this way, so no decisions could be made. Um

[2:09:29] we had the roof inspected and they found some spots that need repair and they

[2:09:33] sent us an invoice for $1,500 to repair. Um I actually have photos of it. Let me

[2:09:40] share my screen. Is it leakage, chief?

[2:09:45] At least >> I don't think we've had rain since he

[2:09:47] came out to look at it. >> Yeah, [laughter] but there's leaks and

[2:09:51] there's leaks. >> I It's not leaking that I I I'm aware

[2:09:54] of, but it's also we we've been identified that would have penetration.

[2:10:01] » Yeah. Yeah. They've done a lot of work for

[2:10:04] what the last five or more years or more.

[2:10:07] » Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, so a component of that is

[2:10:11] there's $1,500 for that repair that gets us through. They they'd estimate still

[2:10:16] like a five-year outlook on potential a full re-roof and their estimate for a

[2:10:21] full re-roof and today's cost would be $180,000.

[2:10:28] » Uh, I would like to request that the chair put the Great Lakes roofing on the

[2:10:33] next month's agenda. Okay. >> For action.

[2:10:36] » All right. Great Lakes repair. I will add that

[2:10:40] to next month's agenda. >> And then one more item of things from

[2:10:44] that were of lengthy discussion. Last month, I had a window contractor come in

[2:10:50] for one quote. I'm waiting for a second quote. The answer is on when they need

[2:10:54] to be replaced of well, I mean, they are 30 years old. They're not leaking, so

[2:10:58] they're fine for for now. Um, you'd hat you'd like to get them before they do or

[2:11:04] don't start to leak. Um, the exteriors company, I believe is the company's

[2:11:08] name, they would replace windows and frames um for to the cost of $96,000.

[2:11:14] Um, Helen Brand Glass came out to do an estimate on just replacing the the

[2:11:19] glass. Um, because uh the view would be all we need to do to make the frames uh

[2:11:25] work well again is recock them and then we can put in higher quality glass. I

[2:11:30] have not gotten that quote yet. It's all just for future planning information.

[2:11:36] Um, and I can put that in a document to to give you all as part of a future

[2:11:40] discussion item. >> Okay. I'll add that to you as we're

[2:11:44] looking at budgets and a joint meeting to talk about the study and facilities.

[2:11:48] That'll be good info. >> Nothing that was urgent or short-term.

[2:11:53] It was a more midtermish for planning.

[2:11:58] » Thank you.

[2:12:01] Um, all right. So, that's uh maintenance items. So, item nine, discuss and

[2:12:06] consider adding LOSA to the 2027 budget proposal. There's um an attachment

[2:12:14] in our packet talking about the length [clears throat] of service program.

[2:12:21] » So, we did a staff survey because we were asked about what the staff wanted

[2:12:27] to be added. We have 40 41 members and we had 29 responses.

[2:12:34] » 29 responses >> of that nine people said they wanted

[2:12:38] BOSA and then it was split between didn't want it and uh no opinion. What

[2:12:45] was the percentages on those two people? >> Uh

[2:12:51] that 29. >> Hold on. Sorry.

[2:12:54] » 29. So it's 10 and 10. So roughly 30% is what I mean%

[2:13:00] about 30% said yes and then the rest the 70 it was 31% said yes and then uh 70%

[2:13:10] said no or no preference. >> What was the split on that? Uh 11. No,

[2:13:17] just give you the numbers because that's No, wait. 31% said yes.

[2:13:23] 13.79% said no, and 55.17%

[2:13:29] said no preference. >> What was the last number?

[2:13:33] » 55.17% said no preference. Like I don't really

[2:13:37] care.

[2:13:43] Um so this is kind of as uh they start to prepare the next year's budget is

[2:13:49] this something we want to give them direction you know based on the

[2:13:55] information here and the survey is that something we'd like to you know the the

[2:14:00] village board was generally wanted made a takeback that they were generally

[2:14:04] supportive of the program last year when we considered it and would consider it

[2:14:09] again But yeah,

[2:14:13] » give them direction on whether this should be included in

[2:14:16] » and there's there's two different options for LOA as we talked about. So

[2:14:21] you could start a program right now where nobody has any everybody be

[2:14:26] starting fresh at zero no past prior years are counted. Um, and then

[2:14:33] the cost for that would be what's a year?

[2:14:40] » Uh, 18,900

[2:14:44] a year plus a $500 initiation fee and an $800 annual fee and then $20 per member

[2:14:52] for an annual fee. So, $20 20 time 40 4,000.

[2:14:59] No, 8,000. No. Oh my god, it's getting late in the night. 20 * 40 800.

[2:15:06] » Yes, >> true.

[2:15:11] » Roughly, let's see. 200 + 500. >> 2100 plus 189.

[2:15:18] » Roughly 21,000 to start. LOSA and then the first year

[2:15:23] would be 21,000 and then after that it would be just whatever you're putting in

[2:15:28] for your employee cont contributions. The other option is if you wanted to go

[2:15:33] back and pay people that have length of service already. Like this is what this

[2:15:37] chart shows is people how many l how many years of service that people

[2:15:41] already have. For those you wouldn't pay as much for

[2:15:44] the previous years because you didn't do it in the front end. So,

[2:15:49] April calculated out it' be all the total years of service would be 436.61.

[2:15:55] If you paid $100 per year service for the previous years, that would be

[2:16:00] 44,000. So, if you wanted to back pay people, you'd start with a contribution

[2:16:05] of 44,000 plus the 21,000 for the year and then move forward from

[2:16:11] there. would be roughly the I don't know 21,000 again every year or

[2:16:18] whatever roughly 20 to 21,000 a year depending on members

[2:16:22] » I think [clears throat] you get you get those people vested that way that's the

[2:16:27] one benefit of doing the back pay I believe you get those people with those

[2:16:32] past years vested [clears throat] 10 years I

[2:16:36] » think it's five years I'd have to check but um oh no tenure you're right I'm

[2:16:40] sorry it says right 10 year vesting. >> Yeah.

[2:16:44] » But also like if you have someone who's got four years, you'll get them vested

[2:16:48] for four years and then maybe you're likely to keep them for five more years

[2:16:52] » so they vest and get their 10 years. >> So this isn't approving LOSA one way or

[2:16:59] the other tonight, right? It's just whether we want to see this in our

[2:17:02] budget documents for next year proposed and we can decide then. But we don't

[2:17:07] want them to go through a whole bunch more work of adding it into the budget

[2:17:11] if it's not something we're interested in implementing.

[2:17:16] » It seems like most of the people don't care.

[2:17:21] » Yeah. So, I would attribute that to they like seeing an immediate reward versus

[2:17:28] having to wait for a a reward. And I would guess that that's likely why they

[2:17:33] don't care. They they probably would they probably want to wait or they

[2:17:38] » when you get the money how long >> 55 retirement age

[2:17:44] » 60 got to wait till 60 >> I'm sure a lot of them are going to

[2:17:48] » so that might be that might be it they're thinking well I might move in

[2:17:50] five years or you know I might not be doing this in five years something like

[2:17:54] that so they're thinking I'd rather see a benefit now versus then and maybe I

[2:18:00] won't even reap the rewards of this so I don't necessarily care I don't have a

[2:18:04] preference >> if I'm correct LOSA is non-t taxable

[2:18:07] income. So as soon as they draw on it, they have to pay taxes on it.

[2:18:13] » Yeah. >> So part of part of that and no

[2:18:16] preference or a is say you go back 10 years or you go back what you put this

[2:18:20] $62,000 in taxes get taken out of that. So basically you're paying in taxes for

[2:18:28] somebody to do that. Not saying that's the only reason not yay or nay not to do

[2:18:31] it. there's 41 members that have a choice to do, but it's something to

[2:18:35] think about >> where privately investing. You have

[2:18:38] other options where you >> where you can do an IRA where you're

[2:18:41] doing on the back end if somebody had the money, but we don't obviously do

[2:18:45] cash anymore. >> To give you additional perspective, so

[2:18:48] if somebody puts in 20 years of service, you guys are putting in $450 or $400 and

[2:18:54] it's matched at $400. So that's $800 a year. You times that by 20, that's

[2:18:58] $16,000. And then they got to do taxes on that. So they might not they might

[2:19:03] go, you know, I don't they might not they're

[2:19:07] kind of doing the math on it and going I'd rather is it worth it? Am I really

[2:19:11] going to get 20 years in and am I really going to get 60? You know, they're kind

[2:19:14] of weighing risk the reward of it and going I don't know. I think they're

[2:19:21] » I don't think anybody and also I think nobody denies this is it's a significant

[2:19:24] gesture by a community to even consider >> Yeah. what

[2:19:30] the these bodies have done and even talking discussing about it talking

[2:19:33] about it but always making sure the paper call and always making sure we

[2:19:37] have good apparatus bringing the things in what's reasonable what you know take

[2:19:41] care of things and things like that so there's a little bit of everything

[2:19:44] that's involved in >> I'm just trying to give you an idea

[2:19:48] perspective of why we see so many going 55% going I don't care

[2:19:54] » are there other incentives that you heard from staff what they what be more

[2:19:59] lucrative. >> So when we ask, it's really funny when

[2:20:01] we ask and do the survey like what what do you enjoy snacks? Like we literally

[2:20:05] had someone type in more snacks. And so we do that, you know, we'll buy we'll

[2:20:09] buy snacks and have them over there. It's funny stuff like that. It's just

[2:20:12] they like the positive environment, the camaraderie. They really like just the

[2:20:17] work that they're doing. Like they don't necessarily sign up for the money all

[2:20:21] the time. Um we did get some feedback that they do like the paper call. Um,

[2:20:26] but not all of them, like not all of them are signing up for the paper call.

[2:20:30] So, you see some going, "Yeah, that's a great incentive. It helps." But others

[2:20:34] are saying, you know, there's other things that they like about it. So, um,

[2:20:39] it snacks is one that makes us laugh

[2:20:42] sometimes. So, we will bring a bag of Twizzlers in or bags of chips and um

[2:20:47] it's little things like that. But, as far as like

[2:20:49] » Who runs this? Who actually runs it? The state.

[2:20:53] » Yeah, it's through the state. And then um VFIS our insurance company helps with

[2:20:57] would we would recommend Horton our insurance company to be the manager of

[2:21:01] it. >> Yeah.

[2:21:02] » And the state does match. >> Yeah.

[2:21:04] » Which is one, you know, benefit I think to really consider

[2:21:11] » and I think they're up to $450 right now.

[2:21:14] » It's increasing. It increases every year.

[2:21:18] Other

[2:21:21] questions, thoughts, any consideration whether we want to see

[2:21:26] this in the budget proposal? >> Not to me.

[2:21:37] » I think there's other things that might be more valuable to the staff. I I

[2:21:42] really do appreciate bringing that input and surveying.

[2:21:46] » A dog. >> Yeah. [laughter]

[2:21:49] Oh jeez. Here we go. We have to go back to that and you [laughter] have to

[2:21:54] » read the room. >> I just I ruined the road.

[2:21:59] » They're really happy with their training prop.

[2:22:01] » What's that? >> They're really happy with their training

[2:22:04] prop. [clears throat] >> Yeah.

[2:22:06] » Yeah, >> that's what we could do. We'll give the

[2:22:08] fire department the training prop. >> Fair. [snorts] Um, so do you want to

[2:22:14] turn that into a motion to not have it? >> Oh, just a

[2:22:18] » 2027 budget. >> I would make a motion we don't discuss

[2:22:21] this for the 2027 budget. >> All right. [snorts]

[2:22:24] Can I have a second on that? >> I'll second that.

[2:22:27] » All right. Motion and second to leave low 2027. Any further discussion?

[2:22:33] Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. Any oppose? Same sign.

[2:22:38] Motion carries. Uh so then moving on discuss pay-per call. Um so we have

[2:22:47] I guess then some input on what might look good for 2027. There's some

[2:22:52] effectiveness June 2025 versus you know yearto date 2025 versus 2023. So that

[2:23:00] was also attached in our packet. >> I know that.

[2:23:05] » Yeah. So it's kind of a mixed bag. I mean, there's a couple people that

[2:23:08] really started responding [clears throat] more and there's some

[2:23:11] people that responding significantly less. I don't think it's I don't think

[2:23:16] it's a reflection of the money. I think it's more so of kind of like when the

[2:23:21] calls are coming in, what what people's commitments are. You know, like I'm down

[2:23:26] I'll just use myself as an example. I'm down 3% this this winter. I spent a lot

[2:23:31] of time out of town for work, so I missed quite a few calls that I wouldn't

[2:23:35] normally be making. Um, but everybody's situation kind of changes a little bit.

[2:23:40] I haven't, you know, you did ask a question about paper call on the survey,

[2:23:45] right? >> I did. Uh, let me go back to that. Hold

[2:23:48] on.

[2:23:51] » Do you have an overall number, April? >> An overall number of what

[2:23:57] » percentage of people that like it or >> No, no, no.

[2:24:00] or what >> uh I just said um

[2:24:07] do you believe it improves responder turnout and I got 41% of people said

[2:24:12] yeah to that. So

[2:24:17] yeah, I mean they like it. So and you're getting almost half of the department

[2:24:21] that appreciates or says that it helps with responder turnout. [snorts] So,

[2:24:30] » okay. >> Oh, I should think we stick with it,

[2:24:34] don't you think? Or >> I think so.

[2:24:37] » Yes. >> I'd make this just for discussion

[2:24:41] apparently. >> Well, if we're not doing the LOSA, then

[2:24:44] should we increase the pay per cup? >> Well, I don't think we only had this a

[2:24:49] year. One of the things that didn't get into the packet that we just got it too

[2:24:53] late, it was the uh every year, I mean, just all the fire departments in the

[2:24:58] state do the survey that tells you how much their pay is

[2:25:03] » for different positions. Um, we did send that to Kim and Cameron

[2:25:07] today just so they could see it for each municipality. Um, could probably be

[2:25:12] forwarded out to all of you guys as well, just so you guys have reference

[2:25:15] for it. But um I think we're right we're still right in line for what everybody's

[2:25:20] doing for pay per call like >> yeah there may be like two or three that

[2:25:24] are a lot higher which is unusual but there's a couple that are way up there

[2:25:31] but for the most part everybody's right around $15. So I think we're pretty

[2:25:36] standard. If we wanted to, we could maybe go up to 17 or 18 for making the

[2:25:42] truck and then 12 or 13 for not making the truck, but

[2:25:47] » you just made the math so much harder, >> right? [laughter]

[2:25:51] » It's going to be so confusing for me. Um, it might be easier to change it by

[2:25:55] fives. [laughter] >> Um,

[2:25:59] you know, seeing the feedback from the staff, I don't I don't know if it's

[2:26:03] necessary in the first year. I almost would like to see a full year's worth of

[2:26:07] data to see the difference and see see the numbers and then do this survey

[2:26:12] again. We do this survey every year with our staff and kind of see where they're

[2:26:16] at and what they want and how they're feeling about the department and the

[2:26:19] district and um what we actually need to do as leadership too to make staff um

[2:26:25] feel happy about the culture and the policies and the procedures and we get a

[2:26:29] lot of really good feedback from them um on what changes we need to make too. So,

[2:26:34] um I think it, you know, they might listen to this and be like, gosh darn

[2:26:39] it, April. But, um it it might be helpful for us data wise to see where

[2:26:45] we're at next year. But, um if you guys are inclined to say no, we as a board

[2:26:51] want to increase it, we're not going to stop you either. So, um I I don't know.

[2:26:57] Do you have anything >> or snacks?

[2:26:59] [laughter] >> Yeah. No, that'll be the next thing be

[2:27:01] What types of snacks? I mean you you start going thing but that's honestly

[2:27:04] that's been a cheto. That's something you can take that's something that

[2:27:08] that's an easy button right so you can we as leaders then the board is a

[2:27:13] separate side of the operation side that's something we can throw minimal a

[2:27:17] nominal amount of money at and just take care of them right so it's these other

[2:27:22] things that go like that but I I would I would tend to agree that I would

[2:27:26] publicly say absolutely not don't do it um you know I'd like to see if it it is

[2:27:32] is it making from your perspective I if I was asking

[2:27:36] I'd be like, "What is your intent? What is our intent of the of the paper call?

[2:27:41] And is it is it doing what our what we expected it to do in in the

[2:27:48] short time that we've done that? I don't know that we have an answer for it." I

[2:27:51] think even the staff not doesn't necessarily know it quite yet.

[2:27:54] » One of the biggest goals was for recruitment and retention. Like that's

[2:27:58] ideally 100% what it was for is for us to pull in a draw of staff and

[2:28:04] advertise, hey look, we we pay you to respond to calls and try to draw in more

[2:28:09] staff. Um not necessarily so much for turnout on getting people to come to

[2:28:14] calls because we do okay with that. It's more of generating uh you know more

[2:28:20] volunteer staff to join the department. >> Not that we're necessarily doing bad

[2:28:24] with that either because we're okay. We're pretty steady, but if we can get

[2:28:28] more volunteers and build up to our number 50, that never hurts. So,

[2:28:35] » yeah, JP and then Steve and I had something too.

[2:28:38] » So, I know in the last meeting you mentioned that we were wrapping up

[2:28:41] quarter two. Yep. >> Um, so just out of curiosity, have you

[2:28:44] had a chance to kind of look at where we are budgetwise? Are we staying kind of

[2:28:48] in the allocation? Yeah, >> I know that's like it was a moving

[2:28:52] target first time doing it. So, >> we weren't we were curious as to how it

[2:28:56] was going to go and we used uh 2025's and 2024's data to kind of estimate what

[2:29:02] our call numbers were going to be and build out what our budget was going to

[2:29:05] be for 2026 pay for a call and we're pretty much right on. Um even knowing

[2:29:11] that we're just a tad higher for call responses. Um the staffing turnout is

[2:29:17] very similar for 2024 and 2025 as it is in 2026. So that actually helps with our

[2:29:24] calculations to kind of work out where right where we need it to be. So um

[2:29:30] quarter one was uh I don't know if you want me to say it. Um I'll just say it.

[2:29:34] Uh 17,420. Quarter 2 was 18,120. So, if we stay right in those numbers, we're

[2:29:42] going to be right around probably

[2:29:47] » 65 70 72ish >> 74,

[2:29:50] » which is I believe right around right where we budgeted for because we're

[2:29:55] [clears throat] including just so you know, we're including training, Sunday

[2:29:59] duty, and pay-per call all within that number. So, that's not just pay-per-

[2:30:04] call in that number. That includes our training budget, our um Sunday duty

[2:30:08] budget, and our incident response. So, we're paying out every quarter all three

[2:30:14] of those items. So, if you look at in our budget, I our

[2:30:18] line budget um the amounts that we have for those

[2:30:22] three things and add those up, which I don't have that in front of me right

[2:30:26] now. >> How about we talk about it at budget

[2:30:29] time? Yeah, >> will likely come under

[2:30:34] Um I did have one question about the Pleasant Springs contract says fee shall

[2:30:39] first be applied to the operational expenses incurred by the department to

[2:30:42] provide services to the if we respond to Pleasant Springs. Does it come out of

[2:30:46] the Pleasant Springs fund or does it come out of the regular?

[2:30:50] » No, it's primarily Pleasant Springs is allocated towards capital funds. So, we

[2:30:57] have to be really careful and we kind of pay attention to what we request

[2:31:02] Pleasant Springs funds for because the Pleasant Springs funds portion of that

[2:31:06] is 2% dues funds from Pleasant Springs. So, we kind of know that's what Pleasant

[2:31:10] Springs is doing with those funds. So, that means that those funds can really

[2:31:14] only be spent on certain items, which is um fire apparatus, public education,

[2:31:20] fire inspections, and LOSA if we were ever going to buy LOSA. And that's only

[2:31:25] to that's typically to help make sure that those funds are properly spent to

[2:31:30] assist Pleasant Springs during audit time.

[2:31:33] » Okay. Yeah. Because it that's good to figure out what the definition of the

[2:31:38] operational expenses incurred by the department to provide services to the

[2:31:42] residents of town of Pleasant Springs pursuant the PS contract and then any

[2:31:46] remaining fees shall be applied toward capital expenses. So that was I just

[2:31:50] wasn't sure what >> so we know as a department that th

[2:31:54] that's how Pleasant Springs uses or allocates those funds and gives them

[2:31:59] puts them aside and how they're using their 2% use funds. Um and that they're

[2:32:05] using those 2% dues funds to help fund that contract so then when the

[2:32:10] department is audited that [clears throat] those funds are properly

[2:32:14] spent a certain way. >> Okay. Yeah. I was reading the agreement

[2:32:17] trying to figure out what exactly that meant. So um so uh if there are

[2:32:23] adjustments I know it's costs more to live and recognizing that you know if we

[2:32:29] think that there should be some kind of cost of living adjustment because we

[2:32:32] recognize the sacrifice that the firefighters are taking away from you

[2:32:37] know their lives and it's more expensive to live to hire a you know babysitter if

[2:32:40] you have to have someone come watch your kids or you have to be away from your

[2:32:43] job. um if I would support that if it comes

[2:32:47] forward in the budget um to to do an adjustment in the pay um I would

[2:32:53] understand that. But if we want to keep going with more data and

[2:32:59] so I guess that's just my I thought we don't have where it's not consideration

[2:33:04] tonight. It's just kind of update and >> you can talk with the chief and show hey

[2:33:08] here's what I'm doing with the budget, >> right? Yeah. Yeah. So that'll be coming

[2:33:12] in budget to continue the program. >> I appreciate the feedback on the staff.

[2:33:19] » Does the budget come to this committee next month or September?

[2:33:23] » September, I thought. >> Yeah.

[2:33:26] Yep. September. Um any other

[2:33:30] comments, thoughts on paper call?

[2:33:36] » Okay. Item 11, discuss and consider commission meeting location remaining at

[2:33:40] town hall or switching to ESB. This was brought up to me last month. Um, see if

[2:33:45] we want to uh consider that

[2:33:49] » fourth Monday EMS, >> right? Training. So, it might

[2:33:54] it works out to just stay here and we don't want to

[2:33:59] spend the first Monday. >> What's that? I don't know. I I do know

[2:34:02] it's Monday. [laughter]

[2:34:06] I mean, we have some months that we don't have fourth Monday training, but

[2:34:09] it's the months you wouldn't want to have a meeting on a fourth Monday

[2:34:12] either. >> Yeah, we're not

[2:34:14] » December and May. Fourth Monday is always

[2:34:22] » This is item 11. >> Yep. Item 11.

[2:34:26] we could just not take any action and it'll stay here or um if someone's

[2:34:30] inclined to >> motion to keep it at the town because of

[2:34:33] the fact that the fourth Monday is EMS training at DEES.

[2:34:37] » Second >> motion and second um to keep our

[2:34:41] meetings here at town hall. Thank you for hosting us by the way.

[2:34:44] » Yeah. >> Um any further discussion on that item?

[2:34:49] Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I.

[2:34:52] » Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. Um item 12, discuss and

[2:34:57] consider moving the September meeting to Wednesday, September 30th, 2026 or other

[2:35:02] date that week. I have a conflict on the 28th. So I was hoping that I could still

[2:35:07] be part of the budget conversation and that you might consider rescheduling the

[2:35:13] September meeting so I can still be part of that. Otherwise, I would send my

[2:35:16] alternate >> a quarter. [laughter]

[2:35:17] » It'll cost me a quarter. I I could make cookies and bring them over. I'll turn

[2:35:22] [laughter] [clears throat]

[2:35:25] » keep the quarter. I'll take the cookies.

[2:35:32] » It's the fifth Wednesday, so there shouldn't be a different regularly

[2:35:36] scheduled um meeting from either municipality, but I don't know. It's

[2:35:41] » okay by me. >> Yeah.

[2:35:43] » What date? That's Wednesday. >> Wednesday the 30th. Um,

[2:35:49] I wouldn't be done with work until 7 that night. Anything,

[2:35:55] Lori? I mean, >> no. I mean, it's not a there's no other

[2:35:59] meetings at night. If we wanted to go back to a 7 o'clock meeting

[2:36:03] » and I'll start I can um I'll join Zoom until I get here.

[2:36:08] » Yeah, we have just it takes a little bit to get through the first few items now.

[2:36:12] And importantly, of course, is is that a night that

[2:36:17] all of you would be available? >> Yes.

[2:36:23] » All right. Thank you so much for accommodating that.

[2:36:26] » Make a motion. >> Uh, yes, please

[2:36:28] » make a motion to move >> September

[2:36:33] meeting to the 30th >> at 7 p.m.

[2:36:38] » 7 p.m. Second. Second. >> Motion. Second to move September

[2:36:41] meeting. Thank you so much for accommodating that. I really appreciate

[2:36:44] it. Um all those in favor or any further discussion.

[2:36:48] » All those in favor say I. I. >> I. Any opposed?

[2:36:52] » Any abstain? Motion carries. Um then we have one other item. Our October meeting

[2:36:57] falls on the village board budget workshop.

[2:37:01] uh is if we can always talk about this later if you don't have October

[2:37:06] meetings, but uh I wanted to bring that up earlier rather than later. If

[2:37:12] you might consider moving October, I mean we could also

[2:37:19] if if there's nothing I don't know if there's we would have already talked

[2:37:22] about our budget.

[2:37:28] » What's the Tuesday the 27th? You would have training on Tuesday the

[2:37:33] 27th. Is that >> Oh,

[2:37:36] » would you have training on the 26th? [clears throat]

[2:37:44] » Yeah. Tuesday the 27th created. >> Okay.

[2:37:49] Fourth Wednesday commission, right?

[2:37:53] » What about Tuesday the 20th, the week before? So nobody trading me.

[2:38:01] » Oh yeah. Um Wednesday the 21st.

[2:38:04] » Thursday the 29th. >> Huh?

[2:38:06] » Oh yeah. That's the fifth Thursday. So >> Thursday the 29th.

[2:38:10] » No 21st. You're in October. >> On Wednesday the 21st.

[2:38:15] » I have a library board meeting. >> I have another meeting.

[2:38:20] » Third Wednesday. >> Yep.

[2:38:23] » On the third Wednesday the 21st. Yeah. 21st. What about 29th?

[2:38:29] » 29th. >> It's a Thursday.

[2:38:32] » Thursday. >> You come dressed for Halloween.

[2:38:37] [laughter] >> Themed themed night.

[2:38:40] » Theme night. Theme night. >> Halloween theme night.

[2:38:42] » Firefighter. >> I can do it. Just dress in soccer.

[2:38:50] » So, October 29th >> at 6:30.

[2:38:54] » Yes. >> Yes, please.

[2:38:55] » Is that a Thursday? Yes. I don't like Thursdays.

[2:38:59] » That's okay though. >> I don't like Mondays. [laughter]

[2:39:04] » Is there any possibility? >> I didn't mean to scare you guys at 6

[2:39:07] that night or no. >> Or you're coming in coaching gears.

[2:39:12] » I I would prefer six, but I can make six work. It's fine. So, whatever this I'll

[2:39:17] make whatever the >> whatever the group consensus is.

[2:39:20] » Okay. All right. >> Six.

[2:39:23] » Life is good. >> Come dressed with Halloween treats.

[2:39:26] All right. So, um I'd make the motion then to move October's meeting to

[2:39:31] Thursday the 29th at 6 PM. >> Okay.

[2:39:36] » That's six. >> Yes, sir. Six.

[2:39:40] » I'll second it. >> Okay. Motion second. Um on October's

[2:39:44] meeting. Any further discussion on that? Hearing none. All those in favor say I.

[2:39:48] » I. Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. Um our next meeting date then

[2:39:53] August. If we flip back a little bit, it's August 24th,

[2:39:58] Monday night at 6:30 p.m.

[2:40:03] and uh we have

[2:40:11] building maintenance. We can talk about if something we have the plumbing

[2:40:16] maintenance item. >> We have results of the rotorooer job

[2:40:20] item, [laughter] >> right?

[2:40:22] Do you have other items that you can think of right now? Otherwise, let me

[2:40:26] know as we come up. Anyone else have any other items for

[2:40:31] » That was the 24th for August. >> Yep. August 24th. Our regular 4th

[2:40:36] Monday. Um I would that says discuss and

[2:40:40] consider also. I move that we meet August 24th uh at 6:30 p.m. We have our

[2:40:48] agenda items. Any second?

[2:40:54] » Okay, motion second. Uh, any further discussion? Hear none. All those in

[2:40:58] favor say I. I. >> Any opposed? Stain. Motion carries.

[2:41:03] » And finally, item 15.

[2:41:09] » Second. [laughter] >> Motion. Second. Non debatable.

[2:41:12] » All those in favor say I. I.

[2:41:18] is >> 911.

[2:41:19] » 91. >> Are we out?

[2:41:21] » We are done. >> Anybody want to go for breakfast?

[2:41:26] [laughter] Anybody? >> Oh, you would. Yeah, sure.

[2:41:29] We start in that feeling.

07-27-2026 Fire Commission Meeting

Transcript