This conference will now be recorded.
» I think we're recording.
» We're recording. >> Here it says
it does. >> We should be live.
» Yeah, we can hear you. >> Okay.
said something. >> Did he?
» Pause recording. Maybe >> then,
» but we can't hear.
Okay. Well, we're we're on camera. We think
we're also recording. It is 6:31 p.m. on Monday, July 27th, 2026. I'll call to
order the Cabbage Grove Fire District Commission meeting. Uh this is a hybrid
meeting taking place at town hall and on go to meet. Uh we do have a quorum and
the agenda is properly posted. So we'll move to item three, public appearances,
public's opportunity to speak about any subject that is not a specific agenda
item. Have anyone in the room? Uh, we can try
to incorporate Zoom if anyone from the public has something
that they would like to speak about. I don't see any hands or anyone in the
room. So, we'll keep moving to item four. Discuss and consider the minutes
from the June 22nd, 2026 meeting. Uh, any uh comments, edits, or consideration
for us? Anything? >> One change on the
dating for when this meeting was supposed to happen. I had the 20th down
as I >> the 27th.
» And with that change, I move approval. >> I have a second.
» A motion and second to approve the minutes with an edit.
» I have one more edit also. Well, a few more edits to add. Um, in section 7, 9,
and 10, Cameron's name is spelled wrong. It's missing the
So that's in section 7, N, and 10. Right.
So, we have um
C E R O N is missing. E R O N.
» Sorry, camera. >> Um so, you're good with amending your
motion also those edits. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second uh with a
couple of edits. Any further discussion on the minutes from June 22nd?
Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> Any [clears throat] opposed? Any
abstained? Motion carries. Thank you and thanks for preparing your minutes. Uh
we'll move then to item five, the chief's report.
» All right. Uh we are currently at 41 staff. have nine officers, three driver
operators, 21 firefighters, six probationary, zero explorers,
one chaplain, and one. Uh, the time of the report, there was
222 calls for service plus one exposure, averages out to 1.09 calls per day. If
that were to [clears throat] continue, estimated number at the end of the year
would be around 399. Breakdown of the calls is 57 in the town
of Cottage Grove, 30 in Pleasant Springs, 102 in the village of Cottage
Grove and 33 Mutual.
Various charts for the times of day and come in.
Um so for apparatus letter one went in
person service that's been fixed.
Fender one's having several issues including the air horns randomly
activating while driving. Some lighting issues and air conditioning issues
lighting issues and air conditioner fix. Uh the horn issue is still being
worked on to find a solution. Engine 3 is having an issue with drafting. Lion's
going to work on addressing issues with three one
and brush one both had flat tires earlier this month.
One had a puncture to the tire and was repaired. Brush one had a weld fail on
the rim. Spare tire and rim were put on brush
one. Brush one due for new tires in 2027. So replacement rim and spare tire
will be included with the capital budget for that.
Uh permit info. Fundraising for the village allowed the department to
purchase two drones. Department's working on training operators and we'll
put them into service soon. Um training for July is rural water
movement and the officers worked on planning for
rural operations and practice drafting operations from the dry hydrant on in
the town.
Um department added one new member in July and the staff participated in
market policy 16 members. Adam Menberg 2018 was brought on by the staff to
probationary status and Evan is the first candidate to complete the core
program. It's a big deal. Um staff milestones for Kyle Wheeler for
four years and Mitch Dao with seven years.
Break down the calls are attached also. Thanks so much Chief. um questions about
the chief's report. >> Yeah, go ahead, J.
» Um just want to confirm for the drones um are the we're going to have any
annual cost for those u because I know some drones require some annual
subscriptions uh for some of the software that goes with them.
» Um the drones themselves don't need it, but we're subscribing to a service that
helps maintain our records. So there is going to be a little bit of cost. I
think it's pretty
not
other questions. >> I do. Um I have a meeting next week with
D County Highway regarding the bridge over Little Door Creek Netfit.
Um, you know, over was it on Uphoff? We put
in that dry hydrant over there.
Um, with the Houston's having their big development right there
in the area. There seems to be a fair amount of water down in the creek there
and stuff. Is there
any interest possibility whatever maybe putting a dry hydrant in if it meets all
the criteria obviously down at that location seeing the county is going to
be redoing the bridge here next spring. >> Yeah. I mean if it met the criteria and
it was feasible then >> I mean the criteria that I was looking
at was >> is there sufficient water for what kind
of draw you would have >> right
» you know um >> yeah so I mean if if there's enough
water which I don't know if there is or not I guess I haven't looked at the
water in that area um if there's enough water and if the county allows you to do
that or the DNR allows you to do that because you have to have permission to
do that. Can't >> because I don't think we got had to get
permission from the DNR when we did the one up on Uphoff if I remember correctly
when you when we redid the bridge. Um >> I'm not 100% sure.
» Yeah. I'm just >> Is there I guess probably the bottom
line is there any interest? Would that be any of of any assistance in the event
all hell would break loose or is it I mean
» close enough to run into town here? >> It saves a little bit of a trip but
realistically like the the closest hydrant's right here at the fire
station. So you're talking maybe a mile, half a mile that you're saving. So, I
don't know if it's >> Hey, I just, you know, like I said, I
only bring it up because of the fact I've got a captive audience and if there
was anything to be done positively about it, that would be the time to plant the
seed and stuff. So, >> I mean, I just don't know how how much
it'll get used. The one that we have on up get used.
» Nope, that's fine. Um, but with how close it is to the hydrants,
I mean, if the hydrants ever went down, you'd have another water support, water
source, I guess. But, um, I I just don't know if it's if it's feasible or not. If
it is, I don't think there's very much cost to actually install one. I don't
think they're very expensive to do. >> No, I don't recall it being much of a of
a cost at all >> to have it done. So
um how quickly I mean what kind of draw I
mean [snorts] strike that if
you were to throw the suction hose onto that
how much draw down I mean how many gallons at a crack would you be sucking
out of there? I just you know don't want you to suck it dry and have to wait for
the creek to refill and It depends on what we're filling. I mean, the truck
that we would use has 2,000 gallons per minute pump on it. So, you could be
anywhere from, you know, a couple hundred gallons all
the way up to 2,000 gallons per minute, but it'd be pretty rare to pull that
much at a time, especially from a draft. So, I mean,
maybe a couple hundred gallons per minute would be pretty pretty
reasonable. So maybe like 500
» 500 to 1,000 gallons a minute somewhere in there.
» All right. Maybe I'll just pursue it and just ask the question just see if it
floats or not and I'll get back to you and let you know
what I find out. >> Okay. Thank you.
» Any other questions on chief's report? We'll send our congratulations to Evan
on completing the Explorer program.
» All right. So then we'll keep moving to item six. Discuss and consider sending
root vent propou to each municipality. Um thisou was added on to the packet. U
the agenda was properly posted. The attachment was just uh sent later. Um so
there's
discussion of the the use and ownership of roof vent. Um we originally approved
this uh the use of the Pleasant Springs funds um March 23rd of this year
um to pay the half out of the Pleasant Springs funds.
The other portion was the Ascendium Good Grant I think. um
this part used for the other portion um from
CG volunteer fire department
since the commission isn't the group uh ownership but we' just be
voting to send this then to um each municipality for their um review and
consideration. doing this again. Which one are we
looking at here? >> It's a little bit shorter. It's got it's
four pages. Starts out memorandum of understanding by the village town and
fire district
» regarding use and ownership of certain streaming equipment. I don't know if
there's anything that you want to add or discussions you had with.
» So, I mean, it's probably worthwhile to have your attorneys review it. Um, this
was drafted by our attorney and it's basically just to establish like we
talked about that, you know, if the village and town are going to take
ownership of it with the vir
um it's just to kind of protect their rights to use it and make sure it
doesn't get sold without um some kind of agreement in place or um in regarding
the usage of the of the crop. So, um I think the our association's okay with
the ownership thing, but we just want to make sure that we're doing this in a way
that protects our interest in using it. So, like if down the road the village
decided they wanted to sell it, we wouldn't be just like to dry. I guess
not that that's going to happen, but um just kind of prepare or just to
protect our assets, I guess. So that if if you guys ever decided to sell it,
there'd be some kind of say that the fire department had and if you wanted
somebody else to use it, we'd have to discuss that. It's uh just trying to
protect our investment in it. So it's not like fire department bought half of
it, but going forward, we really have no say on how it's used or operated or
sold. So >> you two say protect your assets or
protect your ass? >> Assets.
» Okay. I just I couldn't hear that.
» So you recommend this goes to the town and the village attorneys
» and then after that >> recommendation for sign off.
» Yeah. >> Why did we do this in the beginning?
» Um >> what made it a problem all of a sudden?
I guess we didn't anticipate the I guess the fire department didn't
anticipate the >> spending any money or
» no we were we were prepared to spend the money if we didn't anticipate that once
we spent the money that fire department wouldn't own any part of it I guess and
that's what that's what's being that's what the interpretation on the
service agreement was by the village attorneys and Cameron
and So, I guess we weren't we weren't anticipating buying half of it but then
not owning any of it. So, this is to protect our investment in it. So, if if
that's the way it's going to be that the village and town own it solely without
the fire department, we're still entitled usage of it. So,
» we got to get some more involved. >> Lawyers are good.
» Is that Oh, go ahead. I mean, unfortunately, in the past, we've
operated on the handshake agreement, and it just doesn't work that way anymore.
So, unfortunately, we have to put something in writing to make sure that
when the time comes, that fire department still has their rights
protected in this. I guess what I'm what I'm looking at.
So, >> that's what I was going to ask. Is there
other equipment that has been jointly purchased in the past?
I don't think we've ever really done anything jointly like so every truck
that's been bought the association has chipped in stuff like if there's
something we would like to change on the truck or make it a little bit more
usable for us. Um we've part we've donated to that cause but our donation
was a fraction of what the truck is. So like the last truck we bought was the
squad. I think that truck was $680,000. I think we put in 10 or $15,000 for a
couple things that we wanted to put on the truck that it wouldn't really be
like a standard truck item, but it was something that we thought would be nice
to have. So, we paid the money to help >> bring it to that and then we contribute
a little bit or we buy equipment to put on the truck. Um, so we've never done
anything where we like joint own it. Um we have done stuff where we've bought it
um and then maintain ownership of it like the UTV association currently owns
that but the municipalities aren't paying for the UTV.
» Okay. >> Or didn't pay for the UTV. So
» thank you. >> Um I did have one other background
question. So, we'll be taking this to each of our own attorneys, but some of
the other joint committees have like a commission attorney. So, you know, now
we're each going to spend on our own attorneys, but there it's kind of
» we don't need another attorney. >> I know,
» but we just between theirs and our two that's more than enough to look at it.
» Yeah. Just historically, I was wondering if that there was any reason why we
didn't go that route here versus Okay. Okay. Go through this again. What So
where where are you? You're you're saying you want to vote on some
something every time if it was going to be sold or what what's
» We're we're trying to protect our our investment in it. So basically what we
bought the we bought 50% of it, right? The fire paid for half of it,
» right? >> And the way that the contract was
written, it says that basically the fire department doesn't own any of it even
with us paying for half of it. So this agreement is to put in in place some
kind of a agreement that like yes, we don't own it, but if there's anything
that's going to happen with it, we would like to be involved with the decision-
making. Like if the town and village decide they don't want it anymore, they
want to sell it, that there needs to be a consensus with the fire department for
selling it. or if the town of Village decide that they want to let somebody
else use it, then that has to be agreed upon with the fire department as well.
You know, it's there's a few things in there that just kind of protect our
investment because we've invested in it, but at the end of the day, it's going to
show up that the fire doesn't own it at all, even though we're technically paid
for more of it than both municipalities did.
» Well, why don't we just turn it over to them then?
Why? What's What's this about? Is it turn about turning this over to them
totally? >> No.
» Or the we we keep >> it's just basically
saying that the town and village are not free to
dispose of it or use it the way we would want.
» Okay. Okay. So, >> the fire department is an basically an
equal party in [clears throat] the decision making with regards to that
piece of >> so they would vote on it between the
town and the village >> and them would vote on this
» what >> if it was going to be sold or something
if we went ahead and said it was going to be sold. They could walk in and say,
"Well, I we want our opinion and that's it."
» Pretty much. >> Well, that that doesn't that doesn't
make sense. >> Why? Why not why not give them a saying
in >> why not give them the equipment?
» Like if you look at page three and put it simple.
» Yeah, I understand that. >> To put it simple is the association
decided after we got into this because we hadn't done it this way before.
We could have we had several options, right? Reimburse, buy the whole thing.
And instead we decided that as an association we decided, you know what?
It's yours. And the only thing we're asking for is to be able to control its
usage because it's a fire problem. >> But you you decided it's ours just like
you said. But then you want to say and you don't have a vote.
» Well, but the other option is when if you choose to sell it, if you look at
this agreement, we we're asking for a first right. There's a we could purchase
it back. >> Right of first.
» A right of first refusal. Wow. >> First right of refusal. Yeah.
» Okay. Whatever. Makes no sense to me, but that's okay.
» You think it should go directly to the fire department?
» Yeah, I would think so. Why do we go through this with because there's a word
is spelled wrong or something in an agreement or something. Geez.
» Just out of curiosity, who owns fire trucks?
» But so you own >> We own nothing over there. Like we don't
So we own the stuff that we buy ourselves. So like the UTV, there's a
couple pieces of equipment that we bought ourselves, but like the trucks
are owned split between the town and village. The two tenders are owned
solely by the town. So the village did not
like purchase half of the tender when that came up, the new tender. So the
town bought those flat out right by themselves. Every other truck is owned
by the town and village depending on equalized value. So the ladder is like a
50-50 split right now because when it was purchased engine three is like a
like a 6040 split with the village owning the majority and so is um squad
and then engine four was like a 50/50 split. So it's based on your equalized
value. So like when the new ladder comes payment's going to be based on your
equalized value for who owns the majority of it and who pays for the
majority of it. So, >> okay.
» But it'll be a town and build own truck. The fire department doesn't own any of
it. We're just operators of it. >> So, the roof apparatus
we own just the same as all the other pieces of equipment. [clears throat]
» That's the way the agreement. >> It gets unique. It gets unique when it
comes to specialized equipment or special purchases. There's different
language about special equipment and then there's language about items
purchased by the fire department or personal property. So, there's a couple
different sections in the agreement that talks about ownership of different
items. There's specific language about the building, spec specific language
about apparatus and equipment, and then there's language about personal items.
So, it depends on what the items are and who owns it. Like Nick said, there's
certain apparatus that's owned specifically by the town. Um, there's
joint apparatus and then this just happened to be a very unique item that
we use Pleasant Springs funds for. So, it got really complicated with this
specific item because we went 50/50 on it with personal department funds and
Pleasant Springs funds. And it's the first time we've ever done something
like that. So, it became a complicated situation really quick. But, you know,
it seems to me then that if we were going to have a vote on on selling this
or something that that they should have 50% of the vote and we should each have
25. Why Why are we making this a big issue
over this when they paid for half of it? >> I mean, you guys technically paid for
half of it, too. So, >> we paid a quarter piece.
» Yeah. You each paid a quarter, but between the two of you, you paid for
half of it. >> Mhm.
Wow. Okay. >> Um so the consideration then is to to
take this agreement to have um as part of each of village and town board
meeting. Have your attorneys review it as you see necessary. Is that some of
the next steps you envision? And if approved at each municipality, then we
bring it back to you for signature. Also,
» I don't think we'll probably need a lawyer for this, Steve.
» We could sure talk about it, though. [clears throat]
» It's on our for our next agenda for the town board.
» Good. Good. >> Other comments, questions?
» The only comment I'll make is that, you know, you get
Every attorney's going to have their own spin on this. I know.
» And okay, if we were to the town were to send it off somewhere, Mr. Cole would
say, "Well, I how about writing this?" So then we got to send it back to their
guys. I mean, it just could become this really ugly
circle with a lot of expense involved unnecessarily. So,
and >> how about the dog? Is that going to be
50/50 town village? >> Well, we'll talk about that in a little
bit, right? Okay.
» I'll move that we send this agreement off to the respective boards for
approval. >> I do have a couple comments first.
hold that motion or do you want to second and then comment?
» We can second and then comment. >> I'm just afraid my comments might
adjust. That's fine. I'll just do that. We'll second and comment. Um,
so [sighs] couple clarifying things I think might
be worthwhile for us to have a conversation with before we send it on
for our lawyers to look at. Um one thing was uh in the after the
whereas section three possession registration and insurance.
Um just want to ask is there a reason why
the uh Ber fire department would be covering that with their insurance
versus all of the other assets are typically under um our insurance that we
do here. Um,
so you haven't I'm laughing because we went through
this a couple years ago. So >> the way that the insurance is set up is
that all the insurance is in Cottage Grove Fire Department's name. That's the
way it has to be because we're the employees or the operators. The trucks
are on our policy, but they're showing ownership to you guys. So if a truck is
damaged, you guys will get a check for the damage to the truck, pay for the
truck, but we'll get a check for our employees or medical bills or
which is the way that set up for volunteer departments all over the
country. So a couple years ago when Sarah was on the same question came up
and he brought all the insurance people in and they they reassured that yes,
this is the correct way to do it. If something happens, [snorts] the
municipalities will get their, you know, any equipment that's owned by the
municipalities will be paid to the municipalities where anything that
happens to the staff will be towards CGVF, Inc. because they're technically
our employees. So, thank you. So that's why it says for us because we have the
insurance policy but you guys are I think the tech technical word is the
leis or the I can't remember what it is but it it shows that you guys are the
owners of the yeah the apparatus. So >> do you have any other questions?
» Sorry I just want to double check my notes based on discussion here. Um,
and going back to Mike's point over there, uh, part of the reason why this
is complicated and what April mentioned is there are the two agreements. One is
the district agreement that talks about assets, but then also our agreement with
the volunteer fire department, which really talks about assets in here. Um,
and so that's why it's kind of coming into
this kind of discussion is what kind of precedent are we going to set for items
like this um, and assets as a whole? Do we want to have a process for items
that the fire department uh, contributes a significant amount?
What's that determined in there? We have that conversation.
um or if it's that um kind of as chief mentioned they
contribute to but the vast majority is kind of covered on under us and thus
it's property of the district in there. So current to both agreements right now
they both point to that it would be part that will be owned by the district in
there um unless uh stated otherwise. Um, so that's where the like April was kind
of mentioned that special equipment type part in there. So that's why this um
conversation is necessary in there. Um, so for me
the principle of this of giving you all a say is absolutely I think
something that's worth definitely worth considering going through that. Um
it's just I want to make sure that uh we are very careful in the precedent we
set in there that I don't want to open I don't want to lead to further
confusion down the line when other assets are purchased in there. And so as
we go through this one of the things I'll just kind of ask us to think about
is um what can we do to avoid this mess in the future? what are some of the
things some guard rails that we can to make this whole process easier
especially when it comes down to like these specialized training equipment or
things along those lines. But of course again my point is did you
spend 25% he spent 20 we did they spent 50 but they're not going to have a vote
if anything comes out they'll be able to say I don't think it should be done big
deal so what that means nothing they could do that anyway it is if it
trying to speak entirely for our board the association board I think this whole
process is good going forward we're not going to do this again it's either going
to be complete fire department >> fire department buy it all right on
their own >> or they're going to ask the
municipalities to pay for it all right on their own so there's no confusion as
to who owns it because >> and this turned into something far more
than it really needed to >> no I I'm with you and that's what I
don't understand about we this was all done in good faith you know and we all
have good faith but we always have to have a lawyer decide if our good faith
is good faith that should good faith.
» It's [snorts] crazy. >> On our discussion, I think
[clears throat] our our opinion is going forward, we probably won't do something
like this. Again, we're a 50/50 split. We'll just
buy it, then maintain it, own it, >> or municipalities will buy it, own it,
and maintain it. And there's no gray area. It's just cut and dry.
» Yeah. The purchase kind of came in March, too. So we hadn't planned it in
the budget. So we hadn't had that conversation like kind of in advance,
you know, where in the future like we'll have those kinds, you know, plan the
purchases, you know, I think >> it's probably yeah, we'll
this is a learning experience it seems for everybody. Yeah,
» I would actually be willing to take it to my board to give
back some of the money we paid >> toward it to the fire department
» so that they actually own more than 50%. I would go
» that way this it's wholly owned, you know, they have a controlling interest
and >> we don't have to have this or subsequent
documents like this in the future. I mean, they're insuring it themselves
already. Um,
and again,
from my perspective, we were just being the good guys, if you will.
» Yeah. trying to provide
um a great piece of training equipment for the fire department that number one
didn't cost I'm looking at it from the town's perspective that didn't cost the
town an arm and a leg. It's going to be around forever and ever. maintenance and
um you know I it's documented that we gave
the fire department I don't even remember how much we paid x amount of
dollars but okay we did I it's just like we buy other things that we don't keep
track of exactly as to >> who paid for what where and why and I
just um you know I mean let me ask this question
because I don't know that I know the Sir, who asked that this agreement be
initiated? >> Um,
who asked that we do anou? >> Yeah.
» Talking about we so when we found out >> was it in house? I guess
» I guess it was it was more on our end because when we found out that we
weren't going to own any part of it like we were recommended because we talked to
our attorney like, "Okay, so what should we do there?
» Where we go? That's where we went. Unfortunately, I understand where you're
coming, Mike. Yeah. >> Coming from, Mike, but unfortunately,
the days of you just have a handshake agreement and everybody goes on off in
the sunset and everything works out. Those days don't exist.
» Well, we but we could have been sitting here talking without the memorandum
first before it was even made. Well, so what happened is like when we went to go
register it, I got an email from that was forward to me from Kim that would
came from Rick and Larry from the town or from the village that said that the
way they interpreted the contract that the fire department didn't own any part
of it. So that's how it started is that we got a thing that said basically
you're paid for half of it but you don't own any part of it. So, there's an issue
right right off the top. Like, we were expecting to own half of it cuz we paid
for half of it. We weren't expecting to not own any of it. So,
» I thought you did. Honest to God, I didn't think this was any kind of big
deal. >> Who said that you didn't own any of it?
» That was the interpretation from the village attorneys.
What's that? They and then your guys's attorney didn't review it at all because
the village was like, "We already did it." So, if you you can have your
attorney review it if you'd like, but just to save some costs like this is
what our interpretation is. So, that's Go ahead.
» So, this is based off the two parts and I have the two agreements up. So, if I
can call out what those sections are. Um so with the agreement to with the
volunteer fire department um it's under the
section two part B ownership of assets specifically
through I think this would fall more into four
miscellaneous equipment personal property um
which states ownership of miscellaneous equipment and personal property not
described above shall be determined by the district in consultation with the
volunteer fire department. So that's our agreement with the fire
department. So unless we say otherwise >> by default it seems like it's going to
go to the district ownership of any asset.
» Town and village. >> The district. Yeah. The when I say
district town and village [clears throat]
» fire department isn't part of the district. We're a contract.
» Yeah. municipalities.
» We just are contracted by the district to do a service. We're a contractor. So,
we are no part of the district. >> So, clarify that.
» Thank you. However, that agreement does not prevent the fire department from
owning an item >> or
» they are not specifically prohibited from lo
» or maybe the district donating or relinquishing
equipment to the to the uh fire department.
» Well, they could say something, but we'd still have to vote on it then, right?
» Right. Both villies and towns. It's got to
» this is my in my opinion based off my reading of this again cave I'm not a
lawyer but what it's saying by default goes to the district unless the district
states otherwise. >> So that's why I was saying like if this
is something that the commission wants to do that's where theou comes into play
and that's why uh the fire department's bringing it forward. Um because
otherwise uh
when I look at sorry because our so our attorney reviewed the same thing the two
agreements right and it's it's a gray area because one it could be considered
an app a vehicle because it's on trailer right
» or it could be for special item because it's a trading prop. So he's like we
could push either way. It could be it could be an it could be equipment or it
could be the other one. So it's like technically if we push hard enough we
could say it's ours because it's special equipment. But in the interest of not
[snorts] this up we thought that the easiest
method would be okay we'll just relinquish ownership so
that we meet what the district's looking for.
But our caveat to that is okay we have no problem doing that. But let's make it
so we have some protection. That's that's where we're at. I guess that make
sense. >> Okay.
So, I just want to make sure to kind of summarize the intent of the MOU is to
ensure that um
you will have the right to
determine how the uh asset is used. Uh so say if you another fire district
were to come to us and say hey we want to borrow that this district this
commission cannot sit cannot say we approve that without your agreement.
That's one part there. Um,
two is if the district decides that we no longer want the asset and we want to
sell it off, then you all have first right of refusal.
» I'm trying to like summarize it all. Is that covered like the main parts?
» That's the main part. And then like if we chose to purchase it, it would
explain that it' be at the depreciated value. It wouldn't be like, "Oh, you're
buying a brand new prop that's 25 years old." You know, like, so there there's
stuff in there about if we chose to buy it, how that would happen, who gets to
write it off for the taxes, that kind of thing. But it's our attorney was
supposed to be here tonight, but uh I don't know. He didn't call in yet. He
had a funeral, so I was hoping that he'd call in and help answer some of these
questions, but
So I mean if that's the case then one of the other kind of comments I have
is underou after the whereas section two
operational control um
it seems like the volunteer fire department has sole decision and how
it's used versus the district. Um, but so what is it called? A
training. Is it called training equipment?
» I would not call it a vehicle just because it happens to be mobile as
opposed to on skids. >> So we're looking at it. It could be gray
area. It could be considered the other area of the two
» rather than you thought it was a training thing,
» but now because >> it came to you and said boo. No, could
be gray area. Could be either one >> which is miscellaneous equipment is that
» yeah whatever >> which is the statement I read.
» Yeah that's determined by ownership determined by the district.
» Yeah.
» If they didn't have the money to buy it and we came to them and said
we don't want this anymore. They didn't have the money to buy it.
They're screwed.
Oh, is that not correct? >> True. Or the town and village or the
district could say, "Here you go. That >> take it." Yeah.
» Give us a buck, you know, or something. >> I mean,
» yeah, they could. Yeah.
» There's no >> We could do that now, couldn't we? Same
thing. We could >> I
» I think all I'm saying is I think there's a lot more to this
» than just all of a sudden coming up with the
» this thing. You know, I I just I read it and you know, it's whereas and whereas
and whip dip and what happens here and gray area here. And
» sorry, I just want to make sure I check my understanding about the operational
control in there because again, it seems like that's written so that you all have
sole authority of how it's being used versus the district asset. I just want
to confirm with the group. Um, that's kind of the intent and how we do with
other our other assets in there or is um again I just want to protect us as a
commission as well just like you're looking to protect uh the dis the fire.
» Yeah, I guess we've never had to write one of these before. So I mean I don't
know. I mean maybe that's not >> one time in what 85 years.
» How long? >> I mean that might be re revised. Like I
said, I was hoping that our attorney would be on so he could help explain
some of the reasons why this was drafted by him. You know, it wasn't our writing
on. >> Of course, it wasn't.
» So,
well, I think it's good conversation, Steve, at our next meeting and you guys,
too. Same thing. >> Yeah, I do want to take Fit's comment
into >> Yep. Near we got it. Um, I know
Pleasanton Springs is just the don the source of income and we have no right to
state anything, but I'm concerned and maybe it's in here and I just can't read
it. Okay, so you have it, you're using it and it breaks. Is it the city and
village who pay for it? Is it the fire department or is it collaborative? All
three of you pay for the repair. Who pays for repairs in this? I don't see
it.
» Thank you, Faith. We're repairing.
» You've got insurance, but you know, how does that filter out? I mean, and to to
your thing, this is the first. There's always going to be a first in this
world. And this is a new century. Sadly, and lawyers are part of everything.
Can't do anything without a lawyer.
Typically repairs would come out of our operational budget. Um we've got a
training budget. So if something were to break, if we could fund it out of our
operational budget, that's where we would try to go first or our equipment
repair fund if it's something minor. Um this device isn't likely to have a
serious type of situation that would be incredibly costly for repair unless it,
you know, I don't see it having something like that. Well, my only
thought is going down the highway, taking it from one space to another, uh,
you know, and you doing a training session with the city of Stoton Fire
Department and you're coming back and somebody runs a stop sign that falls
under your insurance. I would assume >> it's also has it also has a warranty,
Nick. I don't know how long that warranty was for. Um,
» I don't remember. I'll stop ahead. Sorry. if you did add more things onto
it above and beyond the barebones basic and that needs to be made sure that it's
followed under your insurance because I recall being in this room in
March when you're telling all about this and sadly half of you people on the
board weren't here had no idea all of the discussion these poor people have
gone through all of these questions before.
» No kidding. Yeah. >> Yes. And that's the sad thing about tra
change over as quickly as you do it. That's my opinion.
» And you're sticking to it. Um, so we we could send these to our
boards and our attorneys um and uh actually consider it when we're
together at our joint meeting if there's any changes that either board wants to
make >> in September.
» Nick, do you want to see if Bill is on? If Bill is any of those people? I don't
know if >> I think he was I think he was trying to
get on. P Dallas CB, whoever that is, Katie,
Paula, Eric Lang, and JW and us in the room.
» I don't know. >> There was a waiting there was
» Bill might have been our attorney might have been trying to get on. Um, and just
to be clear, like I don't I think he did a good job in of drafting something for
us to help to support the concept of what we're trying to achieve for
I mean, I don't I don't necessarily disagree with the language he put
together just to try to make a step forward and what we're trying to do. So,
um, I want to be supportive of what he what he documented. Um, it's just trying
to make a step forward. That's >> who documented who you talking about?
» And trying to help do something for us to make progress. So
» yeah, >> because right now it's just sitting back
there unregistered. So we we've got to do something. And I think that's
» wonder if we even just said this is a piece of training equipment in the first
place. Would this have been over? >> No. Still would. Well, well, so but
because the village lawyer looked at it
and said, "No, maybe it's not a training piece.
Could be something else." I mean, I don't think he just went ahead and come
up with this on his own. >> Again, this go I would just refer back
to our contract with the volunteer fire department. That's the direct language
that is causing or part of the reason why we're having this conversation in
here. Um again first time we have to go through
it. So this is a speed bump in trying to figure out the best way to move forward
and once we establish a process then it >> should be changed there rather than have
a memorandum agreement.
» I mean we could open up >> you know what I mean. I mean,
» but I think that could be a conversation down the line, but right now we need to
have some kind of agreement if we want the fire department to have any
ownership of this. Otherwise, by default, it goes to the district in
there. And I do want to echo uh what April is
mentioning about I do appreciate how your lawyer draft this up and having the
first draft is always the hardest point in there. And I hope my comments are not
coming across as argumentative. is more so constructive and trying to find a way
to address or bring up some things before we get the lawyers involved in
there. >> Yeah.
» Right. Changing the agreement will only hold this up longer. This might be and
if this doesn't come up very often. >> Oh yeah. Once in 90 years
» just have theou for this piece again either.
» Yeah. It won't come up again. Yeah. >> Department's board is gonna have a big
fat No. No. We're not doing that. >> Right. Pay either pay for all of it or
» um so to open up the whole contract with fire department to put the language in
might not be. >> Why don't we just acknowledge that the
fire department owns the piece of equipment?
» Well, that is yes, that's the the option we can take to the village board. we can
approve thisou um
» but we don't have to have theou if we as a commission decide that we
» uh >> we'll give them
that give them ownership >> formal ownership of that piece of
equipment this would be moved
» and this would be moved >> the commission has the authority to do
that >> yes
I would like to consult with my colleagues on the board before
» you want to part of that motion guys want to just say
» but that's >> take this as an option to your the board
is he's going to bring that to the town correct
» that those are options theou or we just make the ownership to cottage grove
volunteer fire permit >> all right Let's muddy the waters a
little bit more.
» What happens? This is it doesn't want it to sound petty but
what happens if I were to donate $10 to the town of Cottage Grove who in turn
gave that to the fire department under the opaces of here you go you now own a
majority of that piece of equipment or you have you know and
It's, you know, they have a majority stake in it. It's not 50 and 50.
» It's I don't think it's even, it's not even the 50/50 split. It's that
» yes, we paid for 50% of it, but there's interpretation of are we even allowed to
own the 50% of it is what >> Yeah, that's a
I don't you're being allowed, as you put it. I don't know that I would um
I don't know that I heard anything in the or read anything in the agreement
[clears throat] that would prohibited you from owning anything. You know, by
by you saying that say if you went out and
» Well, obviously you can because you guys went out and bought the UTV,
» right? So I mean >> and the trailer and probably think about
those other things that you guys about this 100% we wouldn't even be talking
about this right just because >> or even a majority of it.
» So but because that's the way that the contracts are written. I don't know I'm
I'm not an attorney I guess either. So um I'm just going by what I'm being
told. >> So
in the district write up is there anything specific to like
We're talking about a piece of the training equipment versus a piece of
operational equipment or
» so in the agreement with the Ballinger Fire Department under ownership of
assets there are four categories real estate and improvements
vehicles specialized equipment and what I'll go
into that because that's >> um so specialized equipment unique to
the nature of services to to the town such as paint trucks, brush trucks as
determined by the committee and ratified by the town board shall be owned by and
the financial responsibility of the town.
Next paragraph is specialized equipment unique to the natur of services provided
to the village such as fire hydrants as determined by the committee and ratified
by the village board shall be owned by and the financial responsibility of the
village. That's it for specialized equipment.
And section four is miscellaneous equipment and personal property.
Ownership of miscellaneous equipment and personal property not described above
shall be determined by the district following consultation with the
volunteer fire department. >> Nothing.
» Yeah, >> that's it.
» Pretty broad. Pretty broad with the exception of the specialized listed.
» Okay. >> Yep.
» Okay. Yeah. >> So,
» so almost could almost add a line in there saying
[clears throat] was possibly. >> So, this goes back to my point. If this
is something that this commission wants to do, that's what the MLOU does. So, it
abides by this agreement. We state that's how it is because shall be
determined by the district. That's my interpretation again for caveat is I'm
not a lawyer. That will give us there. And going back to highspeed, this is
probably going to be the quickest way get this going so that it can get
registered and used. >> My thought was if you had an additional
liner, you wouldn't need the M, >> but then we have to open up the entire
agreement again. >> Yep, that would correct.
» Okay. So to move the conversation along, I agree to the changes in my second
» take those two options back to your respective boards and
» and the two options were one note on this
» the memorandum or or just okay
» give it to them. >> Okay. Donation or memor
Okay. So, we have a motion and second to send those uh to our respective boards.
Is there any further discussion on this item?
All right. Hearing none, all those in favor say I.
» I. >> Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion
carries. Thank you for um all the discussion on it. Uh item
seven, discuss update on service animal policy. Just had that update um as
posted there was a the other attachment u was updated in the packet. This is
issue 72726. Um, previously this discussion had um
was back in May, I think was the last issue of um a service animal policy that
was kind of part of discussions. U so that was kind of started as a
collaboration. Um and then this was sent to your attorneys. Is that
» Yeah. So, so playing with your group
had a policy put together and we sent it to our attorney to review
again because there still the underlying issue of
what is our obligation as an employer when somebody has a conflicting medical
concern. So he reddrafted this e this policy in a
way that I don't know it it's very restrictive
now. Um but he is I wish he was just on he said he
would be but >> he did it from the perspective of an
employer. >> He's trying to get on but he can't get
on. I think the things he's trying if somebody could click on the waiting for.
He's waiting to >> well waiting for
» Yeah. move over to waiting for. Click on that and you might have to go to the
dots and allow >> dots up in the corner there.
» What's it say? I can't quite read. >> No, I guess it's not.
» It says pin ask to turn on camera. Excuse.
» You click on that. >> Which one?
» Either one of them. Just go to the side of it.
» Click there and see if it lets you bring one.
» Double click on it. Oops. No, I think that's probably just waiting
on them to do the connections like >> um putting in their name, what's the
camera, the mic, all that fun stuff. >> Okay.
» Anyways, he he drafted this as a perspective of us being an employer,
which we are >> um to provide protections for our
employees. Um, so like I said,
it's more it follows more along ADA laws now rather than what was originally
proposed. And I know it's like I said, it's more more restrictive, but
I wish he was going to here to explain it, but
from what he saw from the original policy, it's opening us up to issues
like if we if there's an animal in the building and something happens with one
of our staff, like we could be held liable for not
protecting our staff member if it's not an ADA accommodation or
um you If it doesn't meet certain criteria,
then we could be held liable for it personally. And I guess at the end of
the day, like I don't want to get sued because we didn't protect our employee.
I'm a volunteer fire chief. So like I like my house. I don't like to lose
all my stuff because we didn't protect our employee. So well, you know, my
stuff I I like being able my stuff, I guess. But, you know,
so he wrote it more following ADA guidelines rather than
um a training dog. I don't know what we have for
» I think you just follow the ADA and other ADA type policies that are out
there. It's more standard approach. Um, it's more consistent with
uh allowing or reviewing ADA requests and accommodations. Um, I think if you
read it, you'll understand um that there's a process, a request process, a
denial process, a review process. Um, I don't know if you have questions
can ask him. Um, I can see he's still trying to get on. So
» I guess you know this does make more sense and I think from the beginning I
think this is what was trying to be established and then in the there were
negotiations taking place but I know myself for uh writing um
medical excuses not necessarily excuses but
following guidelines in the medical world it is following ADA.
So when I when I read and go through this, it does make sense.
[snorts] So I guess my question is you're if your
attorney wrote it as perspective as you as an employer,
you're not an employer of other entities that share the building.
So that's like other other employers would have to share
medical records of other employee. I guess that's where
I get a little confused like >> that's why they were looking for one
policy for the whole building. That was the
initial request. >> So this is viewed as the policy for the
whole building. Yep. >> Yep. And so a different entity would
have to supply medical records to a different entity in order to get
» We all have the same policy. We all have the same policy. Each entity could
control it on their own. But you follow [clears throat] policy. I'm saying we if
the fire department has the same policy as the MS who has the same policy as the
village was trying to do something with their buildings. So everything was all
the same. So you have a lot of entities trying to have one policy that may or
» Okay. So what are we trying to have a fire policy
and not >> one policy?
» Trying to have one policy >> between the two of you or
» it says right in the beginning >> who's in charge of it just you guys?
» No, it says right in the beginning to establish guidelines for the general
public and Cottage Grove public safety partners. So it's for everybody
» or the building. So, were the other entities
given a chance to review this? You know, we're trying to do this collaboratively.
I guess that's >> unfortunately it is 88. It's Sorry,
Nick. >> Unfortunately,
I take full ownership of that because we were supposed to have this. We told them
a date and it didn't get to us till like Friday last week. By
» didn't get tacked on to the policy till the very end. So, I take responsibility
of that because we were trying to get it on the agenda, but I didn't get it till
literally like I got it and I pretty much sent it right to Lisa and whoever
up and Kim to get it on the agenda. So, no, your girl hasn't gotten to review
this other than if he read the packet and the village hasn't reviewed it. um
we put it on the packet because it was what we were talking about and it was
delayed. So I apologize for that part of it.
um in the the facility service dog, you know, doesn't have the same appeal
process or kind of who the authority is on deciding the
facility service dog how that
like it's it's it's set out by the ADA, >> right? Which is not the same as a
facility service dog. So, who determines whether a facility service dog is
allowed or not? Like, I don't I don't see that part covered in here.
» Yeah. So, what I what how I read it, and I'm not an attorney, and it would be
good to have the attorney, is like the facilities
dog has to follow what a service dog is, those requirements. That's why I'm
reading into it, >> right? But they don't have the same like
it it's not under the ADA in the same way I guess.
Who determines what? I guess that's the part
» like who determines the ADA, [clears throat]
» right? Who reviews other ADA accommodations? Whose disability is more
severe? Like ranking disabilities isn't really in the spirit of the ADA. I don't
think one disability is more important than the program administrator is
correct. somewhat, but then that also an appeal
and who are we appealing to if it's like outside of your employer and providing
medical records like because there's so many parties involved, you know, owners
of the building, age, the town, and the village and EMS and fire.
Yeah, I think we're kind of splitting hairs in a way, but yet this is a very
complicated situation. According to the ADA, a disability can be, you know,
defined as a mental health disability. It can be defined as a physical
disability um as outlined by ADA. Is that kind of
where you were headed with that?
» Yeah. So,
one of the concerns or challenges I have is that we're trying to complete
multiple things al together. Um, back in May when I first did this, I think one
thing we need to be very aware of is while I appreciate coming from the
employer standpoint, that's one perspective in there. Um, so in this
case, the employer is the volunteer fire department.
So there's that one. The other part is ADA and everything.
you know, ADA informs some of the agreements that go in there,
but also kind of this next part, but it's still we have to follow all the
rules to ADA, which is a lot of what Rene was stated
and then some. Um, but then the third part, and this is kind of where Heidi
was getting at, that's a challenge for us is the building because the building
is not an employer.
So the policy as written doesn't really kind of fall into that. Furthermore, it
gets even more complicated because now it's a joint asset between the village
and town. So what is the process?
And this is part of the other reason why um it was brought up a bit ago why it
would be great to have a lease for all entities in the ESP because that would
outline this process. who is the individual when
um an issue coming from both tenants in this case because that's in essence what
it is. You have dear girl EMS and volunteer fire department as tenants of
the building who determine and I'm just make this
hypothetical situation up. So that determined that they have an employee
with an accommodation that needs to be u addressed rightfully so.
So the employer can do anything within their
part of the building that is per the lease like what they are but then what
happens to the shared space. So that is one of the challenges that comes into
play here and why it's important that we make sure we are aware of which bucket
we're talking about
and then I guess first I want to check does that make sense so far?
It does. But, you know, like a bit like I said, this is this is a very
complicated situation, but really what it comes down to is, you know, it the
building it is kind of a
it in a way it matters, but it doesn't. [laughter] It just matters, you know,
who the dog is is with um and following the ADA. So, you know, it doesn't matter
really if you're in this building or, you know, the shut out back and who owns
it. You still have to follow the ADA. >> Yes. But the the key part here is what
is the reasonable accommodation. So, I took an opportunity to connect uh with
some individuals that are kind of experts that do a lot of work with ADA
and specifically right in policy and um in there. And so they had a few
concerns. Um, and I think this kind of goes to Rene's point here is um
this I think one area that we need to work through is um the language appears
to require that uh someone has to rank disabilities
against one another while ADA does not require encourage public entities to
determine whose disability is more severe. Instead, it requires individ
individualized assessment focused on whether reasonable accommodations can be
made to provide meaningful access to both individuals, whether a requested
accommodation would create an undue hardship or whether there's a direct
threat based on objective ev evidence rather than assumptions.
So, who is the individual that is facilitating that
process? Because at the end of the day, if there are two requests for
accommodations, we need to do our best to honor those without providing that
undue hardship in there. What is your opinion then?
Okay. Um I I'm from what you're saying is that we have the individual who
wishes to have the animal, you know, based upon their
» challenge for lack of a better word. >> Y
» then who's on the other side of the coin? somebody who says that they're
allergic to that animal [snorts] or I mean what and and my point
being is that how do we know that there isn't some
other force if you will or some other
situation going on in that building that is maybe
causing as much of a problem. And I used this example before, somebody coming in
with just covered in dander from dogs or cats or whatever. All right. Are we
going to make everybody change into scrubs before they come into the
building to eliminate any potential unrelated but related,
» you know, problem here? We can't. And so, um, unless you can remove that
challenge, would it why would it be incumbent upon
us to prove to that person that it's it's our dog
that's causing the problem? >> So, I appreciate the question and it's a
really good one. I think it will help here. Um, at the end of the day, one of
the key parts here, and again, I don't know any of the situations, so I'm just
going to talk about a hypothetical. Um, so the key part here is there must be
re uh request for accommodations on two ends. If there's not a request for
accommodation, then you don't have a as much mechanisms
to address anything that would arise from someone else who has an
accommodation. So the first question is whether there's
a request for accommodation out there or not.
» Okay. So assuming it has and this is part of the reason why it's very
important that each entity. So going back to a little bit more concrete, dear
girl, EMS and the fire department have policies so that they can have a request
for accommodations in there. Now part of the request for
accommodations actually spells out your that use case. What? So, and we'll use
your example of fire someone going out on a call that is a place that has say
dogs, a ton of dogs there um and lots of dandruff in there. Part of the
determination of the accommodation is what are the steps that mitigate that?
So maybe it is um from the employer side. Again, this is me throwing it out,
so don't quote me on this, but it is um >> put that dumb.
[laughter] >> Um again, not only uh but hypotheticals
in there, like maybe one of the accommodations is this person uh is
separated when they uh take off the protective gear or something along those
lines. I don't know what it is, but I'm just throwing out something. And so
that's all spelled out as part of the reasonable accommodation. But the issue
comes down to what happens
in that shared space that is outside of the employers. And so
that's why there needs to be a process for an I'll just say an entity outside
of Dear Girl BMS and Volunteer Fire Department
to
follow ADA to ensure that everyone
has the necessary accommodations to do what they need to do and
follow ADA as I kind of stated um so that we can find that middle ground
in there. >> I guess
my only comment to that would be do we have a request for an accommodation?
If we don't >> Yeah.
» We we don't build a whole thing premise to the fact that we have conflicting
sides here. >> Would you agree?
» Well, I yes and no. I agree with your point in that yes, if there's not a
request for accommodation, then we are not required to to to take steps. We may
as good people try to do our accommodations
but we're not required to do that. However, I still believe we need to go
through the process to have something in place. See second um
to prevent and be ready for that a second request or something comes in
play. >> Does the village have it in their
buildings? I mean pre having policies irrespective
of the dog. Okay. >> Yep. All right. Does the village have
policies in place that if somebody comes in and says they need an accommodation,
you know, for I don't know, something in the atmosphere because in their mind or
or their medical condition that's too dusty in the village hall. Okay. Does
and I'm using that as a far out example. Okay. The town doesn't have
plans for accommodations for anything, you know, out of the ordinary. And I
mean, this is everyday life. You walk into a store, you know, do you check
with the store to make sure they have accommodations for,
you know, the types of things that we're talking about here. Obviously, they've
got the scooters and all that kind of stuff, but for the
unusual
type of requests for accommodation. I I I would be very surprised if there
are standing policies in place to accommodate anybody who walks in the
door saying, "I have this. I need you. I want accommodations." If there's a
medical reason for it, Steve. Yes. >> Okay.
» Yes. >> But again, all right. If
again, let's go back to my um thing at the village hall or even the town hall
for that matter. Like somebody comes in and I have allergies to dust. I It's too
dusty in here. How are you going to accommodate me?
We're not We're We're not going to reasonably be able to accommodate. And
that's how I'm almost equating this situation. Somebody's coming in from the
outside, so to speak, and saying, "There's an animal in here. I can feel
it in my whatever." [clears throat] >> So, you're not going to get around this
no matter how much we're splitting hairs. Um, this is a medical issue. So,
if somebody, you know, I'll I'll use this. Like, say you have an allergy to
penicellin. Um, there's no way to get around it. when you go to a medical
facility, they're going to go through allergies and they're not going to give
you penicellin. It doesn't matter if there's penicellin on the shelves.
» So, we're really splitting hairs on a subject. So, yeah, there's a lot of
people that have dust allergies, but is it enough to cause them anaphilaxis? And
so, there's degrees of allergies, too, and that's going to be in the medical.
And so, that's that's right there. Um, well,
» sorry, I didn't want to interrupt you. Um I think the other things to to keep
in mind is that there are two different parts of ADA too. Uh, one is what we're
mostly talk about with this agenda item is kind of under the I hate saying this
the employment umbrella in there providing the space for them to do the
contracted duties that we have versus your example store that's a separate
part of the ADA and it has different process of what are reasonable
accommodations for that because that individual is electing to go into that
that place to that store versus the other side which is they are hired to do
a duty contracting etc. So we need as employers need to provide reasonable
accommodations for that. >> So um April had her hand up a while ago
and I did have program administrator circled in that because we are dealing
with two separate employers. So, that's one thing maybe you could cover, but
maybe have something else you want to add to.
» Yeah. Process on that would be maybe changing that to um EMS commission chair
and fire commission chair or something like that. So, you're identifying a
specific person because we're never going to know who the program
administrator is. So, that would maybe be a term that you could change that to
that would make sense to everybody um that would apply. So you could if we're
going to make this one policy that goes to everybody just EMS commission
chairfire commission chair and then EMS knows to go to their commission chair
and fire knows to go to their commission chair and we would be able to use it
similarly. Um so hopefully that answers maybe a solution for that. Um, the thing
I just want to mention because I keep hearing you talking about conflicting
uh, accommodation requests or concerns and I just want to mention how important
um, hardship is and direct threats and understanding that um, in fire EMS law
enforcement that's something that really needs to be analyzed from um, an
employer standpoint. what is the hardship as an employer and what and as
an EMS commission chair or a JFSC commission chair um what hardship might
you have when you're reviewing um an accommodation request so and that's
written out in the policy um and it talks about the severity of each
individual's disability and I know JP you were concerned about comparing and
that's really not necessarily I think what our attorney was pointing to doing
it's really an interaction ive process. Um, and he he does talk about that a
little bit um and learning um about what's going on with each individual um
and what alternatives can be presented um for the different accommodations that
are being requested. Um but also reviewing each individual's job duties
in public service. Um, and that's important because certain roles and
responsibilities um don't necessarily allow for that and
there's case law surrounding um job duties that will say, you know what, if
you're doing that type of job duty, we can't accommodate you in this type of
situation. So, that's really important to understand for police, fire, and EMS,
the case law that surrounds those situations. And then the operational and
financial impact of the building. So understanding those hardships.
» You done? >> Yeah. Sorry.
» What are we trying to stop here? What what's what are we trying to stop the
dog from doing? >> Well, from this it's not trying to stop
the dog. >> Well, but the dog but the dog fac is
this considered a a facility support animal.
» Is that is that the one out of all these that we're
» He's a facility service dog. So >> then it says emotional support animals
are not service or wait a minute now back up.
» So FSDs can provide services to many people in the facility. They will still
need to be assigned to a primary handler who will take charge. Now do you guys
have insurance on your can you get insurance on the dog?
» The dog is insured by our insurance policy and the dog himself
for stopping him to bite somebody and Well, the insurance won't stop him from
biting. >> No, but I'm just saying.
» Sorry, Mike. >> Wonder if the dog bites somebody.
» Yes, he's covered by uh uh I think a $2 million policy by Custom Canines and he
would be covered by our >> Okay. So, what are we trying to stop
here? That's what I'm asking you. >> I don't think anybody's trying to stop
anything, Mike. I think it's a matter of following ADA guidelines.
» But see, it's nothing about disabilities here in this whole thing here. It
» it is. It's not. It's just talking about behaviors to make people feel better.
» So, in the world of rental, if you guys are familiar with a making reasonable
accommodations, I'm managing a property and I get a
person that comes in and fills out an application for a rental unit. I say, "I
have an ESA." I say, "Okay, I need your >> and I take that and look at everything
and if everything goes through the application process, fine.
the person is in with their ESA. Simple as that.
» The ESA though is not necessarily an ADA.
They're not a trained animal. They haven't [clears throat] went through the
process. They're merely there prescribed by a doctor saying here, this person
would benefit from having a cat or a dog.
So when I'm listening to everyone talk and you talked about leases
where you have the EMS and the fire department as tenants. They are the
tenants in the building and the tenant wants to bring in an
animal. To me it's not necessarily about an ADA.
It has to do with the district and owning the building. It's how they are
going to manage and how we look and is it safeguarding
the district from with the building respect. That's that's the way I view
it. >> Does that make sense?
» It's a medical and a legal issue is what it comes down to.
» Right. And we're not even I mean they want it for to benefit
people coming in. I'm assuming you know as far as having an animal there at
crisis and trauma situation. Okay. It's almost like a tool.
» Um, that's on them. It's not necessarily us that has to, you know, write up
necessarily, we won't be using. We're just there to say, how are you going to
bring it into the building? And honestly, if they want to bring into the
building, they can. That's my opinion, the way I see it.
» Um, so, so to be clear, this the request isn't for a pet or an emotional support
animal or a therapy dog. It is for a current service dog in training um
which in as Wisconsin ADAs is allowed for is similar to federal ADA.
So he doesn't have one person right now that
well he's not a certified service dog yet because he's in training. So even if
there was one person identified he still couldn't be that person's service dog
because he's not a certified service service dog as as yet. Um but he's in
training to become accustomed to all the things
um in our our industry. Um, I understand that there may be competing
accommodations that we'll need to address and uh work through.
He will be trained and cert he's getting trained. He'll be certified in a year, a
year and a half. Um,
so our accommodation is way I view it isn't really necessarily an
accommodation. It's more you getting permission and drafting a document to
bring him in. So that's >> on the EMS side of it, we've tackled all
that already. >> Okay.
» So from the EMS commission side, now we needed
» either we needed the building side to say that it is for sure allowed to have
the service animal in the building along with identifying our partners in the
building. if they have anyone that requires an accommodation that we would
» would work >> work with them to to work through that
accommodation. >> And why would this person need an
accommodation? >> Because they may have a competing
medical problem that may be exacerbated by the animal's presence.
» Okay. >> Do you have people that come up with
this already about the dog >> from the fire department side?
» Fire. They need I just dogs barking makes me feel bad or anything like that
or >> Nobody's Nobody said anything about the
dog. >> Nobody said anything about it.
» They said that there's multiple people that have allergies to dogs, not only on
the fire side, but also on the EMS side. >> So why are they still on the EMS side?
Because of the fact that >> So you're gonna fire them? Is that the
plan? just fire them because if there are if there are not ways for
you to adapt your to your condition in order to do the job that you're required
to do, >> but you're giving an accommodation to
somebody else's >> how are you going to give us somebody
accommodation when you go to a home? >> See, you're literally saying we can't
give somebody an accommodation because we don't know what they're going to go
through. But you're also saying we have to give this person accommodation at the
top because they're they're entitled to it. So how
are how is this guy entitled to it? But this guy who's also entitled it legally
titled to it legally not entitled to it. >> This would be a really nasty lawsuit if
if uh >> frankly like I'm to the point where like
you guys approve whatever you want. I don't really care anymore. I brought it
to you. I brought my concerns to you. We brought our legal concerns to you. This
was done by a lawyer. Not by me, not by the fire department.
» This is a lawyer. Like, we all sit up here and say like, "This is the law,
blah, blah, blah. This is how I interpret it." Well, this is somebody
that actually does that for a living. >> Yeah.
» That's their whole job. >> Sure. And I bet you could see this
through AI and any report by anybody. >> So, like really just do whatever you
want. Like I I really don't care. I can prove whatever you want and when
something happens I'm not going to be on the hook anymore because I brought it to
you as a concern. So that's let's just do whatever. I don't really care
anymore. >> I I do this for a living too. And and
this this is a big deal. Um like >> this isn't me bringing this up because I
want >> It isn't your problem. You're not the
problem. >> No, but I'm an employer and I have an
employee who brought a condition to >> I just asked you that. You said nobody
did. >> No, I did not. I said I have You said
» No, I asked her and she said nobody. >> You said somebody was upset about
barking. Nobody's upset. >> No, no, I didn't say that. I said did
anybody come with a complaint? people have brought forward medical concern
» which is and from a doctor >> apparently doesn't necessarily
» I think that
» licensed health care professional provider in the state of Wisconsin if
you have that and that is not supported then there is potential like April said
for I mean there there is case law outlining that and it can be very
serious. I wouldn't want my name attached to it nor be on a board that
approves something like this because I've worked too hard professionally to
get where I'm at as well. And it's not that I'm a dog hater. It's not that I'm
trying to be difficult. This is the law. This is the reality of it.
» Well, we do have a responsibility to make accommodations for all
accommodations being made. Um but we do have two separate employers and so
providing those medical documents to somebody else's employer because we have
this shared space. I think that's where the the difficulty is like I wouldn't be
comfortable sending my medical. >> I don't think he's asking you to send it
to our to us as an employee. I think he's asking for you as an employer to
verify that somebody has it. Like we would have to verify that our person has
a medical condition that meets the standard. Your G commission would have
to verify that their employee meets the standard. I don't think they're saying
dear Gro needs to send me all their employees records,
» right? >> That's not what this is saying. But
» but it doesn't say that either. >> But then how how do we have the other
employer make the accommodations from the other employer, which is I think the
missing piece. How do we make sure we're making accommodations across employers?
And us as owners of the building, the village, and the town have to make sure
that we're we're making that communication. So then everybody is
getting the accommodations that they need and following the law.
» And I just want to clarify again, I I have a dog. My family has dogs. We've
had dogs our whole lives. Not a dog eater. Um, I I support I understand
exactly what Chief Link is trying to do with uh facility support animal and it
just benefits the fire and EMS service. I've said that. I agree with that
[clears throat] 100%. I am just trying to make sure that my employee is
protected. That's all I'm all I care about. Like if we can find a way to make
it so that my employees are protected, it is protected. Everybody's been
protected. That's all this is about. Like that's
all I care about. Like I don't I don't want to like pick on somebody or say you
can't have this or can't have that or I don't even want to be involved with this
to be honest with you. I just got I'm trying to protect my employee because if
I don't I'm going to be liable for it and I don't want to be liable for it.
That's what I'm trying to say. Well, sounds like you this is a real kind of I
hate the word the rock and the hard place because you're trying to do
something good and in a sense >> and Chief Wayne is trying to do some
Keep Jane is trying to do something good too. I'm not
» No, you >> I'm not trying to pick on him or say
like I don't want to fight about that. I I understand exactly why he's trying to
do it. It's a good program. It's beneficial.
I >> It's just that you have an issue where
you have a an employee has an allergy. Sounds like
» yes. >> Okay.
» There's multiple >> multiple employees. So now it's a matter
of how you two
» and Chief Landers offered concessions to keeping the dog in his area and the EMS
quarters and providing hepailters which we've relayed to our attorney. But
ultimately this is what he came back and said would be the best path forward. And
like I said, I'm not a lawyer and I
» the reason why he came up with this path forward is because it protects the
people with ADA. The it protects the people who do request accommodations.
There are reasons why he came up with this and it has to do with the people
who have actual accommodation requests and competing accommodation requests. So
» they they have a medical reason. >> They have a medical reasoning
awareness. >> Go ahead. and raising awareness for
their >> with their concern. Understandable.
» What is the fire department offering for accommodations now for these people with
allergies? >> Uh we have different positions and tasks
and responsibilities. So when we have a call where that's a possibility, we have
different roles and responsibilities for people. Um right now when we bring in
therapy dogs, we schedule, we make awareness, we let individuals know that
there's a therapy dog coming in. It's oftentimes unfortunate when we first
learned that we have people with allergies, we weren't aware of it right
away. So, um, those individuals had an exposure and weren't able to participate
in our CISDS, which was kind of a bummer for us, um, because that's an
opportunity for them to decompress and, um, be involved in an after action or
after incident CISD. And um it was really unfortunate that they had to
leave the room and we didn't understand why they were leaving the room and
couldn't participate in that CISD. And it wasn't until after they said, "Hey, I
can come in that room and be in that CISD with you because you had dogs in
there. You had therapy dogs in there." And that was when we first learned,
shoot, we wish we would have known that before because we would have, you know,
we would have planned this out and we would have scheduled this differently
and made accommodations for you to be present with us. And so that's when it
really became a reality for us on how we have to do better planning and better
accommodating for people who have who have needs or have accommodate need
accommodations. So, um, we plan things out better now, uh, when we have CISDs
or want to bring therapy dogs in. Um, so to answer your question, we plan
» Question. Is that your lawyer under there? No, Patrick or
» No, that's somebody else. >> That's Patrick. [clears throat]
No. Oh, >> on the other hand, like when you when
you talk about it, the the accommodation, somebody comes in, they
puts in they put in one of >> just say one of the fire people come in
and ask for a request. JP's point, there's certain and what Steve said too
on the fire side of things, whether it's a dog, a cat, a horse, a parro or
whatever, whatever animals may or may not be okayed by the ADA. The question
is fit for duty. If you absolutely need this or have this whatever reason,
whatever disability challenge, whatever it may be for that service animal, which
is defined by ADA, can we accommodate it? And I can't have
41 firefighters on trucks with dogs going into fires. There's just I know
it's a it's a it's a really broad example, but if everybody requested
that, we we can't make that accommodation because it's harm to the
animal and the people and everything else that goes on. That's accommodation.
We can't make that that way. We'd have to go look at the position description.
Can we rece reassign duties? Now, it comes another policy, which I know Mike
loves, of okay, you made your accommodation, whatever power that be
granted through ADA or whatever guideline they decided to use. Is that
person can they meet? Do they need the service animal to do their job? If the
answer is yes, does that interfere with them to be able to duty to do their
duty? And sometimes the answer is no, you
can't and can't be a member of the fire department
because of it. So I feel like we've went on a tangent. I want to try and bring us
back a little bit. So what my understanding is what we need to decide
is kind of the building side that shared
services. what happens if there's competing interest especially if it's
across EMS and the fire >> once we have that determination then
knowing that fire has their process EMS has their process in there we will be
all good so the question is how can we set it up so that
there is an entity that can cross the barriers
to have the conversations about accommodations based on all the criteria
for ADA when there's conflicting accommodation
requests or I think conflict is probably the stronger word but when they yeah but
you all know what I mean so what we need to make a decision what's that process
in there
» right like the the communication of accom accommodations between
employers. >> Mhm.
» So we can make the space
accommodate the space to follow the ADA.
» So my thought, so there's a couple ways we can go about this.
One is I'm going to laugh at saying this, but
I'm going to throw it out there. Anyways, you form a committee which
could be the two chiefs or whoever else
that we
as in the village in town say for EMS you're the ones that will be the I
forgot what the exact wording is in this draft but the ones that kind of manage
the competing interests in there and whatever that agreement looks like
they're the ones that have to um
kind of finalize the accommodation requests,
making sure it's all set for the shared spaces. That's one option. The other is
we could go to the town or village, follow our accommodation request through
our HR process in there. Um which I know Steve shaking his head in there.
» I think we keep it in house. We don't have to go outside.
You know, we've got the chief and his designates who see all the medical
records for their own firefighters already because they have physicals
every year, I believe. >> Yep.
» All right. We've got Chief Lang with the medical records and so on and so forth
for his people plus the fact a better grasp of
medical anomalies, you know, more so than No offense, Chief, but just
probably and let the two fight it out. >> I thought we did that already.
» So did I. But >> so we established a temporary process
until this was decided. So now we need the actual final process
» in there. I think
» I think it's creating some tensions between the two employers
to have their
the the policy administrator, you know, they're each responsible for
administrating policy for their own employees, but I think that there's
» it's um It's seems to be challenging. I mean
that we've been talking about this I think for many months. Seems that that
there's there's some difficulty in how each is defining is is this an
accommodation a reasonable accommodation for my staff. So I'm just getting that.
Would you say that? >> Yeah. Guess the question is what are you
making the accommodation for? >> Right. And in each
is the current This is like I I'm on board with Nick
and everything else. I have dogs. All this stuff.
You're adding a dog as accommodation for what?
There's not an accommodation being made. You're you added the you added the dog
to be trained and that stuff. That's not an accommodation
for the employee. That's not an accommodation,
» right? But we're not the employer of that employee. So, we don't know whether
there's an accommodation or not. >> I mean, I'm not saying that
» you don't have a trained dog right now. So, the dog's not the dog itself is not
trained, >> right? So, none of this would apply to
the dog is what currently this policy. >> So, you're actually violating
potentially violating ADA. I
» for the people that >> think it's inaccurate in Wisconsin,
» not necessarily because of the fact that >> something as simple as a respirator or a
mask could >> fix the problem. That could be the
accommodation for that person. Here you are. We are providing you with something
to prevent, you know, a HIPPA mask, you know.
So, I'm not saying that that is the answer. No, I I No, you know. All right.
So even though the the dog does not fit
this criteria right now because it's still in training yet, [clears throat]
we could still offer an accommodation to those person or persons
um for whatever like the old saying goes,
whatever ails them, you know, kind of thing. I once you're once you know about
something on once once this board and employers are aware of the law that's
not uh gloss over until the dog. And again I'm I appreciate both chiefs
working together. I'm not the anti-dog. I'm looking at this from a medical
liability issue and following ADA. So, >> well, that's what I meant by virtue of
the fact that regardless of what status the dog is in right now,
» we may not have conflicting, you know, accommodations right now. It's
just in this case on the fire side. And maybe it is something as simple as a
mask if they are that allergic or or whatever. I'm not saying that it's going
to be, but it could be something as simple as that.
Have either of you talked with your attorneys about it?
» What's that? >> Have either of you talked no reason to.
» We haven't seen this. This just came on Friday, so no in general about it.
» But you know, right here it says allergies and fear of animals are not
valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service
animals. >> Just asking opportunity to consult with
your attorneys about the situation in general.
Uh, >> and maybe that's protected by attorney
client privilege. So, don't say anything if [laughter] you don't want to say
» that, you know, we were waiting for something to have them review.
» Okay. In my opinion, I don't board, but kind
of, [clears throat] >> you know, why have them hypothetically
review something when they're going to review it?
» It just says reasonable steps should be taken to accommodate all individuals.
Reasonable. Reasonable. Yeah. >> So, I guess here's my
» Yeah, I'm trying to move this forward here. So,
I I guess here I will make the motion. >> Oh, it's not discussing kids. It's just
an update. >> Just an update. Perfect. Um, but I think
for me it kind of goes back to again the bug. We need to have something in here.
So I would just implore uh the village in town to find a way to
look at this not from the employer standpoint but from the building
standpoint from the tenants to ensure um that we're all good following ADA and
also provide an avenue to address conflicts because I think Heidi did you
bring up a point I really want to reiterate
And I probably should have picked this uh when I stated it, but I also don't
think it's fair to the chiefs to put them together to fight out if they're in
conflict in there. That's a disservice to you all in there. So if there's needs
to be that kind of appeals or whatever that process is, it should
not be the chiefs. It should be someone else. But the question is who that is
that's within here because again I don't want to put pit you all against one
another because that's not fair to either of you.
» I don't think that's what either of them are saying either.
» No, it just neither one of them are saying that. I I'm hearing that they're
really trying to work together. >> Yeah.
» But again, they have to talk with each other to find out. All right, fire has
this person, EMS has this person, you know. Okay.
what is the accommodation that's necessary? Okay. And that person needing
the accommodation is going to have to provide that information. It's not going
to be for the two chiefs to figure out [clears throat] uh is it this? No. Is it
this? No. We have to come with a solution to the to their
issue. Correct? Yes. However, what if in hypothetical
the accommodations can be in conflict with one another in there?
What is the process to adjudicate that? >> Well, that hasn't happened yet. And I I
view both Chief Archbold and very responsible and and insightful in
looking into those things. So I I feel that the two chiefs are going to
communicate well and and uh Chief Lang has worked hard too to um promote open
communication. So um I I you know I don't think we should plan on what might
happen. >> At the flip side, I don't want to get in
the spot where all of a sudden becomes an issue and now we don't have a policy
in place. This is the time to do it before anything arises. So it's all set
because again I don't want to put them into conflict with one another or within
their own staff in there. I want an established process so that if something
comes up we are good to go. I want to do it right.
» How would we how would we be doing this without a policy? We wouldn't we're not
going to be doing it without a policy. You can't you can't start something
without the solution. >> Yeah. So then what's next? And so that's
why I say I >> Well, we thought they were there. It
turned it started off with it was a a a good gesture
for them to have a dog. That's what it all started with. It wasn't like it was
any kind of big deal. And the more we deal with it, the more and they they try
to be accustomed to each other all the way through this thing. Now we're this
thing. And >> but we got she's got a question back.
» Yes. Since I go to more than one fire EMS meeting in a month, um I go to many
and I go to Stoton and Stoton has a policy already. I am sure that you can
contact other fire departments who already have dealt with this. They're
not You wouldn't have to start and reinvent the wheel or come up with fire.
You would have something to work from. I don't know. Um, and personally, I've
worked healthc care 32 years, and from my experience of patients coming in with
service dogs, we had to accommodate them right down to walking the dog outside to
go to the bathroom and making sure the dog had food because the woman was in in
step down unit from ICU. So, um, that is a bigger deal than all of this, I'll
have you know, cuz somebody was dying possibly. So, yes, being positive and
having going ahead and having a policy, you're proactive. I applaud you if you
actually get it done. But you've worked on this for over half an hour and
there's no nothing happening. >> It's been five months.
» Well, that too. And I sat through the first one. It was terrible.
» Yeah, >> it was terrible. The first time, an hour
and a half of it, >> none going home.
» I got I got to clarify something real quick.
» Do does allow dogs in their building. They allow pets in their dog in their
building, which is not legal. >> Well, that Okay, so they have
» They must have a lawyer, too. >> My My thought is there's something out
there you could work from. I I held out Stoton because I know of it. I I
» I am I'm incorrect in saying then that it's they they have the perfect policy.
» I'm not saying I'm not arguing with you. I'm just I'm just trying to say like
when you say another department uses dogs.
» There's got to be a policy you can work from that you don't have to reinvent the
wheel. I worked healthcare long enough to know that. I think I think that's
where our attorney generated this one from was from other policies that exist
or he came up with it just based on his pure subject matter expertise. He's a
municipal attorney. >> So he works with municipalities all over
the county and state. He's >> I don't I don't see how this document
anybody could come to a conclusion between the two of you to do anything.
» I'm serious. >> So first off, I created this
didn't know I was creating it. Had I known that this was the poop storm
that was created, maybe I would have second thought my decision.
But it comes from thinking that I would be uh doing good
for our responder community in in the region.
Um and maybe a little bit myself too. there through asking many people there
is no policy. No one has a policy. Either it is 100% we follow the city's
policy or we have an unwritten policy that says you pick up after yourself.
So to find someone else's policy there well there there wasn't one to find
otherwise we would have used someone else's policy instead of drafting from
from a blank sheet of paper. Um I think the policy that was presented
as I reviewed it some of the things that caused me grief were it didn't
specifically say who was going to be evaluating a person's protected health
information. Um, and the impression I got would be
that it would was going to be some somebody
some overarching entity that wasn't part of EMS or wasn't part of my employer
group that was going to be evaluating my employees
protected health information. Um, and and maybe I misread and I think
some proposed edits that that April mentioned adds some clarity to that.
Um, and then when [clears throat] it comes to request accommodations, then
whomever, whether it be uh myself and Nick, we get together and make sure that
there's no um competing accommodations that we can work to engineer out um or
not engineer out. But it's all about the working through the reasonable
accommodation while attempting to accommodate all requests.
Um, as far as my staff, um, it was initially identified that we may have an
allergy to, um, dogs. Um, but that has since been
found to not be the case. So, I have no other requests for accommodations of my
staff. And if I received any, I would make appropriate accommodations for
them. Um, it's it's all about working through
the process. It's way more stressful than it ever needed to be in my mind or
I ever thought it would be, I guess, is the better the better statement.
» Yeah. I wouldn't think it would be quite as bad as CO, you know,
and as as far as if we would never as a part of an accommodation tell someone,
yep, you're if you're going to come into the building, you're going to have to
wear a mask. That's not an accommodation. So, we would work through
that appropriately.
It's a big thing.
» Yeah. So again, I just want to say I appreciate all the conversation. Um,
again, I appreciate Chief and April for you all working through this. I
appreciate Chief Lang also as well for having through it go through this. So, I
feel like we've had a great discussion. Um, kind of identified some of the the
challenges in there and then it goes back to my initial asses. I just hope
that moving forward uh the town and village can find a way to
establish a process to make this as smooth as possible moving forward so we
prevent potential [clears throat] conflict.
Have you have you guys looked at a way of accommodating your people that have
come to you with this >> other than saying no, we're not going to
have a dog?
» Probably not, right? >> Are you looking at me?
» No, >> you do.
» I do. I do not typically handle the medical request. Those go the
administrative stuff goes with April. >> We have to make the accommodation
» for us. It would be really complicated. I mean, like Jess said, we have like
fitness for duty expectations in our SOPs, and I would I I personally would
expect EMS and law enforcement to have something very similar in their SOPs.
So, um, they operate very similarly to us as emergency responders. So, um I
would be surprised if they didn't have f fitness for duty expectations as
emergency responders, but that's we have something like that in our SOP.
» Oh, gee, we're we're going to have a dog shortly.
» What What should I do if I come into a meeting and I don't like dogs.
» It's not about liking dogs. That's not what Maybe it is. I don't know that.
Maybe some of your people don't like dogs. You don't have medical stuff that
says they have they're against having a dog because they have an allergy.
May they probably do. I don't know. I'm just saying. We got to find out if
that's true or not. Not just somebody's opinion.
» I don't think that's anything we've ever said nor accused anybody of. that if we
were approached with a reasonable accommodation request, we would
definitely work to to meet it. >> It's in the personal personal protective
their social protected health information for one. So, it's not
something we could discuss. >> If there is a request or an
accommodation, we would at most I would know generally speaking unless it
directly came to me right away. I would be made aware that there's an
accommodation being made >> and reasonable steps should be taken to
accommodate all individuals
» and that's >> that's 88 or whatever it is
» dog DA or whatever it is >> the attorney the attorney drafted this
» and so who determines if a reasonable accommodation has been
offered and how is that appeal process or how how is it determined
that I think that's the important part of the policy
» is how how what is the criteria how do we decide if a reasonable accommodation
» the employer would have to take and >> sit down or committee whatever sit down
with each person say what is your problem do you have a doctor's excuse
» uh are you just saying that or you don't like dogs or whatever And if somebody
really comes up with one, well then that's not good,
» right? Well, and what is the accommodation being made? So they can
what is accommodation and that's where >> is it a mask?
It might not be that might not be the accommodation. The accommodation might
be okay. They have a true allergy. They may need ADA.
Now the question is you have to look at the position description.
» Is there a combination that can be made? Are they are they fit for are they fit
for duty? But what is the ch Steve said challenge or disability or ADA approves
and it comes through and yes they meet the guidelines of the medical provider
these other things and we go down that list there's just going to be some
things that >> it becomes a hardship
» I'm correct in saying this what we're at right now this is really a employee
employer uh labor law type >> yes exactly
» I would say so >> for sure not so much anything that
really has to do with the town or village
We're just the building owners, >> right?
» But you establish the process. >> Well,
» I thought we' done that already. >> Establish
» five months ago >> by policy. You establish the process.
We'll follow >> that building policy, which is
effectively what's in front of you. >> That's that's the two pieces. There's we
can do that for our building, but then there's still your employee. How are you
going to manage your employee? That's what the policy tells us how we'll do
that. >> So again, yeah, goes back to my
comments. You have debs hazard policy, fire hazard policy. We need the building
policy which covers the middle and there be sticky. songs.
» [clears throat] >> I would say it comes down to
fire department and the EMS to just find something where they can get
along and nobody's going to be sued because of
employees or >> you get along great. Just so you know.
» Of course you do. I know you do.
I don't think that's ever been a a question, but
we get this stuff here and all of a sudden we're
just read it says said that you should make accommodations.
I hate to say it, but so there's a little bit more to this
thing here. >> So we're we're at like an update. We're
not approving anything. >> We're not approving anything. you know,
we can take it back to our, you know, various attorneys or maybe our labor
attorney is more suitable to review and provide any comments back um
on this on this policy or edits that we kind of talked about like policy
administrator and defining those.
» Yes. Okay. >> Yeah.
And if your board has anything that you discuss in the meantime though on this
topic back to next meeting,
anything else? >> Anything else on this?
» No, no more, please. [laughter] >> Other than what you got something else?
» No more. >> All right. Item eight, discuss and
consider plumbing maintenance item. Um, so this was um coming up in May. Um um
we had some sediment build up I believe that was causing some issues. Um we are
going to bring back some quotes for this month to consider. We
can still consider approving this maintenance item. If we have um some
quotes that correspond to this maintenance or we
» Okay. So, this this repair has been a challenge as can be attested to by Nick
and and Steve. Um, I reached out [laughter]
to other vendors. The and I had an email for the last meeting from uh Persorn,
which is a plumbing contractor in Madison. Um, their quote was roughly
$1,500, but it's not a mill and jet like um
Matt or Mickey's or Freddy router. >> Um, so Steve reached out to Rotorooer of
McFarland. Uh, and they too were reluctant to send
someone out to write a quote. >> Oh my god. Um they they did send a fella
out >> um
» showed him where our bathrooms are and he's like, "Well, we would use our
knifey thingy to break to break up the sediment and then if that didn't work,
then we'd have to mill it." So I'm like, "Okay, so you're not Nope,
we don't do that. Someone else would have to do it." um between Perzborne and
Readyrooer, they're both a time and materials type of company. So, they
don't necessarily know how long it's going to take, so they could neither can
give a super accurate quote. Um if Ready or Rotorooer didn't email you, I'm
assuming they're not going to because they were out early last week.
So, I think the whole building basically was
what $6,500 from Mark's ready router or whatever it is.
» And then there was an additional $3,000 if if we did something else. I I don't
have I did not bring that quote with me >> on the last one. Um,
and it the
it was a big challenge. You know, Chief Lang tried himself. I tried. I mean, I
was calling all the way to Walkishaw trying to find someone explaining the
situation and what was actually occurring here. And everybody wants to
jet. You know, jetting is the way to do it. But when you have
» tree, >> the minerals
» that are just attached to the inside of that pipe
blowing high pressure washer water on it isn't isn't
the hot ticket. >> I think with Marks coming out and taking
a toilet out and scoping it, they know what they were quoting. It's does on the
face of it look like a a lot of money, but it's probably the most realistic
quote. This the second quote milling all the
bathrooms lines to the city main then jetting out the city main to flush out
the system after milling $6,400. Is that the
» from Mark's ready router and plumbing that second portion of that quote also?
» That was the second part up into two parts. The first part was $3,200 just to
do the two bathrooms >> and the quarters
» and then the 6,400 is all the built the bathrooms to the city main. I would
make a motion. >> Caveat quickly though.
» Go ahead. >> My I don't know where my mind was the
day Mark came out or I don't even know if it was Mark, but the dude came out to
to do the the quote of I forgot about two bathrooms. I don't think they're
probably going to have to do anything with the upstairs bathrooms because of
» the but the main ones would. So, it might come in higher than that. I don't
know for sure.
I I think the main ones and the EMS ones need need attention.
» Everything on the first floor. Yes. To include the EMS quarters, the
» public one behind the kitchen and all that area.
» So, what was the burst? 6,500. >> Yeah.
» Downstairs. >> Well, I make a motion.
» Those pipes go right past it. So, they're effectively milling out
everything as it goes past the basement toilet. But I would to make a motion
that we spend no more than $8,000 on on this uh on this
what's the company? >> Mark's ready rotor
» on Mark's ready rotor bill. No, no more than
a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second.
» Okay, I have a motion and second uh to approve that maintenance. Um, as of last
month, just a side note, the building maintenance line we had 15,500 for 2026
budget and um, Kim ran the report 2400 2420 had been spent. So, um, we have
room in that it seems in that building maintenance according to last month's
report. >> We need a motion to say that's where
it's coming from to >> versus the ESB repair fund. Mhm.
» You think that's fine. >> You good with
» Go ahead. >> Yeah. So, add the building maintenance.
» Yeah. >> Item. Okay. You're good with the second
on that. >> And where does it come from?
» Maintenance fun.
» Okay. We have a motion and second um >> not to exceed uh is that 8,000 for the
plumbing maintenance item from the building maintenance fund. Uh any
further discussion on that item hearing? None. All those in favor say I.
» I. >> Any opposed? Same sign. Uh abstensions.
Motion carries. >> Okay. Some additional building
maintenance stuff. It wasn't agenda this way, so no decisions could be made. Um
we had the roof inspected and they found some spots that need repair and they
sent us an invoice for $1,500 to repair. Um I actually have photos of it. Let me
share my screen. Is it leakage, chief?
At least >> I don't think we've had rain since he
came out to look at it. >> Yeah, [laughter] but there's leaks and
there's leaks. >> I It's not leaking that I I I'm aware
of, but it's also we we've been identified that would have penetration.
» Yeah. Yeah. They've done a lot of work for
what the last five or more years or more.
» Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, so a component of that is
there's $1,500 for that repair that gets us through. They they'd estimate still
like a five-year outlook on potential a full re-roof and their estimate for a
full re-roof and today's cost would be $180,000.
» Uh, I would like to request that the chair put the Great Lakes roofing on the
next month's agenda. Okay. >> For action.
» All right. Great Lakes repair. I will add that
to next month's agenda. >> And then one more item of things from
that were of lengthy discussion. Last month, I had a window contractor come in
for one quote. I'm waiting for a second quote. The answer is on when they need
to be replaced of well, I mean, they are 30 years old. They're not leaking, so
they're fine for for now. Um, you'd hat you'd like to get them before they do or
don't start to leak. Um, the exteriors company, I believe is the company's
name, they would replace windows and frames um for to the cost of $96,000.
Um, Helen Brand Glass came out to do an estimate on just replacing the the
glass. Um, because uh the view would be all we need to do to make the frames uh
work well again is recock them and then we can put in higher quality glass. I
have not gotten that quote yet. It's all just for future planning information.
Um, and I can put that in a document to to give you all as part of a future
discussion item. >> Okay. I'll add that to you as we're
looking at budgets and a joint meeting to talk about the study and facilities.
That'll be good info. >> Nothing that was urgent or short-term.
It was a more midtermish for planning.
» Thank you.
Um, all right. So, that's uh maintenance items. So, item nine, discuss and
consider adding LOSA to the 2027 budget proposal. There's um an attachment
in our packet talking about the length [clears throat] of service program.
» So, we did a staff survey because we were asked about what the staff wanted
to be added. We have 40 41 members and we had 29 responses.
» 29 responses >> of that nine people said they wanted
BOSA and then it was split between didn't want it and uh no opinion. What
was the percentages on those two people? >> Uh
that 29. >> Hold on. Sorry.
» 29. So it's 10 and 10. So roughly 30% is what I mean%
about 30% said yes and then the rest the 70 it was 31% said yes and then uh 70%
said no or no preference. >> What was the split on that? Uh 11. No,
just give you the numbers because that's No, wait. 31% said yes.
13.79% said no, and 55.17%
said no preference. >> What was the last number?
» 55.17% said no preference. Like I don't really
care.
Um so this is kind of as uh they start to prepare the next year's budget is
this something we want to give them direction you know based on the
information here and the survey is that something we'd like to you know the the
village board was generally wanted made a takeback that they were generally
supportive of the program last year when we considered it and would consider it
again But yeah,
» give them direction on whether this should be included in
» and there's there's two different options for LOA as we talked about. So
you could start a program right now where nobody has any everybody be
starting fresh at zero no past prior years are counted. Um, and then
the cost for that would be what's a year?
» Uh, 18,900
a year plus a $500 initiation fee and an $800 annual fee and then $20 per member
for an annual fee. So, $20 20 time 40 4,000.
No, 8,000. No. Oh my god, it's getting late in the night. 20 * 40 800.
» Yes, >> true.
» Roughly, let's see. 200 + 500. >> 2100 plus 189.
» Roughly 21,000 to start. LOSA and then the first year
would be 21,000 and then after that it would be just whatever you're putting in
for your employee cont contributions. The other option is if you wanted to go
back and pay people that have length of service already. Like this is what this
chart shows is people how many l how many years of service that people
already have. For those you wouldn't pay as much for
the previous years because you didn't do it in the front end. So,
April calculated out it' be all the total years of service would be 436.61.
If you paid $100 per year service for the previous years, that would be
44,000. So, if you wanted to back pay people, you'd start with a contribution
of 44,000 plus the 21,000 for the year and then move forward from
there. would be roughly the I don't know 21,000 again every year or
whatever roughly 20 to 21,000 a year depending on members
» I think [clears throat] you get you get those people vested that way that's the
one benefit of doing the back pay I believe you get those people with those
past years vested [clears throat] 10 years I
» think it's five years I'd have to check but um oh no tenure you're right I'm
sorry it says right 10 year vesting. >> Yeah.
» But also like if you have someone who's got four years, you'll get them vested
for four years and then maybe you're likely to keep them for five more years
» so they vest and get their 10 years. >> So this isn't approving LOSA one way or
the other tonight, right? It's just whether we want to see this in our
budget documents for next year proposed and we can decide then. But we don't
want them to go through a whole bunch more work of adding it into the budget
if it's not something we're interested in implementing.
» It seems like most of the people don't care.
» Yeah. So, I would attribute that to they like seeing an immediate reward versus
having to wait for a a reward. And I would guess that that's likely why they
don't care. They they probably would they probably want to wait or they
» when you get the money how long >> 55 retirement age
» 60 got to wait till 60 >> I'm sure a lot of them are going to
» so that might be that might be it they're thinking well I might move in
five years or you know I might not be doing this in five years something like
that so they're thinking I'd rather see a benefit now versus then and maybe I
won't even reap the rewards of this so I don't necessarily care I don't have a
preference >> if I'm correct LOSA is non-t taxable
income. So as soon as they draw on it, they have to pay taxes on it.
» Yeah. >> So part of part of that and no
preference or a is say you go back 10 years or you go back what you put this
$62,000 in taxes get taken out of that. So basically you're paying in taxes for
somebody to do that. Not saying that's the only reason not yay or nay not to do
it. there's 41 members that have a choice to do, but it's something to
think about >> where privately investing. You have
other options where you >> where you can do an IRA where you're
doing on the back end if somebody had the money, but we don't obviously do
cash anymore. >> To give you additional perspective, so
if somebody puts in 20 years of service, you guys are putting in $450 or $400 and
it's matched at $400. So that's $800 a year. You times that by 20, that's
$16,000. And then they got to do taxes on that. So they might not they might
go, you know, I don't they might not they're
kind of doing the math on it and going I'd rather is it worth it? Am I really
going to get 20 years in and am I really going to get 60? You know, they're kind
of weighing risk the reward of it and going I don't know. I think they're
» I don't think anybody and also I think nobody denies this is it's a significant
gesture by a community to even consider >> Yeah. what
the these bodies have done and even talking discussing about it talking
about it but always making sure the paper call and always making sure we
have good apparatus bringing the things in what's reasonable what you know take
care of things and things like that so there's a little bit of everything
that's involved in >> I'm just trying to give you an idea
perspective of why we see so many going 55% going I don't care
» are there other incentives that you heard from staff what they what be more
lucrative. >> So when we ask, it's really funny when
we ask and do the survey like what what do you enjoy snacks? Like we literally
had someone type in more snacks. And so we do that, you know, we'll buy we'll
buy snacks and have them over there. It's funny stuff like that. It's just
they like the positive environment, the camaraderie. They really like just the
work that they're doing. Like they don't necessarily sign up for the money all
the time. Um we did get some feedback that they do like the paper call. Um,
but not all of them, like not all of them are signing up for the paper call.
So, you see some going, "Yeah, that's a great incentive. It helps." But others
are saying, you know, there's other things that they like about it. So, um,
it snacks is one that makes us laugh
sometimes. So, we will bring a bag of Twizzlers in or bags of chips and um
it's little things like that. But, as far as like
» Who runs this? Who actually runs it? The state.
» Yeah, it's through the state. And then um VFIS our insurance company helps with
would we would recommend Horton our insurance company to be the manager of
it. >> Yeah.
» And the state does match. >> Yeah.
» Which is one, you know, benefit I think to really consider
» and I think they're up to $450 right now.
» It's increasing. It increases every year.
Other
questions, thoughts, any consideration whether we want to see
this in the budget proposal? >> Not to me.
» I think there's other things that might be more valuable to the staff. I I
really do appreciate bringing that input and surveying.
» A dog. >> Yeah. [laughter]
Oh jeez. Here we go. We have to go back to that and you [laughter] have to
» read the room. >> I just I ruined the road.
» They're really happy with their training prop.
» What's that? >> They're really happy with their training
prop. [clears throat] >> Yeah.
» Yeah, >> that's what we could do. We'll give the
fire department the training prop. >> Fair. [snorts] Um, so do you want to
turn that into a motion to not have it? >> Oh, just a
» 2027 budget. >> I would make a motion we don't discuss
this for the 2027 budget. >> All right. [snorts]
Can I have a second on that? >> I'll second that.
» All right. Motion and second to leave low 2027. Any further discussion?
Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. Any oppose? Same sign.
Motion carries. Uh so then moving on discuss pay-per call. Um so we have
I guess then some input on what might look good for 2027. There's some
effectiveness June 2025 versus you know yearto date 2025 versus 2023. So that
was also attached in our packet. >> I know that.
» Yeah. So it's kind of a mixed bag. I mean, there's a couple people that
really started responding [clears throat] more and there's some
people that responding significantly less. I don't think it's I don't think
it's a reflection of the money. I think it's more so of kind of like when the
calls are coming in, what what people's commitments are. You know, like I'm down
I'll just use myself as an example. I'm down 3% this this winter. I spent a lot
of time out of town for work, so I missed quite a few calls that I wouldn't
normally be making. Um, but everybody's situation kind of changes a little bit.
I haven't, you know, you did ask a question about paper call on the survey,
right? >> I did. Uh, let me go back to that. Hold
on.
» Do you have an overall number, April? >> An overall number of what
» percentage of people that like it or >> No, no, no.
or what >> uh I just said um
do you believe it improves responder turnout and I got 41% of people said
yeah to that. So
yeah, I mean they like it. So and you're getting almost half of the department
that appreciates or says that it helps with responder turnout. [snorts] So,
» okay. >> Oh, I should think we stick with it,
don't you think? Or >> I think so.
» Yes. >> I'd make this just for discussion
apparently. >> Well, if we're not doing the LOSA, then
should we increase the pay per cup? >> Well, I don't think we only had this a
year. One of the things that didn't get into the packet that we just got it too
late, it was the uh every year, I mean, just all the fire departments in the
state do the survey that tells you how much their pay is
» for different positions. Um, we did send that to Kim and Cameron
today just so they could see it for each municipality. Um, could probably be
forwarded out to all of you guys as well, just so you guys have reference
for it. But um I think we're right we're still right in line for what everybody's
doing for pay per call like >> yeah there may be like two or three that
are a lot higher which is unusual but there's a couple that are way up there
but for the most part everybody's right around $15. So I think we're pretty
standard. If we wanted to, we could maybe go up to 17 or 18 for making the
truck and then 12 or 13 for not making the truck, but
» you just made the math so much harder, >> right? [laughter]
» It's going to be so confusing for me. Um, it might be easier to change it by
fives. [laughter] >> Um,
you know, seeing the feedback from the staff, I don't I don't know if it's
necessary in the first year. I almost would like to see a full year's worth of
data to see the difference and see see the numbers and then do this survey
again. We do this survey every year with our staff and kind of see where they're
at and what they want and how they're feeling about the department and the
district and um what we actually need to do as leadership too to make staff um
feel happy about the culture and the policies and the procedures and we get a
lot of really good feedback from them um on what changes we need to make too. So,
um I think it, you know, they might listen to this and be like, gosh darn
it, April. But, um it it might be helpful for us data wise to see where
we're at next year. But, um if you guys are inclined to say no, we as a board
want to increase it, we're not going to stop you either. So, um I I don't know.
Do you have anything >> or snacks?
[laughter] >> Yeah. No, that'll be the next thing be
What types of snacks? I mean you you start going thing but that's honestly
that's been a cheto. That's something you can take that's something that
that's an easy button right so you can we as leaders then the board is a
separate side of the operation side that's something we can throw minimal a
nominal amount of money at and just take care of them right so it's these other
things that go like that but I I would I would tend to agree that I would
publicly say absolutely not don't do it um you know I'd like to see if it it is
is it making from your perspective I if I was asking
I'd be like, "What is your intent? What is our intent of the of the paper call?
And is it is it doing what our what we expected it to do in in the
short time that we've done that? I don't know that we have an answer for it." I
think even the staff not doesn't necessarily know it quite yet.
» One of the biggest goals was for recruitment and retention. Like that's
ideally 100% what it was for is for us to pull in a draw of staff and
advertise, hey look, we we pay you to respond to calls and try to draw in more
staff. Um not necessarily so much for turnout on getting people to come to
calls because we do okay with that. It's more of generating uh you know more
volunteer staff to join the department. >> Not that we're necessarily doing bad
with that either because we're okay. We're pretty steady, but if we can get
more volunteers and build up to our number 50, that never hurts. So,
» yeah, JP and then Steve and I had something too.
» So, I know in the last meeting you mentioned that we were wrapping up
quarter two. Yep. >> Um, so just out of curiosity, have you
had a chance to kind of look at where we are budgetwise? Are we staying kind of
in the allocation? Yeah, >> I know that's like it was a moving
target first time doing it. So, >> we weren't we were curious as to how it
was going to go and we used uh 2025's and 2024's data to kind of estimate what
our call numbers were going to be and build out what our budget was going to
be for 2026 pay for a call and we're pretty much right on. Um even knowing
that we're just a tad higher for call responses. Um the staffing turnout is
very similar for 2024 and 2025 as it is in 2026. So that actually helps with our
calculations to kind of work out where right where we need it to be. So um
quarter one was uh I don't know if you want me to say it. Um I'll just say it.
Uh 17,420. Quarter 2 was 18,120. So, if we stay right in those numbers, we're
going to be right around probably
» 65 70 72ish >> 74,
» which is I believe right around right where we budgeted for because we're
[clears throat] including just so you know, we're including training, Sunday
duty, and pay-per call all within that number. So, that's not just pay-per-
call in that number. That includes our training budget, our um Sunday duty
budget, and our incident response. So, we're paying out every quarter all three
of those items. So, if you look at in our budget, I our
line budget um the amounts that we have for those
three things and add those up, which I don't have that in front of me right
now. >> How about we talk about it at budget
time? Yeah, >> will likely come under
Um I did have one question about the Pleasant Springs contract says fee shall
first be applied to the operational expenses incurred by the department to
provide services to the if we respond to Pleasant Springs. Does it come out of
the Pleasant Springs fund or does it come out of the regular?
» No, it's primarily Pleasant Springs is allocated towards capital funds. So, we
have to be really careful and we kind of pay attention to what we request
Pleasant Springs funds for because the Pleasant Springs funds portion of that
is 2% dues funds from Pleasant Springs. So, we kind of know that's what Pleasant
Springs is doing with those funds. So, that means that those funds can really
only be spent on certain items, which is um fire apparatus, public education,
fire inspections, and LOSA if we were ever going to buy LOSA. And that's only
to that's typically to help make sure that those funds are properly spent to
assist Pleasant Springs during audit time.
» Okay. Yeah. Because it that's good to figure out what the definition of the
operational expenses incurred by the department to provide services to the
residents of town of Pleasant Springs pursuant the PS contract and then any
remaining fees shall be applied toward capital expenses. So that was I just
wasn't sure what >> so we know as a department that th
that's how Pleasant Springs uses or allocates those funds and gives them
puts them aside and how they're using their 2% use funds. Um and that they're
using those 2% dues funds to help fund that contract so then when the
department is audited that [clears throat] those funds are properly
spent a certain way. >> Okay. Yeah. I was reading the agreement
trying to figure out what exactly that meant. So um so uh if there are
adjustments I know it's costs more to live and recognizing that you know if we
think that there should be some kind of cost of living adjustment because we
recognize the sacrifice that the firefighters are taking away from you
know their lives and it's more expensive to live to hire a you know babysitter if
you have to have someone come watch your kids or you have to be away from your
job. um if I would support that if it comes
forward in the budget um to to do an adjustment in the pay um I would
understand that. But if we want to keep going with more data and
so I guess that's just my I thought we don't have where it's not consideration
tonight. It's just kind of update and >> you can talk with the chief and show hey
here's what I'm doing with the budget, >> right? Yeah. Yeah. So that'll be coming
in budget to continue the program. >> I appreciate the feedback on the staff.
» Does the budget come to this committee next month or September?
» September, I thought. >> Yeah.
Yep. September. Um any other
comments, thoughts on paper call?
» Okay. Item 11, discuss and consider commission meeting location remaining at
town hall or switching to ESB. This was brought up to me last month. Um, see if
we want to uh consider that
» fourth Monday EMS, >> right? Training. So, it might
it works out to just stay here and we don't want to
spend the first Monday. >> What's that? I don't know. I I do know
it's Monday. [laughter]
I mean, we have some months that we don't have fourth Monday training, but
it's the months you wouldn't want to have a meeting on a fourth Monday
either. >> Yeah, we're not
» December and May. Fourth Monday is always
» This is item 11. >> Yep. Item 11.
we could just not take any action and it'll stay here or um if someone's
inclined to >> motion to keep it at the town because of
the fact that the fourth Monday is EMS training at DEES.
» Second >> motion and second um to keep our
meetings here at town hall. Thank you for hosting us by the way.
» Yeah. >> Um any further discussion on that item?
Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I.
» Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. Um item 12, discuss and
consider moving the September meeting to Wednesday, September 30th, 2026 or other
date that week. I have a conflict on the 28th. So I was hoping that I could still
be part of the budget conversation and that you might consider rescheduling the
September meeting so I can still be part of that. Otherwise, I would send my
alternate >> a quarter. [laughter]
» It'll cost me a quarter. I I could make cookies and bring them over. I'll turn
[laughter] [clears throat]
» keep the quarter. I'll take the cookies.
» It's the fifth Wednesday, so there shouldn't be a different regularly
scheduled um meeting from either municipality, but I don't know. It's
» okay by me. >> Yeah.
» What date? That's Wednesday. >> Wednesday the 30th. Um,
I wouldn't be done with work until 7 that night. Anything,
Lori? I mean, >> no. I mean, it's not a there's no other
meetings at night. If we wanted to go back to a 7 o'clock meeting
» and I'll start I can um I'll join Zoom until I get here.
» Yeah, we have just it takes a little bit to get through the first few items now.
And importantly, of course, is is that a night that
all of you would be available? >> Yes.
» All right. Thank you so much for accommodating that.
» Make a motion. >> Uh, yes, please
» make a motion to move >> September
meeting to the 30th >> at 7 p.m.
» 7 p.m. Second. Second. >> Motion. Second to move September
meeting. Thank you so much for accommodating that. I really appreciate
it. Um all those in favor or any further discussion.
» All those in favor say I. I. >> I. Any opposed?
» Any abstain? Motion carries. Um then we have one other item. Our October meeting
falls on the village board budget workshop.
uh is if we can always talk about this later if you don't have October
meetings, but uh I wanted to bring that up earlier rather than later. If
you might consider moving October, I mean we could also
if if there's nothing I don't know if there's we would have already talked
about our budget.
» What's the Tuesday the 27th? You would have training on Tuesday the
27th. Is that >> Oh,
» would you have training on the 26th? [clears throat]
» Yeah. Tuesday the 27th created. >> Okay.
Fourth Wednesday commission, right?
» What about Tuesday the 20th, the week before? So nobody trading me.
» Oh yeah. Um Wednesday the 21st.
» Thursday the 29th. >> Huh?
» Oh yeah. That's the fifth Thursday. So >> Thursday the 29th.
» No 21st. You're in October. >> On Wednesday the 21st.
» I have a library board meeting. >> I have another meeting.
» Third Wednesday. >> Yep.
» On the third Wednesday the 21st. Yeah. 21st. What about 29th?
» 29th. >> It's a Thursday.
» Thursday. >> You come dressed for Halloween.
[laughter] >> Themed themed night.
» Theme night. Theme night. >> Halloween theme night.
» Firefighter. >> I can do it. Just dress in soccer.
» So, October 29th >> at 6:30.
» Yes. >> Yes, please.
» Is that a Thursday? Yes. I don't like Thursdays.
» That's okay though. >> I don't like Mondays. [laughter]
» Is there any possibility? >> I didn't mean to scare you guys at 6
that night or no. >> Or you're coming in coaching gears.
» I I would prefer six, but I can make six work. It's fine. So, whatever this I'll
make whatever the >> whatever the group consensus is.
» Okay. All right. >> Six.
» Life is good. >> Come dressed with Halloween treats.
All right. So, um I'd make the motion then to move October's meeting to
Thursday the 29th at 6 PM. >> Okay.
» That's six. >> Yes, sir. Six.
» I'll second it. >> Okay. Motion second. Um on October's
meeting. Any further discussion on that? Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
» I. Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. Um our next meeting date then
August. If we flip back a little bit, it's August 24th,
Monday night at 6:30 p.m.
and uh we have
building maintenance. We can talk about if something we have the plumbing
maintenance item. >> We have results of the rotorooer job
item, [laughter] >> right?
Do you have other items that you can think of right now? Otherwise, let me
know as we come up. Anyone else have any other items for
» That was the 24th for August. >> Yep. August 24th. Our regular 4th
Monday. Um I would that says discuss and
consider also. I move that we meet August 24th uh at 6:30 p.m. We have our
agenda items. Any second?
» Okay, motion second. Uh, any further discussion? Hear none. All those in
favor say I. I. >> Any opposed? Stain. Motion carries.
» And finally, item 15.
» Second. [laughter] >> Motion. Second. Non debatable.
» All those in favor say I. I.
is >> 911.
» 91. >> Are we out?
» We are done. >> Anybody want to go for breakfast?
[laughter] Anybody? >> Oh, you would. Yeah, sure.
We start in that feeling.