[0:02] This conference will now be recorded.
[0:08] » I think we're recording.
[0:16] » We're recording.
>> Here it says
[0:21] it does.
>> We should be live.
[0:25] » Yeah, we can hear you.
>> Okay.
[0:29] said something.
>> Did he?
[0:33] » Pause recording. Maybe
>> then,
[0:45] » but we can't hear.
[0:53] Okay.
Well, we're we're on camera. We think
[0:57] we're also recording. It is 6:31 p.m. on
Monday, July 27th, 2026. I'll call to
[1:04] order the Cabbage Grove Fire District
Commission meeting. Uh this is a hybrid
[1:08] meeting taking place at town hall and on
go to meet. Uh we do have a quorum and
[1:14] the agenda is properly posted. So we'll
move to item three, public appearances,
[1:18] public's opportunity to speak about any
subject that is not a specific agenda
[1:22] item.
Have anyone in the room? Uh, we can try
[1:28] to incorporate Zoom if anyone from the
public has something
[1:32] that they would like to speak about.
I don't see any hands or anyone in the
[1:39] room. So, we'll keep moving to item
four. Discuss and consider the minutes
[1:42] from the June 22nd, 2026 meeting. Uh,
any uh comments, edits, or consideration
[1:49] for us? Anything?
>> One change on the
[1:53] dating for when this meeting was
supposed to happen. I had the 20th down
[1:57] as I
>> the 27th.
[2:00] » And with that change, I move approval.
>> I have a second.
[2:07] » A motion and second to approve the
minutes with an edit.
[2:10] » I have one more edit also. Well, a few
more edits to add. Um, in section 7, 9,
[2:16] and 10, Cameron's name is spelled wrong.
It's missing the
[2:21] So that's in section 7, N, and 10.
Right.
[2:28] So, we have um
[2:34] C E R O N
is missing. E R O N.
[2:41] » Sorry, camera.
>> Um so, you're good with amending your
[2:45] motion also those edits. Okay. So, we
have a motion and a second uh with a
[2:51] couple of edits. Any further discussion
on the minutes from June 22nd?
[2:56] Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
>> Any [clears throat] opposed? Any
[3:00] abstained? Motion carries. Thank you and
thanks for preparing your minutes. Uh
[3:05] we'll move then to item five, the
chief's report.
[3:09] » All right. Uh we are currently at 41
staff. have nine officers, three driver
[3:15] operators, 21 firefighters,
six probationary, zero explorers,
[3:21] one chaplain, and one.
Uh, the time of the report, there was
[3:27] 222 calls for service plus one exposure,
averages out to 1.09 calls per day. If
[3:33] that were to [clears throat] continue,
estimated number at the end of the year
[3:36] would be around 399.
Breakdown of the calls is 57 in the town
[3:42] of Cottage Grove, 30 in Pleasant
Springs, 102 in the village of Cottage
[3:47] Grove and 33 Mutual.
[3:53] Various charts for the times of day and
come in.
[3:58] Um
so for apparatus letter one went in
[4:02] person service
that's been fixed.
[4:08] Fender one's having several issues
including the air horns randomly
[4:11] activating while driving. Some lighting
issues and air conditioning issues
[4:16] lighting issues and air conditioner
fix. Uh the horn issue is still being
[4:23] worked on to find a solution. Engine 3
is having an issue with drafting. Lion's
[4:28] going to work on addressing issues with
three one
[4:32] and brush one both had flat tires
earlier this month.
[4:36] One had a puncture to the tire and was
repaired. Brush one had a weld fail on
[4:40] the rim.
Spare tire and rim were put on brush
[4:45] one. Brush one due for new tires in
2027. So replacement rim and spare tire
[4:49] will be included with the capital budget
for that.
[4:54] Uh permit info. Fundraising for the
village allowed the department to
[4:58] purchase two drones. Department's
working on training operators and we'll
[5:02] put them into service soon.
Um training for July is rural water
[5:07] movement
and the officers worked on planning for
[5:11] rural operations and practice drafting
operations from the dry hydrant on in
[5:15] the town.
[5:18] Um department added one new member in
July and the staff participated in
[5:23] market policy 16 members. Adam Menberg
2018 was brought on by the staff to
[5:29] probationary status and Evan is the
first candidate to complete the core
[5:34] program. It's a big deal.
Um staff milestones for Kyle Wheeler for
[5:41] four years and Mitch Dao with seven
years.
[5:50] Break down the calls are attached also.
Thanks so much Chief. um questions about
[5:58] the chief's report.
>> Yeah, go ahead, J.
[6:02] » Um just want to confirm for the drones
um are the we're going to have any
[6:08] annual cost for those u because I know
some drones require some annual
[6:13] subscriptions uh for some of the
software that goes with them.
[6:16] » Um the drones themselves don't need it,
but we're subscribing to a service that
[6:21] helps maintain our records. So there is
going to be a little bit of cost. I
[6:26] think it's pretty
[6:30] not
[6:37] other questions.
>> I do. Um I have a meeting next week with
[6:45] D County Highway regarding the bridge
over Little Door Creek Netfit.
[6:51] Um,
you know, over was it on Uphoff? We put
[6:57] in that
dry hydrant over there.
[7:02] Um, with the Houston's
having their big development right there
[7:07] in the area. There seems to be a fair
amount of water down in the creek there
[7:13] and stuff.
Is there
[7:17] any interest possibility whatever maybe
putting a dry hydrant in if it meets all
[7:24] the criteria obviously down at that
location seeing the county is going to
[7:29] be redoing the bridge here next spring.
>> Yeah. I mean if it met the criteria and
[7:34] it was feasible then
>> I mean the criteria that I was looking
[7:40] at was
>> is there sufficient water for what kind
[7:44] of draw you would have
>> right
[7:46] » you know um
>> yeah so I mean if if there's enough
[7:51] water which I don't know if there is or
not I guess I haven't looked at the
[7:55] water in that area um if there's enough
water and if the county allows you to do
[8:01] that or the DNR allows you to do that
because you have to have permission to
[8:04] do that. Can't
>> because I don't think we got had to get
[8:07] permission from the DNR when we did the
one up on Uphoff if I remember correctly
[8:12] when you when we redid the bridge. Um
>> I'm not 100% sure.
[8:17] » Yeah. I'm just
>> Is there I guess probably the bottom
[8:22] line is there any interest? Would that
be any of of any assistance in the event
[8:29] all hell would break loose or is it I
mean
[8:31] » close enough to run into town here?
>> It saves a little bit of a trip but
[8:35] realistically like the the closest
hydrant's right here at the fire
[8:38] station. So you're talking maybe a mile,
half a mile that you're saving. So, I
[8:44] don't know if it's
>> Hey, I just, you know, like I said, I
[8:47] only bring it up because of the fact
I've got a captive audience and if there
[8:51] was anything to be done positively about
it, that would be the time to plant the
[8:56] seed and stuff. So,
>> I mean, I just don't know how how much
[9:00] it'll get used. The one that we have on
up get used.
[9:04] » Nope, that's fine. Um, but with how
close it is to the hydrants,
[9:09] I mean, if the hydrants ever went down,
you'd have another water support, water
[9:12] source, I guess. But, um, I I just don't
know if it's if it's feasible or not. If
[9:19] it is, I don't think there's very much
cost to actually install one. I don't
[9:22] think they're very expensive to do.
>> No, I don't recall it being much of a of
[9:27] a cost at all
>> to have it done. So
[9:32] um
how quickly I mean what kind of draw I
[9:39] mean
[snorts] strike that if
[9:43] you were to throw the suction hose onto
that
[9:48] how much draw down I mean how many
gallons at a crack would you be sucking
[9:53] out of there? I just you know don't want
you to suck it dry and have to wait for
[9:57] the creek to refill and It depends on
what we're filling. I mean, the truck
[10:02] that we would use has 2,000 gallons per
minute pump on it. So, you could be
[10:05] anywhere from,
you know, a couple hundred gallons all
[10:08] the way up to 2,000 gallons per minute,
but it'd be pretty rare to pull that
[10:12] much at a time, especially from a draft.
So, I mean,
[10:18] maybe a couple hundred gallons per
minute would be pretty pretty
[10:21] reasonable.
So maybe like 500
[10:26] » 500 to 1,000 gallons a minute somewhere
in there.
[10:31] » All right. Maybe I'll just pursue it and
just ask the question just see if it
[10:35] floats or not and
I'll get back to you and let you know
[10:39] what I find out.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[10:45] » Any other questions on chief's report?
We'll send our congratulations to Evan
[10:52] on completing the Explorer program.
[10:59] » All right. So then we'll keep moving to
item six. Discuss and consider sending
[11:03] root vent propou to each municipality.
Um thisou was added on to the packet. U
[11:12] the agenda was properly posted. The
attachment was just uh sent later. Um so
[11:18] there's
[11:21] discussion of the the use and ownership
of roof vent. Um we originally approved
[11:29] this uh the use of the Pleasant Springs
funds um March 23rd of this year
[11:36] um to pay the half out of the Pleasant
Springs funds.
[11:43] The other portion was the Ascendium Good
Grant I think. um
[11:49] this part used for the other portion um
from
[11:54] CG volunteer fire department
[12:01] since the commission isn't
the group uh ownership but we' just be
[12:06] voting to send this then to um each
municipality for their um review and
[12:13] consideration.
doing this again. Which one are we
[12:16] looking at here?
>> It's a little bit shorter. It's got it's
[12:20] four pages. Starts out memorandum of
understanding by the village town and
[12:26] fire district
[12:30] » regarding use and ownership of certain
streaming equipment. I don't know if
[12:34] there's anything that you want to add or
discussions you had with.
[12:38] » So, I mean, it's probably worthwhile to
have your attorneys review it. Um, this
[12:42] was drafted by our attorney and it's
basically just to establish like we
[12:46] talked about that, you know, if the
village and town are going to take
[12:50] ownership of it with the vir
[12:54] um it's just to kind of protect their
rights to use it and make sure it
[12:58] doesn't get sold without um some kind of
agreement in place or um in regarding
[13:05] the usage of the of the crop. So, um I
think the our association's okay with
[13:12] the ownership thing, but we just want to
make sure that we're doing this in a way
[13:16] that protects our interest in using it.
So, like if down the road the village
[13:21] decided they wanted to sell it, we
wouldn't be just like to dry. I guess
[13:27] not that that's going to happen, but
um just kind of prepare or just to
[13:33] protect our assets, I guess. So that if
if you guys ever decided to sell it,
[13:38] there'd be some kind of say that the
fire department had and if you wanted
[13:42] somebody else to use it, we'd have to
discuss that. It's uh just trying to
[13:48] protect our investment in it. So it's
not like fire department bought half of
[13:52] it, but going forward, we really have no
say on how it's used or operated or
[13:57] sold. So
>> you two say protect your assets or
[14:02] protect your ass?
>> Assets.
[14:04] » Okay. I just I couldn't hear that.
[14:09] » So you recommend this goes to the town
and the village attorneys
[14:14] » and then after that
>> recommendation for sign off.
[14:19] » Yeah.
>> Why did we do this in the beginning?
[14:23] » Um
>> what made it a problem all of a sudden?
[14:26] I guess we didn't anticipate the
I guess the fire department didn't
[14:30] anticipate the
>> spending any money or
[14:34] » no we were we were prepared to spend the
money if we didn't anticipate that once
[14:38] we spent the money that fire department
wouldn't own any part of it I guess and
[14:43] that's what that's what's being
that's what the interpretation on the
[14:48] service agreement was by the village
attorneys and Cameron
[14:54] and So, I guess we weren't we weren't
anticipating buying half of it but then
[14:59] not owning any of it. So, this is to
protect our investment in it. So, if if
[15:05] that's the way it's going to be that the
village and town own it solely without
[15:08] the fire department, we're still
entitled usage of it. So,
[15:14] » we got to get some more involved.
>> Lawyers are good.
[15:18] » Is that Oh, go ahead. I mean,
unfortunately, in the past, we've
[15:21] operated on the handshake agreement, and
it just doesn't work that way anymore.
[15:25] So, unfortunately, we have to put
something in writing to make sure that
[15:30] when the time comes, that fire
department still has their rights
[15:35] protected in this. I guess what I'm what
I'm looking at.
[15:40] So,
>> that's what I was going to ask. Is there
[15:43] other equipment that has been jointly
purchased in the past?
[15:49] I don't think we've ever really done
anything jointly like so every truck
[15:54] that's been bought the association has
chipped in stuff like if there's
[15:58] something we would like to change on the
truck or make it a little bit more
[16:00] usable for us. Um we've part we've
donated to that cause but our donation
[16:09] was a fraction of what the truck is. So
like the last truck we bought was the
[16:13] squad. I think that truck was $680,000.
I think we put in 10 or $15,000 for a
[16:20] couple things that we wanted to put on
the truck that it wouldn't really be
[16:25] like a standard truck item, but it was
something that we thought would be nice
[16:29] to have. So, we paid the money to help
>> bring it to that and then we contribute
[16:35] a little bit or we buy equipment to put
on the truck. Um, so we've never done
[16:39] anything where we like joint own it. Um
we have done stuff where we've bought it
[16:45] um and then maintain ownership of it
like the UTV association currently owns
[16:50] that but the municipalities aren't
paying for the UTV.
[16:54] » Okay.
>> Or didn't pay for the UTV. So
[16:58] » thank you.
>> Um I did have one other background
[17:03] question. So, we'll be taking this to
each of our own attorneys, but some of
[17:08] the other joint committees have like a
commission attorney. So, you know, now
[17:15] we're each going to spend on our own
attorneys, but there it's kind of
[17:19] » we don't need another attorney.
>> I know,
[17:21] » but we just between theirs and our two
that's more than enough to look at it.
[17:27] » Yeah. Just historically, I was wondering
if that there was any reason why we
[17:30] didn't go that route here versus Okay.
Okay. Go through this again. What So
[17:36] where where are you? You're you're
saying you want to vote on some
[17:39] something every time if it was going to
be sold or what what's
[17:43] » We're we're trying to protect our our
investment in it. So basically what we
[17:48] bought the we bought 50% of it, right?
The fire paid for half of it,
[17:52] » right?
>> And the way that the contract was
[17:54] written, it says that basically the fire
department doesn't own any of it even
[17:59] with us paying for half of it. So this
agreement is to put in in place some
[18:04] kind of a agreement that like yes, we
don't own it, but if there's anything
[18:11] that's going to happen with it, we would
like to be involved with the decision-
[18:14] making. Like if the town and village
decide they don't want it anymore, they
[18:18] want to sell it, that there needs to be
a consensus with the fire department for
[18:22] selling it. or if the town of Village
decide that they want to let somebody
[18:27] else use it, then that has to be agreed
upon with the fire department as well.
[18:31] You know, it's there's a few things in
there that just kind of protect our
[18:35] investment because we've invested in it,
but at the end of the day, it's going to
[18:40] show up that the fire doesn't own it at
all, even though we're technically paid
[18:45] for more of it than both municipalities
did.
[18:47] » Well, why don't we just turn it over to
them then?
[18:51] Why? What's What's this about? Is it
turn about turning this over to them
[18:55] totally?
>> No.
[18:56] » Or the we we keep
>> it's just basically
[19:00] saying that
the town and village are not free to
[19:06] dispose of it or use it the way we would
want.
[19:10] » Okay. Okay. So,
>> the fire department is an basically an
[19:14] equal party in [clears throat]
the decision making with regards to that
[19:19] piece of
>> so they would vote on it between the
[19:21] town and the village
>> and them would vote on this
[19:26] » what
>> if it was going to be sold or something
[19:28] if we went ahead and said it was going
to be sold. They could walk in and say,
[19:32] "Well, I we want our opinion and that's
it."
[19:37] » Pretty much.
>> Well, that that doesn't that doesn't
[19:39] make sense.
>> Why? Why not why not give them a saying
[19:42] in
>> why not give them the equipment?
[19:46] » Like if you look at page three and put
it simple.
[19:49] » Yeah, I understand that.
>> To put it simple is the association
[19:53] decided after we got into this because
we hadn't done it this way before.
[19:57] We could have we had several options,
right? Reimburse, buy the whole thing.
[20:02] And instead we decided that as an
association we decided, you know what?
[20:08] It's yours. And the only thing we're
asking for is to be able to control its
[20:12] usage because it's a fire problem.
>> But you you decided it's ours just like
[20:16] you said. But then you want to say and
you don't have a vote.
[20:20] » Well, but the other option is when if
you choose to sell it, if you look at
[20:23] this agreement, we we're asking for a
first right. There's a we could purchase
[20:29] it back.
>> Right of first.
[20:31] » A right of first refusal. Wow.
>> First right of refusal. Yeah.
[20:37] » Okay. Whatever. Makes no sense to me,
but that's okay.
[20:42] » You think it should go directly to the
fire department?
[20:44] » Yeah, I would think so. Why do we go
through this with because there's a word
[20:50] is spelled wrong or something in an
agreement or something. Geez.
[20:55] » Just out of curiosity, who owns fire
trucks?
[21:01] » But so you own
>> We own nothing over there. Like we don't
[21:05] So we own the stuff that we buy
ourselves. So like the UTV, there's a
[21:08] couple pieces of equipment that we
bought ourselves, but like the trucks
[21:13] are owned split between the town and
village. The two tenders are owned
[21:17] solely by the town. So the village did
not
[21:22] like purchase half of the tender when
that came up, the new tender. So the
[21:26] town bought those flat out right by
themselves. Every other truck is owned
[21:31] by the town and village depending on
equalized value. So the ladder is like a
[21:35] 50-50 split right now because when it
was purchased engine three is like a
[21:40] like a 6040 split with the village
owning the majority and so is um squad
[21:48] and then engine four was like a 50/50
split. So it's based on your equalized
[21:53] value. So like when the new ladder comes
payment's going to be based on your
[21:57] equalized value for who owns the
majority of it and who pays for the
[22:01] majority of it. So,
>> okay.
[22:04] » But it'll be a town and build own truck.
The fire department doesn't own any of
[22:07] it. We're just operators of it.
>> So, the roof apparatus
[22:13] we own just the same as all the other
pieces of equipment. [clears throat]
[22:16] » That's the way the agreement.
>> It gets unique. It gets unique when it
[22:20] comes to specialized equipment or
special purchases. There's different
[22:24] language about special equipment and
then there's language about items
[22:30] purchased by the fire department or
personal property. So, there's a couple
[22:34] different sections in the agreement that
talks about ownership of different
[22:38] items. There's specific language about
the building, spec specific language
[22:43] about apparatus and equipment, and then
there's language about personal items.
[22:48] So, it depends on what the items are and
who owns it. Like Nick said, there's
[22:52] certain apparatus that's owned
specifically by the town. Um, there's
[22:56] joint apparatus and then this just
happened to be a very unique item that
[23:01] we use Pleasant Springs funds for. So,
it got really complicated with this
[23:05] specific item because we went 50/50 on
it with personal department funds and
[23:11] Pleasant Springs funds. And it's the
first time we've ever done something
[23:15] like that. So, it became a complicated
situation really quick. But, you know,
[23:21] it seems to me then that if we were
going to have a vote on on selling this
[23:25] or something that that they should have
50% of the vote and we should each have
[23:29] 25.
Why Why are we making this a big issue
[23:34] over this when they paid for half of it?
>> I mean, you guys technically paid for
[23:39] half of it, too. So,
>> we paid a quarter piece.
[23:43] » Yeah. You each paid a quarter, but
between the two of you, you paid for
[23:47] half of it.
>> Mhm.
[23:51] Wow. Okay.
>> Um so the consideration then is to to
[23:59] take this agreement to have um as part
of each of village and town board
[24:05] meeting. Have your attorneys review it
as you see necessary. Is that some of
[24:11] the next steps you envision? And if
approved at each municipality, then we
[24:16] bring it back to you for signature.
Also,
[24:18] » I don't think we'll probably need a
lawyer for this, Steve.
[24:22] » We could sure talk about it, though.
[clears throat]
[24:26] » It's on our for our next agenda for the
town board.
[24:30] » Good. Good.
>> Other comments, questions?
[24:36] » The only comment I'll make is that, you
know, you get
[24:45] Every attorney's going to have their own
spin on this. I know.
[24:49] » And okay, if we were to the town were to
send it off somewhere, Mr. Cole would
[24:55] say, "Well, I how about writing this?"
So then we got to send it back to their
[24:59] guys. I mean, it just could become this
really ugly
[25:05] circle with a lot of expense involved
unnecessarily. So,
[25:12] and
>> how about the dog? Is that going to be
[25:16] 50/50 town village?
>> Well, we'll talk about that in a little
[25:20] bit, right? Okay.
[25:26] » I'll move that we send this agreement
off to the respective boards for
[25:32] approval.
>> I do have a couple comments first.
[25:37] hold that motion or do you want to
second and then comment?
[25:41] » We can second and then comment.
>> I'm just afraid my comments might
[25:46] adjust. That's fine. I'll just do that.
We'll second and comment. Um,
[25:50] so [sighs]
couple clarifying things I think might
[25:53] be worthwhile for us to have a
conversation with before we send it on
[25:56] for our lawyers to look at. Um
one thing was uh in the after the
[26:05] whereas section three possession
registration and insurance.
[26:09] Um
just want to ask is there a reason why
[26:14] the uh Ber fire department would be
covering that with their insurance
[26:20] versus all of the other assets are
typically under um our insurance that we
[26:26] do here.
Um,
[26:29] so you haven't
I'm laughing because we went through
[26:33] this a couple years ago. So
>> the way that the insurance is set up is
[26:37] that all the insurance is in Cottage
Grove Fire Department's name. That's the
[26:41] way it has to be because we're the
employees or the operators. The trucks
[26:46] are on our policy, but they're showing
ownership to you guys. So if a truck is
[26:51] damaged, you guys will get a check for
the damage to the truck, pay for the
[26:56] truck, but we'll get a check for our
employees or medical bills or
[27:02] which is the way that set up for
volunteer departments all over the
[27:06] country. So a couple years ago when
Sarah was on the same question came up
[27:11] and he brought all the insurance people
in and they they reassured that yes,
[27:16] this is the correct way to do it. If
something happens, [snorts] the
[27:20] municipalities will get their, you know,
any equipment that's owned by the
[27:25] municipalities will be paid to the
municipalities where anything that
[27:29] happens to the staff will be towards
CGVF, Inc. because they're technically
[27:34] our employees. So, thank you. So that's
why it says for us because we have the
[27:39] insurance policy but you guys are I
think the tech technical word is the
[27:46] leis or the I can't remember what it is
but it it shows that you guys are the
[27:50] owners of the yeah the apparatus. So
>> do you have any other questions?
[28:00] » Sorry I just want to double check my
notes based on discussion here. Um,
[28:06] and going back to Mike's point over
there, uh, part of the reason why this
[28:10] is complicated and what April mentioned
is there are the two agreements. One is
[28:14] the district agreement that talks about
assets, but then also our agreement with
[28:18] the volunteer fire department, which
really talks about assets in here. Um,
[28:23] and so that's why it's kind of coming
into
[28:27] this kind of discussion is what kind of
precedent are we going to set for items
[28:32] like this um, and assets as a whole? Do
we want to have a process for items
[28:41] that the fire department
uh, contributes a significant amount?
[28:47] What's that determined in there? We have
that conversation.
[28:51] um or if it's that um
kind of as chief mentioned they
[28:58] contribute to but the vast majority is
kind of covered on under us and thus
[29:01] it's property of the district in there.
So current to both agreements right now
[29:07] they both point to that it would be part
that will be owned by the district in
[29:12] there um unless uh stated otherwise. Um,
so that's where the like April was kind
[29:18] of mentioned that special equipment type
part in there. So that's why this um
[29:23] conversation is necessary in there. Um,
so for me
[29:33] the principle of this of giving you all
a say is absolutely I think
[29:38] something that's worth definitely worth
considering going through that. Um
[29:43] it's just I want to make sure that uh
we are very careful in the precedent we
[29:50] set in there that I don't want to open
I don't want to lead to further
[29:56] confusion down the line when other
assets are purchased in there. And so as
[30:01] we go through this one of the things
I'll just kind of ask us to think about
[30:04] is um what can we do to avoid this mess
in the future? what are some of the
[30:10] things some guard rails that we can to
make this whole process easier
[30:13] especially when it comes down to like
these specialized training equipment or
[30:17] things along those lines.
But of course again my point is did you
[30:22] spend 25% he spent 20 we did they spent
50 but they're not going to have a vote
[30:29] if anything comes out they'll be able to
say I don't think it should be done big
[30:33] deal so what that means nothing they
could do that anyway it is if it
[30:40] trying to speak entirely for our board
the association board I think this whole
[30:44] process is good going forward we're not
going to do this again it's either going
[30:48] to be complete fire department
>> fire department buy it all right on
[30:53] their own
>> or they're going to ask the
[30:56] municipalities to pay for it all right
on their own so there's no confusion as
[30:59] to who owns it because
>> and this turned into something far more
[31:02] than it really needed to
>> no I I'm with you and that's what I
[31:06] don't understand about we this was all
done in good faith you know and we all
[31:11] have good faith but we always have to
have a lawyer decide if our good faith
[31:16] is good faith that should
good faith.
[31:21] » It's [snorts] crazy.
>> On our discussion, I think
[31:24] [clears throat] our our opinion is going
forward, we probably won't do something
[31:27] like this. Again, we're a 50/50 split.
We'll just
[31:31] buy it, then maintain it, own it,
>> or municipalities will buy it, own it,
[31:36] and maintain it. And there's no gray
area. It's just cut and dry.
[31:44] » Yeah. The purchase kind of came in
March, too. So we hadn't planned it in
[31:47] the budget. So we hadn't had that
conversation like kind of in advance,
[31:51] you know, where in the future like we'll
have those kinds, you know, plan the
[31:55] purchases, you know, I think
>> it's probably yeah, we'll
[32:01] this is a learning experience it seems
for everybody. Yeah,
[32:05] » I would actually be willing to take it
to my board to give
[32:12] back some of the money we paid
>> toward it to the fire department
[32:19] » so that they actually own more than 50%.
I would go
[32:22] » that way this it's wholly owned, you
know, they have a controlling interest
[32:27] and
>> we don't have to have this or subsequent
[32:29] documents like this in the future. I
mean, they're insuring it themselves
[32:33] already.
Um,
[32:36] and
again,
[32:40] from my perspective, we were just being
the good guys, if you will.
[32:46] » Yeah. trying to provide
[32:50] um a great piece of training equipment
for the fire department that number one
[32:56] didn't cost I'm looking at it from the
town's perspective that didn't cost the
[33:01] town an arm and a leg. It's going to be
around forever and ever. maintenance and
[33:07] um
you know I it's documented that we gave
[33:12] the fire department I don't even
remember how much we paid x amount of
[33:15] dollars but okay we did I it's just like
we buy other things that we don't keep
[33:22] track of exactly as to
>> who paid for what where and why and I
[33:27] just um
you know I mean let me ask this question
[33:33] because I don't know that I know the
Sir, who asked that this agreement be
[33:38] initiated?
>> Um,
[33:42] who asked that we do anou?
>> Yeah.
[33:45] » Talking about we so when we found out
>> was it in house? I guess
[33:50] » I guess it was it was more on our end
because when we found out that we
[33:54] weren't going to own any part of it like
we were recommended because we talked to
[33:59] our attorney like, "Okay, so what should
we do there?
[34:01] » Where we go? That's where we went.
Unfortunately, I understand where you're
[34:07] coming, Mike. Yeah.
>> Coming from, Mike, but unfortunately,
[34:09] the days of you just have a handshake
agreement and everybody goes on off in
[34:14] the sunset and everything works out.
Those days don't exist.
[34:17] » Well, we but we could have been sitting
here talking without the memorandum
[34:20] first before it was even made. Well, so
what happened is like when we went to go
[34:26] register it, I got an email from that
was forward to me from Kim that would
[34:32] came from Rick and Larry from the town
or from the village that said that the
[34:38] way they interpreted the contract that
the fire department didn't own any part
[34:41] of it. So that's how it started is that
we got a thing that said basically
[34:47] you're paid for half of it but you don't
own any part of it. So, there's an issue
[34:52] right right off the top. Like, we were
expecting to own half of it cuz we paid
[34:57] for half of it. We weren't expecting to
not own any of it. So,
[35:02] » I thought you did. Honest to God, I
didn't think this was any kind of big
[35:06] deal.
>> Who said that you didn't own any of it?
[35:09] » That was the interpretation from the
village attorneys.
[35:13] What's that? They and then your guys's
attorney didn't review it at all because
[35:19] the village was like, "We already did
it." So, if you you can have your
[35:22] attorney review it if you'd like, but
just to save some costs like this is
[35:25] what our interpretation is. So, that's
Go ahead.
[35:30] » So, this is based off the two parts and
I have the two agreements up. So, if I
[35:34] can call out what those sections are. Um
so with the agreement to with the
[35:40] volunteer fire department
um it's under the
[35:45] section two part B ownership of assets
specifically
[35:51] through
I think this would fall more into four
[35:55] miscellaneous equipment personal
property um
[36:01] which states ownership of miscellaneous
equipment and personal property not
[36:04] described above shall be determined by
the district in consultation with the
[36:10] volunteer fire department.
So that's our agreement with the fire
[36:14] department. So unless we say otherwise
>> by default it seems like it's going to
[36:20] go to the district ownership of any
asset.
[36:25] » Town and village.
>> The district. Yeah. The when I say
[36:28] district town and village
[clears throat]
[36:30] » fire department isn't part of the
district. We're a contract.
[36:34] » Yeah.
municipalities.
[36:36] » We just are contracted by the district
to do a service. We're a contractor. So,
[36:40] we are no part of the district.
>> So, clarify that.
[36:45] » Thank you. However, that agreement does
not prevent the fire department from
[36:50] owning an item
>> or
[36:53] » they are not specifically prohibited
from lo
[36:56] » or maybe the district donating
or relinquishing
[37:03] equipment to the to the uh fire
department.
[37:06] » Well, they could say something, but we'd
still have to vote on it then, right?
[37:10] » Right. Both villies and towns. It's got
to
[37:13] » this is my in my opinion based off my
reading of this again cave I'm not a
[37:18] lawyer but what it's saying by default
goes to the district unless the district
[37:23] states otherwise.
>> So that's why I was saying like if this
[37:26] is something that the commission wants
to do that's where theou comes into play
[37:31] and that's why uh the fire department's
bringing it forward. Um because
[37:36] otherwise
uh
[37:39] when I look at sorry because our so our
attorney reviewed the same thing the two
[37:44] agreements right and it's it's a gray
area because one it could be considered
[37:49] an app a vehicle because it's on trailer
right
[37:53] » or it could be for special item because
it's a trading prop. So he's like we
[37:59] could push either way. It could be it
could be an it could be equipment or it
[38:04] could be the other one. So it's like
technically if we push hard enough we
[38:08] could say it's ours because it's special
equipment. But in the interest of not
[38:13] [snorts]
this up we thought that the easiest
[38:16] method would be
okay we'll just relinquish ownership so
[38:21] that
we meet what the district's looking for.
[38:25] But our caveat to that is okay we have
no problem doing that. But let's make it
[38:31] so we have some protection. That's
that's where we're at. I guess that make
[38:36] sense.
>> Okay.
[38:50] So, I just want to make sure to kind of
summarize the intent of the MOU is to
[38:55] ensure that
um
[38:59] you will have the right
to
[39:04] determine how the uh asset is used.
Uh so say if you another fire district
[39:14] were to come to us and say hey we want
to borrow that this district this
[39:19] commission cannot sit cannot say we
approve that without your agreement.
[39:25] That's one part there.
Um,
[39:31] two is if the district decides that we
no longer want the asset and we want to
[39:39] sell it off, then you all have first
right of refusal.
[39:44] » I'm trying to like summarize it all. Is
that covered like the main parts?
[39:47] » That's the main part. And then like if
we chose to purchase it, it would
[39:52] explain that it' be at the depreciated
value. It wouldn't be like, "Oh, you're
[39:55] buying a brand new prop that's 25 years
old." You know, like, so there there's
[40:00] stuff in there about if we chose to buy
it, how that would happen, who gets to
[40:05] write it off for the taxes, that kind of
thing. But it's our attorney was
[40:12] supposed to be here tonight, but uh I
don't know. He didn't call in yet. He
[40:17] had a funeral, so I was hoping that he'd
call in and help answer some of these
[40:21] questions,
but
[40:25] So I mean if that's the case then
one of the other kind of comments I have
[40:31] is underou
after the whereas section two
[40:35] operational control
um
[40:39] it seems like the volunteer fire
department has sole decision and how
[40:46] it's used versus the district.
Um, but so what is it called? A
[40:52] training. Is it called training
equipment?
[40:56] » I would not call it a vehicle just
because it happens to be mobile as
[41:00] opposed to on skids.
>> So we're looking at it. It could be gray
[41:04] area. It could be considered the other
area of the two
[41:08] » rather than you thought it was a
training thing,
[41:12] » but now because
>> it came to you and said boo. No, could
[41:17] be gray area. Could be either one
>> which is miscellaneous equipment is that
[41:24] » yeah whatever
>> which is the statement I read.
[41:27] » Yeah that's determined by ownership
determined by the district.
[41:31] » Yeah.
[41:35] » If they didn't have the money to buy it
and we came to them and said
[41:40] we don't want this anymore.
They didn't have the money to buy it.
[41:45] They're screwed.
[41:50] Oh, is that not correct?
>> True. Or the town and village or the
[41:54] district could say, "Here you go. That
>> take it." Yeah.
[41:58] » Give us a buck, you know, or something.
>> I mean,
[42:02] » yeah, they could. Yeah.
[42:08] » There's no
>> We could do that now, couldn't we? Same
[42:11] thing. We could
>> I
[42:14] » I think all I'm saying is I think
there's a lot more to this
[42:17] » than just all of a sudden coming up with
the
[42:20] » this thing. You know, I I just I read it
and you know, it's whereas and whereas
[42:26] and whip dip and what happens here and
gray area here. And
[42:33] » sorry, I just want to make sure I check
my understanding about the operational
[42:36] control in there because again, it seems
like that's written so that you all have
[42:41] sole authority of how it's being used
versus the district asset. I just want
[42:47] to confirm with the group. Um, that's
kind of the intent and how we do with
[42:52] other our other assets in there or is um
again I just want to protect us as a
[42:58] commission as well just like you're
looking to protect uh the dis the fire.
[43:03] » Yeah, I guess we've never had to write
one of these before. So I mean I don't
[43:06] know. I mean maybe that's not
>> one time in what 85 years.
[43:13] » How long?
>> I mean that might be re revised. Like I
[43:18] said, I was hoping that our attorney
would be on so he could help explain
[43:22] some of the reasons why this was drafted
by him. You know, it wasn't our writing
[43:26] on.
>> Of course, it wasn't.
[43:29] » So,
[43:33] well, I think it's good conversation,
Steve, at our next meeting and you guys,
[43:37] too. Same thing.
>> Yeah, I do want to take Fit's comment
[43:41] into
>> Yep. Near we got it. Um, I know
[43:45] Pleasanton Springs is just the don the
source of income and we have no right to
[43:51] state anything, but I'm concerned and
maybe it's in here and I just can't read
[43:56] it. Okay, so you have it, you're using
it and it breaks. Is it the city and
[44:03] village who pay for it? Is it the fire
department or is it collaborative? All
[44:07] three of you pay for the repair. Who
pays for repairs in this? I don't see
[44:12] it.
[44:16] » Thank you, Faith.
We're repairing.
[44:19] » You've got insurance, but you know, how
does that filter out? I mean, and to to
[44:27] your thing, this is the first. There's
always going to be a first in this
[44:31] world. And this is a new century. Sadly,
and lawyers are part of everything.
[44:37] Can't do anything without a lawyer.
[44:42] Typically repairs would come out of our
operational budget. Um we've got a
[44:46] training budget. So if something were to
break, if we could fund it out of our
[44:49] operational budget, that's where we
would try to go first or our equipment
[44:53] repair fund if it's something minor. Um
this device isn't likely to have a
[44:59] serious type of situation that would be
incredibly costly for repair unless it,
[45:05] you know, I don't see it having
something like that. Well, my only
[45:09] thought is going down the highway,
taking it from one space to another, uh,
[45:14] you know, and you doing a training
session with the city of Stoton Fire
[45:17] Department and you're coming back and
somebody runs a stop sign that falls
[45:22] under your insurance. I would assume
>> it's also has it also has a warranty,
[45:26] Nick. I don't know how long that
warranty was for. Um,
[45:29] » I don't remember. I'll stop ahead.
Sorry. if you did add more things onto
[45:33] it above and beyond the barebones basic
and that needs to be made sure that it's
[45:39] followed under your insurance
because I recall being in this room in
[45:45] March when you're telling all about this
and sadly half of you people on the
[45:49] board weren't here had no idea all of
the discussion these poor people have
[45:53] gone through all of these questions
before.
[45:56] » No kidding. Yeah.
>> Yes. And that's the sad thing about tra
[46:02] change over as quickly as you do it.
That's my opinion.
[46:09] » And you're sticking to it.
Um, so we we could send these to our
[46:15] boards and our attorneys um and
uh actually consider it when we're
[46:22] together at our joint meeting if there's
any changes that either board wants to
[46:26] make
>> in September.
[46:30] » Nick, do you want to see if Bill is on?
If Bill is any of those people? I don't
[46:35] know if
>> I think he was I think he was trying to
[46:37] get on. P Dallas CB, whoever that is,
Katie,
[46:44] Paula, Eric Lang, and JW and us in the
room.
[46:52] » I don't know.
>> There was a waiting there was
[46:54] » Bill might have been our attorney might
have been trying to get on. Um, and just
[46:58] to be clear, like I don't I think he did
a good job in of drafting something for
[47:03] us to help to support the concept of
what we're trying to achieve for
[47:09] I mean, I don't I don't necessarily
disagree with the language he put
[47:13] together just to try to make a step
forward and what we're trying to do. So,
[47:18] um, I want to be supportive of what he
what he documented. Um, it's just trying
[47:24] to make a step forward. That's
>> who documented who you talking about?
[47:28] » And trying to help do something for us
to make progress. So
[47:37] » yeah,
>> because right now it's just sitting back
[47:39] there unregistered. So we we've got to
do something. And I think that's
[47:43] » wonder if we even just said this is a
piece of training equipment in the first
[47:46] place. Would this have been over?
>> No. Still would. Well, well, so but
[47:53] because the village lawyer looked at it
[47:57] and said, "No, maybe it's not a training
piece.
[48:01] Could be something else." I mean, I
don't think he just went ahead and come
[48:05] up with this on his own.
>> Again, this go I would just refer back
[48:11] to our contract with the volunteer fire
department. That's the direct language
[48:15] that is causing or part of the reason
why we're having this conversation in
[48:19] here. Um
again first time we have to go through
[48:23] it. So this is a speed bump in trying to
figure out the best way to move forward
[48:27] and once we establish a process then it
>> should be changed there rather than have
[48:32] a memorandum agreement.
[48:36] » I mean we could open up
>> you know what I mean. I mean,
[48:39] » but I think that could be a conversation
down the line, but right now we need to
[48:45] have some kind of agreement if we want
the fire department to have any
[48:50] ownership of this. Otherwise, by
default, it goes to the district in
[48:54] there.
And I do want to echo uh what April is
[48:58] mentioning about I do appreciate how
your lawyer draft this up and having the
[49:02] first draft is always the hardest point
in there. And I hope my comments are not
[49:06] coming across as argumentative. is more
so constructive and trying to find a way
[49:11] to address or bring up some things
before we get the lawyers involved in
[49:15] there.
>> Yeah.
[49:16] » Right. Changing the agreement will only
hold this up longer. This might be and
[49:20] if this doesn't come up very often.
>> Oh yeah. Once in 90 years
[49:24] » just have theou for this piece again
either.
[49:29] » Yeah. It won't come up again. Yeah.
>> Department's board is gonna have a big
[49:34] fat No. No. We're not doing that.
>> Right. Pay either pay for all of it or
[49:41] » um so to open up the whole contract with
fire department to put the language in
[49:48] might not be.
>> Why don't we just acknowledge that the
[49:51] fire department owns the piece of
equipment?
[49:55] » Well, that is yes, that's the the option
we can take to the village board. we can
[50:03] approve thisou
um
[50:05] » but we don't have to have theou if we as
a commission decide that we
[50:12] » uh
>> we'll give them
[50:15] that give them ownership
>> formal ownership of that piece of
[50:20] equipment
this would be moved
[50:24] » and this would be moved
>> the commission has the authority to do
[50:29] that
>> yes
[50:32] I would like to consult with my
colleagues on the board before
[50:37] » you want to part of that motion guys
want to just say
[50:41] » but that's
>> take this as an option to your the board
[50:44] is he's going to bring that to the town
correct
[50:51] » that those are options theou or we just
make the ownership to cottage grove
[50:57] volunteer fire permit
>> all right Let's muddy the waters a
[51:01] little bit more.
[51:04] » What happens? This is
it doesn't want it to sound petty but
[51:11] what happens if I were to donate $10 to
the town of Cottage Grove who in turn
[51:17] gave that to the fire department under
the opaces of here you go you now own a
[51:25] majority of that piece of equipment or
you have you know and
[51:34] It's, you know, they have a majority
stake in it. It's not 50 and 50.
[51:39] » It's I don't think it's even, it's not
even the 50/50 split. It's that
[51:45] » yes, we paid for 50% of it, but there's
interpretation of are we even allowed to
[51:50] own the 50% of it is what
>> Yeah, that's a
[51:57] I don't you're being allowed, as you put
it. I don't know that I would um
[52:03] I don't know that I heard anything in
the or read anything in the agreement
[52:07] [clears throat] that would prohibited
you from owning anything. You know, by
[52:13] by you saying that say if you went out
and
[52:19] » Well, obviously you can because you guys
went out and bought the UTV,
[52:22] » right? So I mean
>> and the trailer and probably think about
[52:26] those other things that you guys about
this 100% we wouldn't even be talking
[52:29] about this right just because
>> or even a majority of it.
[52:34] » So but because that's the way that the
contracts are written. I don't know I'm
[52:40] I'm not an attorney I guess either. So
um I'm just going by what I'm being
[52:45] told.
>> So
[52:48] in the district write up is there
anything specific to like
[52:53] We're talking about a piece of the
training equipment versus a piece of
[52:55] operational equipment or
[53:00] » so in the agreement with the Ballinger
Fire Department under ownership of
[53:04] assets there are four categories
real estate and improvements
[53:11] vehicles
specialized equipment and what I'll go
[53:16] into that because that's
>> um so specialized equipment unique to
[53:20] the nature of services to to the town
such as paint trucks, brush trucks as
[53:25] determined by the committee and ratified
by the town board shall be owned by and
[53:29] the financial responsibility of the
town.
[53:33] Next paragraph is specialized equipment
unique to the natur of services provided
[53:38] to the village such as fire hydrants as
determined by the committee and ratified
[53:42] by the village board shall be owned by
and the financial responsibility of the
[53:47] village. That's it for specialized
equipment.
[53:51] And section four is miscellaneous
equipment and personal property.
[53:54] Ownership of miscellaneous equipment and
personal property not described above
[53:58] shall be determined by the district
following consultation with the
[54:01] volunteer fire department.
>> Nothing.
[54:08] » Yeah,
>> that's it.
[54:09] » Pretty broad. Pretty broad with the
exception of the specialized listed.
[54:13] » Okay.
>> Yep.
[54:17] » Okay. Yeah.
>> So,
[54:18] » so almost could
almost add a line in there saying
[54:23] [clears throat] was possibly.
>> So, this goes back to my point. If this
[54:27] is something that this commission wants
to do, that's what the MLOU does. So, it
[54:35] abides by this agreement. We state
that's how it is because shall be
[54:39] determined by the district. That's my
interpretation again for caveat is I'm
[54:43] not a lawyer. That will give us there.
And going back to highspeed, this is
[54:46] probably going to be the quickest way
get this going so that it can get
[54:49] registered and used.
>> My thought was if you had an additional
[54:55] liner, you wouldn't need the M,
>> but then we have to open up the entire
[55:00] agreement again.
>> Yep, that would correct.
[55:06] » Okay. So to move the conversation along,
I agree to the changes in my second
[55:15] » take those two options back to your
respective boards and
[55:22] » and the two options were one
note on this
[55:27] » the memorandum or or just
okay
[55:31] » give it to them.
>> Okay. Donation or memor
[55:37] Okay. So, we have a motion and second to
send those uh to our respective boards.
[55:43] Is there any further discussion on this
item?
[55:49] All right. Hearing none, all those in
favor say I.
[55:52] » I.
>> Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion
[55:55] carries. Thank you for
um all the discussion on it. Uh item
[56:02] seven, discuss update on service animal
policy. Just had that update um as
[56:09] posted there was a the other attachment
u was updated in the packet. This is
[56:18] issue 72726.
Um, previously this discussion had um
[56:27] was back in May, I think was the last
issue of um a service animal policy that
[56:35] was kind of part of discussions.
U so that was kind of started as a
[56:42] collaboration. Um and then this was sent
to your attorneys. Is that
[56:49] » Yeah. So, so playing with your group
[56:55] had a policy put together
and we sent it to our attorney to review
[57:00] again because there still the underlying
issue of
[57:05] what is our obligation as an employer
when somebody has a conflicting medical
[57:10] concern.
So he reddrafted this e this policy in a
[57:15] way that
I don't know it it's very restrictive
[57:20] now. Um but
he is I wish he was just on he said he
[57:28] would be but
>> he did it from the perspective of an
[57:30] employer.
>> He's trying to get on but he can't get
[57:32] on. I think the things he's trying if
somebody could click on the waiting for.
[57:36] He's waiting to
>> well waiting for
[57:39] » Yeah. move over to waiting for. Click on
that and you might have to go to the
[57:44] dots and allow
>> dots up in the corner there.
[57:50] » What's it say? I can't quite read.
>> No, I guess it's not.
[57:53] » It says pin ask to turn on camera.
Excuse.
[57:56] » You click on that.
>> Which one?
[57:58] » Either one of them. Just go to the side
of it.
[58:02] » Click there and see if it lets you bring
one.
[58:05] » Double click on it. Oops.
No, I think that's probably just waiting
[58:09] on them to do the connections like
>> um putting in their name, what's the
[58:15] camera, the mic, all that fun stuff.
>> Okay.
[58:19] » Anyways, he he drafted this as a
perspective of us being an employer,
[58:24] which we are
>> um to provide protections for our
[58:30] employees.
Um, so like I said,
[58:35] it's more it follows more along ADA laws
now rather than what was originally
[58:42] proposed. And I know it's like I said,
it's more more restrictive, but
[58:47] I wish he was going to here to explain
it, but
[58:50] from what he saw from the original
policy, it's opening us up to issues
[58:57] like if we if there's an animal in the
building and something happens with one
[59:02] of our staff,
like we could be held liable for not
[59:06] protecting our staff member if it's not
an ADA accommodation or
[59:11] um you
If it doesn't meet certain criteria,
[59:15] then we could be held liable for it
personally. And I guess at the end of
[59:18] the day, like I don't want to get sued
because we didn't protect our employee.
[59:23] I'm a volunteer fire chief. So like
I like my house. I don't like to lose
[59:29] all my stuff because we didn't protect
our employee. So well, you know, my
[59:35] stuff I I like being able my stuff, I
guess. But, you know,
[59:42] so he wrote it more following ADA
guidelines rather than
[59:48] um a training dog. I don't know what we
have for
[59:55] » I think you just follow the ADA and
other ADA type policies that are out
[59:59] there. It's more standard approach. Um,
it's more consistent with
[1:00:06] uh allowing or reviewing ADA requests
and accommodations. Um, I think if you
[1:00:12] read it, you'll understand um that
there's a process, a request process, a
[1:00:17] denial process, a review process. Um,
I don't know if you have questions
[1:00:25] can ask him. Um, I can see he's still
trying to get on. So
[1:00:31] » I guess you know this does make more
sense and I think from the beginning I
[1:00:38] think this is what was trying to be
established and then in the there were
[1:00:42] negotiations taking place but I know
myself for uh writing um
[1:00:49] medical
excuses not necessarily excuses but
[1:00:54] following guidelines in the medical
world it is following ADA.
[1:01:01] So when I when I read and go through
this, it does make sense.
[1:01:06] [snorts]
So I guess my question is you're if your
[1:01:11] attorney wrote it as perspective as you
as an employer,
[1:01:16] you're not an employer of other entities
that share the building.
[1:01:21] So that's like other other employers
would have to share
[1:01:27] medical records
of other employee. I guess that's where
[1:01:32] I get a little confused like
>> that's why they were looking for one
[1:01:36] policy
for the whole building. That was the
[1:01:40] initial request.
>> So this is viewed as the policy for the
[1:01:45] whole building. Yep.
>> Yep. And so a different entity would
[1:01:50] have to supply medical records to a
different entity in order to get
[1:01:54] » We all have the same policy. We all have
the same policy. Each entity could
[1:01:58] control it on their own. But you follow
[clears throat] policy. I'm saying we if
[1:02:03] the fire department has the same policy
as the MS who has the same policy as the
[1:02:07] village was trying to do something with
their buildings. So everything was all
[1:02:11] the same. So you have a lot of entities
trying to have one policy that may or
[1:02:16] » Okay. So what are we trying to have a
fire policy
[1:02:21] and not
>> one policy?
[1:02:23] » Trying to have one policy
>> between the two of you or
[1:02:26] » it says right in the beginning
>> who's in charge of it just you guys?
[1:02:28] » No, it says right in the beginning to
establish guidelines for the general
[1:02:32] public and Cottage Grove public safety
partners. So it's for everybody
[1:02:38] » or the building. So, were the other
entities
[1:02:42] given a chance to review this? You know,
we're trying to do this collaboratively.
[1:02:46] I guess that's
>> unfortunately it is 88. It's Sorry,
[1:02:51] Nick.
>> Unfortunately,
[1:02:53] I take full ownership of that because we
were supposed to have this. We told them
[1:02:58] a date and it didn't get to us till like
Friday last week. By
[1:03:03] » didn't get tacked on to the policy till
the very end. So, I take responsibility
[1:03:07] of that because we were trying to get it
on the agenda, but I didn't get it till
[1:03:13] literally like I got it and I pretty
much sent it right to Lisa and whoever
[1:03:19] up and Kim to get it on the agenda. So,
no, your girl hasn't gotten to review
[1:03:25] this other than if he read the packet
and the village hasn't reviewed it. um
[1:03:31] we put it on the packet because it was
what we were talking about and it was
[1:03:36] delayed. So I apologize for that part of
it.
[1:03:43] um in the the facility service dog, you
know, doesn't have the same appeal
[1:03:49] process or kind of who
the authority is on deciding the
[1:03:54] facility service dog how that
[1:04:00] like it's it's it's set out by the ADA,
>> right? Which is not the same as a
[1:04:07] facility service dog. So, who determines
whether a facility service dog is
[1:04:11] allowed or not? Like, I don't I don't
see that part covered in here.
[1:04:16] » Yeah. So, what I what how I read it, and
I'm not an attorney, and it would be
[1:04:20] good to have the attorney, is like the
facilities
[1:04:25] dog has to follow what a service dog is,
those requirements. That's why I'm
[1:04:33] reading into it,
>> right? But they don't have the same like
[1:04:39] it it's not under
the ADA in the same way I guess.
[1:04:46] Who determines what? I guess that's the
part
[1:04:49] » like who determines the ADA,
[clears throat]
[1:04:51] » right? Who reviews other ADA
accommodations? Whose disability is more
[1:04:56] severe? Like ranking disabilities isn't
really in the spirit of the ADA. I don't
[1:05:01] think one disability is more important
than the program administrator is
[1:05:08] correct.
somewhat, but then that also an appeal
[1:05:12] and who are we appealing to if it's like
outside of your employer and providing
[1:05:18] medical records like because there's so
many parties involved, you know, owners
[1:05:24] of the building, age, the town, and the
village and EMS and fire.
[1:05:30] Yeah, I think we're kind of splitting
hairs in a way, but yet this is a very
[1:05:34] complicated situation. According to the
ADA, a disability can be, you know,
[1:05:39] defined as a mental health disability.
It can be defined as a physical
[1:05:45] disability
um as outlined by ADA. Is that kind of
[1:05:49] where you were headed with that?
[1:05:54] » Yeah. So,
[1:05:58] one of the concerns or challenges I have
is that we're trying to complete
[1:06:03] multiple things al together. Um, back in
May when I first did this, I think one
[1:06:08] thing we need to be very aware of is
while I appreciate coming from the
[1:06:12] employer standpoint, that's one
perspective in there. Um, so in this
[1:06:16] case, the employer is the volunteer fire
department.
[1:06:21] So there's that one.
The other part is ADA and everything.
[1:06:26] you know, ADA informs
some of the agreements that go in there,
[1:06:30] but also kind of this next part, but
it's still we have to follow all the
[1:06:34] rules to ADA,
which is a lot of what Rene was stated
[1:06:38] and then some. Um, but then the third
part, and this is kind of where Heidi
[1:06:42] was getting at, that's a challenge for
us is the building because the building
[1:06:50] is not an employer.
[1:06:54] So the policy as written doesn't really
kind of fall into that. Furthermore, it
[1:07:01] gets even more complicated because now
it's a joint asset between the village
[1:07:05] and town. So
what is the process?
[1:07:11] And this is part of the other reason why
um it was brought up a bit ago why it
[1:07:17] would be great to have a lease for all
entities in the ESP because that would
[1:07:22] outline this process. who is the
individual when
[1:07:29] um an issue coming from both tenants in
this case because that's in essence what
[1:07:33] it is. You have dear girl EMS and
volunteer fire department as tenants of
[1:07:38] the building
who determine and I'm just make this
[1:07:43] hypothetical situation up. So that
determined that they have an employee
[1:07:48] with an accommodation that needs to be u
addressed rightfully so.
[1:07:54] So the employer can do anything within
their
[1:07:59] part of the building that is per the
lease like what they are but then what
[1:08:04] happens to the shared space. So that is
one of the challenges that comes into
[1:08:09] play here and why it's important that we
make sure we are aware of which bucket
[1:08:15] we're talking about
[1:08:19] and then I guess first I want to check
does that make sense so far?
[1:08:25] It does. But, you know, like a bit like
I said, this is this is a very
[1:08:30] complicated situation, but really what
it comes down to is, you know, it the
[1:08:35] building it is
kind of a
[1:08:41] it in a way it matters, but it doesn't.
[laughter] It just matters, you know,
[1:08:45] who the dog is is with um and following
the ADA. So, you know, it doesn't matter
[1:08:52] really if you're in this building or,
you know, the shut out back and who owns
[1:08:57] it. You still have to follow the ADA.
>> Yes. But the the key part here is what
[1:09:03] is the reasonable accommodation. So, I
took an opportunity to connect uh with
[1:09:09] some individuals that are kind of
experts that do a lot of work with ADA
[1:09:12] and specifically right in policy and um
in there. And so they had a few
[1:09:17] concerns. Um, and I think this kind of
goes to Rene's point here is um
[1:09:25] this I think one area that we need to
work through is um the language appears
[1:09:31] to require that
uh someone has to rank disabilities
[1:09:38] against one another while ADA does not
require encourage public entities to
[1:09:42] determine whose disability is more
severe. Instead, it requires individ
[1:09:47] individualized assessment focused on
whether reasonable accommodations can be
[1:09:51] made to provide meaningful access to
both individuals, whether a requested
[1:09:56] accommodation would create an undue
hardship or whether there's a direct
[1:10:00] threat based on objective ev evidence
rather than assumptions.
[1:10:05] So, who is
the individual that is facilitating that
[1:10:11] process? Because at the end of the day,
if there are two requests for
[1:10:15] accommodations, we need to do our best
to honor those without providing that
[1:10:21] undue hardship in there.
What is your opinion then?
[1:10:29] Okay. Um I I'm from what you're saying
is that we have the individual who
[1:10:34] wishes to have the animal, you know,
based upon their
[1:10:40] » challenge for lack of a better word.
>> Y
[1:10:43] » then who's on the other side of the
coin? somebody who says that they're
[1:10:46] allergic to that animal
[snorts] or I mean what and and my point
[1:10:52] being is that
how do we know that there isn't some
[1:10:59] other
force if you will or some other
[1:11:04] situation going on in that building that
is maybe
[1:11:08] causing as much of a problem. And I used
this example before, somebody coming in
[1:11:14] with just covered in dander from dogs or
cats or whatever. All right. Are we
[1:11:19] going to make everybody change into
scrubs before they come into the
[1:11:22] building to eliminate any potential
unrelated but related,
[1:11:28] » you know, problem here? We can't. And
so, um, unless you can remove that
[1:11:36] challenge,
would it why would it be incumbent upon
[1:11:41] us to prove
to that person that it's it's our dog
[1:11:47] that's causing the problem?
>> So, I appreciate the question and it's a
[1:11:52] really good one. I think it will help
here. Um, at the end of the day, one of
[1:11:56] the key parts here, and again, I don't
know any of the situations, so I'm just
[1:12:00] going to talk about a hypothetical. Um,
so the key part here is there must be
[1:12:08] re uh request for accommodations on two
ends. If there's not a request for
[1:12:14] accommodation,
then you don't have a as much mechanisms
[1:12:24] to address anything that would arise
from someone else who has an
[1:12:27] accommodation.
So the first question is whether there's
[1:12:31] a request for accommodation out there or
not.
[1:12:35] » Okay. So assuming it has and this is
part of the reason why it's very
[1:12:38] important that each entity. So going
back to a little bit more concrete, dear
[1:12:43] girl, EMS and the fire department have
policies so that they can have a request
[1:12:48] for accommodations in there.
Now part of the request for
[1:12:54] accommodations actually spells out your
that use case. What? So, and we'll use
[1:12:58] your example of fire someone going out
on a call that is a place that has say
[1:13:06] dogs, a ton of dogs there um and lots of
dandruff in there. Part of the
[1:13:13] determination of the accommodation is
what are the steps that mitigate that?
[1:13:17] So maybe it is um from the employer
side. Again, this is me throwing it out,
[1:13:22] so don't quote me on this, but it is um
>> put that dumb.
[1:13:29] [laughter]
>> Um again, not only uh but hypotheticals
[1:13:35] in there, like maybe one of the
accommodations is this person uh is
[1:13:39] separated when they uh take off the
protective gear or something along those
[1:13:45] lines. I don't know what it is, but I'm
just throwing out something. And so
[1:13:48] that's all spelled out as part of the
reasonable accommodation. But the issue
[1:13:53] comes down to
what happens
[1:13:59] in that shared space
that is outside of the employers. And so
[1:14:06] that's why there needs to be a process
for an I'll just say an entity outside
[1:14:15] of Dear Girl BMS and Volunteer Fire
Department
[1:14:19] to
[1:14:22] follow ADA
to ensure that everyone
[1:14:29] has the necessary accommodations to do
what they need to do and
[1:14:38] follow ADA as I kind of stated um
so that we can find that middle ground
[1:14:47] in there.
>> I guess
[1:14:50] my only comment to that would be do we
have a request for an accommodation?
[1:14:58] If we don't
>> Yeah.
[1:15:00] » We we don't build a whole thing premise
to the fact that we have conflicting
[1:15:07] sides here.
>> Would you agree?
[1:15:10] » Well, I yes and no. I agree with your
point in that yes, if there's not a
[1:15:17] request for accommodation, then we are
not required to to to take steps. We may
[1:15:24] as
good people try to do our accommodations
[1:15:28] but we're not required to do that.
However, I still believe we need to go
[1:15:32] through the process to have something in
place. See second um
[1:15:38] to prevent and be ready for that a
second request or something comes in
[1:15:44] play.
>> Does the village have it in their
[1:15:46] buildings?
I mean pre having policies irrespective
[1:15:51] of the dog. Okay.
>> Yep. All right. Does the village have
[1:15:55] policies in place that if somebody comes
in and says they need an accommodation,
[1:16:03] you know, for I don't know, something in
the atmosphere because in their mind or
[1:16:08] or their medical condition that's too
dusty in the village hall. Okay. Does
[1:16:13] and I'm using that as a far out example.
Okay. The town doesn't have
[1:16:19] plans for accommodations for anything,
you know, out of the ordinary. And I
[1:16:26] mean, this is everyday life. You walk
into a store, you know, do you check
[1:16:31] with the store to make sure they have
accommodations for,
[1:16:36] you know, the types of things that we're
talking about here. Obviously, they've
[1:16:39] got the scooters and all that kind of
stuff, but for the
[1:16:46] unusual
[1:16:49] type of requests for accommodation.
I I I would be very surprised if there
[1:16:57] are standing policies in place to
accommodate anybody who walks in the
[1:17:02] door saying, "I have this. I need you. I
want accommodations." If there's a
[1:17:07] medical reason for it, Steve. Yes.
>> Okay.
[1:17:10] » Yes.
>> But again, all right. If
[1:17:14] again, let's go back to my um thing at
the village hall or even the town hall
[1:17:19] for that matter. Like somebody comes in
and I have allergies to dust. I It's too
[1:17:24] dusty in here. How are you going to
accommodate me?
[1:17:29] We're not We're We're not going to
reasonably be able to accommodate. And
[1:17:34] that's how I'm almost equating this
situation. Somebody's coming in from the
[1:17:39] outside, so to speak, and saying,
"There's an animal in here. I can feel
[1:17:43] it in my whatever." [clears throat]
>> So, you're not going to get around this
[1:17:48] no matter how much we're splitting
hairs. Um, this is a medical issue. So,
[1:17:52] if somebody, you know, I'll I'll use
this. Like, say you have an allergy to
[1:17:57] penicellin. Um, there's no way to get
around it. when you go to a medical
[1:18:02] facility, they're going to go through
allergies and they're not going to give
[1:18:05] you penicellin. It doesn't matter if
there's penicellin on the shelves.
[1:18:09] » So, we're really splitting hairs on a
subject. So, yeah, there's a lot of
[1:18:14] people that have dust allergies, but is
it enough to cause them anaphilaxis? And
[1:18:20] so, there's degrees of allergies, too,
and that's going to be in the medical.
[1:18:24] And so, that's that's right there. Um,
well,
[1:18:28] » sorry, I didn't want to interrupt you.
Um I think the other things to to keep
[1:18:33] in mind is that there are two different
parts of ADA too. Uh, one is what we're
[1:18:38] mostly talk about with this agenda item
is kind of under the I hate saying this
[1:18:45] the employment umbrella in there
providing the space for them to do the
[1:18:50] contracted duties that we have versus
your example store that's a separate
[1:18:56] part of the ADA and it has different
process of what are reasonable
[1:19:01] accommodations for that because that
individual is electing to go into that
[1:19:07] that place to that store versus the
other side which is they are hired to do
[1:19:15] a duty contracting etc. So we need as
employers need to provide reasonable
[1:19:21] accommodations for that.
>> So um April had her hand up a while ago
[1:19:27] and I did have program administrator
circled in that because we are dealing
[1:19:31] with two separate employers. So, that's
one thing maybe you could cover, but
[1:19:35] maybe have something else you want to
add to.
[1:19:36] » Yeah. Process on that would be maybe
changing that to um EMS commission chair
[1:19:42] and fire commission chair or something
like that. So, you're identifying a
[1:19:45] specific person because we're never
going to know who the program
[1:19:48] administrator is. So, that would maybe
be a term that you could change that to
[1:19:52] that would make sense to everybody um
that would apply. So you could if we're
[1:19:57] going to make this one policy that goes
to everybody just EMS commission
[1:20:00] chairfire commission chair and then EMS
knows to go to their commission chair
[1:20:05] and fire knows to go to their commission
chair and we would be able to use it
[1:20:08] similarly. Um so hopefully that answers
maybe a solution for that. Um, the thing
[1:20:15] I just want to mention because I keep
hearing you talking about conflicting
[1:20:19] uh, accommodation requests or concerns
and I just want to mention how important
[1:20:23] um, hardship is and direct threats and
understanding that um, in fire EMS law
[1:20:30] enforcement that's something that really
needs to be analyzed from um, an
[1:20:36] employer standpoint. what is the
hardship as an employer and what and as
[1:20:42] an EMS commission chair or a JFSC
commission chair um what hardship might
[1:20:48] you have when you're reviewing um an
accommodation request so and that's
[1:20:53] written out in the policy um and it
talks about the severity of each
[1:20:57] individual's disability and I know JP
you were concerned about comparing and
[1:21:01] that's really not necessarily I think
what our attorney was pointing to doing
[1:21:06] it's really an interaction ive process.
Um, and he he does talk about that a
[1:21:11] little bit um and learning um about
what's going on with each individual um
[1:21:15] and what alternatives can be presented
um for the different accommodations that
[1:21:20] are being requested. Um but also
reviewing each individual's job duties
[1:21:25] in public service. Um, and that's
important because certain roles and
[1:21:29] responsibilities
um don't necessarily allow for that and
[1:21:35] there's case law surrounding um job
duties that will say, you know what, if
[1:21:40] you're doing that type of job duty, we
can't accommodate you in this type of
[1:21:44] situation. So, that's really important
to understand for police, fire, and EMS,
[1:21:48] the case law that surrounds those
situations. And then the operational and
[1:21:52] financial impact of the building. So
understanding those hardships.
[1:21:56] » You done?
>> Yeah. Sorry.
[1:21:58] » What are we trying to stop here? What
what's what are we trying to stop the
[1:22:03] dog from doing?
>> Well, from this it's not trying to stop
[1:22:08] the dog.
>> Well, but the dog but the dog fac is
[1:22:12] this considered a a facility support
animal.
[1:22:15] » Is that is that the one out of all these
that we're
[1:22:19] » He's a facility service dog. So
>> then it says emotional support animals
[1:22:24] are not service or wait a minute now
back up.
[1:22:27] » So FSDs can provide services to many
people in the facility. They will still
[1:22:34] need to be assigned to a primary handler
who will take charge. Now do you guys
[1:22:39] have insurance on your can you get
insurance on the dog?
[1:22:43] » The dog is insured by our insurance
policy and the dog himself
[1:22:48] for stopping him to bite somebody and
Well, the insurance won't stop him from
[1:22:51] biting.
>> No, but I'm just saying.
[1:22:53] » Sorry, Mike.
>> Wonder if the dog bites somebody.
[1:22:57] » Yes, he's covered by uh uh I think a $2
million policy by Custom Canines and he
[1:23:03] would be covered by our
>> Okay. So, what are we trying to stop
[1:23:05] here? That's what I'm asking you.
>> I don't think anybody's trying to stop
[1:23:08] anything, Mike. I think it's a matter of
following ADA guidelines.
[1:23:13] » But see, it's nothing about disabilities
here in this whole thing here. It
[1:23:16] » it is. It's not. It's just talking about
behaviors to make people feel better.
[1:23:22] » So, in the world of rental, if you guys
are familiar with a making reasonable
[1:23:28] accommodations,
I'm managing a property and I get a
[1:23:32] person that comes in and fills out an
application for a rental unit. I say, "I
[1:23:35] have an ESA." I say, "Okay, I need your
>> and I take that and look at everything
[1:23:42] and if everything goes through the
application process, fine.
[1:23:47] the person is in with their ESA. Simple
as that.
[1:23:50] » The ESA though is not necessarily an
ADA.
[1:23:55] They're not a trained animal. They
haven't [clears throat] went through the
[1:23:59] process. They're merely there prescribed
by a doctor saying here, this person
[1:24:04] would benefit from having a cat or a
dog.
[1:24:08] So when I'm listening to everyone talk
and you talked about leases
[1:24:13] where you have the EMS and the fire
department as tenants. They are the
[1:24:18] tenants in the building
and the tenant wants to bring in an
[1:24:23] animal.
To me it's not necessarily about an ADA.
[1:24:29] It has to do with the district and
owning the building. It's how they are
[1:24:34] going to manage and how we look and is
it safeguarding
[1:24:38] the district from with the building
respect. That's that's the way I view
[1:24:42] it.
>> Does that make sense?
[1:24:44] » It's a medical and a legal issue is what
it comes down to.
[1:24:47] » Right. And we're not even I mean they
want it for to benefit
[1:24:52] people coming in. I'm assuming you know
as far as having an animal there at
[1:24:58] crisis and trauma situation. Okay.
It's almost like a tool.
[1:25:02] » Um, that's on them. It's not necessarily
us that has to, you know, write up
[1:25:10] necessarily, we won't be using. We're
just there to say, how are you going to
[1:25:15] bring it into the building? And
honestly, if they want to bring into the
[1:25:20] building, they can. That's my opinion,
the way I see it.
[1:25:25] » Um, so, so to be clear, this the request
isn't for a pet or an emotional support
[1:25:33] animal or a therapy dog. It is for
a current service dog in training um
[1:25:42] which in as Wisconsin ADAs is allowed
for is similar to federal ADA.
[1:25:53] So he
doesn't have one person right now that
[1:25:58] well he's not a certified service dog
yet because he's in training. So even if
[1:26:01] there was one person identified he still
couldn't be that person's service dog
[1:26:04] because he's not a certified service
service dog as as yet. Um but he's in
[1:26:11] training to become accustomed to all the
things
[1:26:16] um in our our industry. Um, I understand
that there may be competing
[1:26:21] accommodations that we'll need to
address and uh work through.
[1:26:29] He will be trained and cert he's getting
trained. He'll be certified in a year, a
[1:26:35] year and a half.
Um,
[1:26:39] so our accommodation is way I view it
isn't really necessarily an
[1:26:42] accommodation. It's more you getting
permission and drafting a document to
[1:26:46] bring him in. So that's
>> on the EMS side of it, we've tackled all
[1:26:51] that already.
>> Okay.
[1:26:52] » So from the EMS commission side, now we
needed
[1:26:56] » either we needed the building side to
say that it is for sure allowed to have
[1:27:01] the service animal in the building along
with identifying our partners in the
[1:27:08] building. if they have anyone that
requires an accommodation that we would
[1:27:13] » would work
>> work with them to to work through that
[1:27:17] accommodation.
>> And why would this person need an
[1:27:20] accommodation?
>> Because they may have a competing
[1:27:23] medical problem that may be exacerbated
by the animal's presence.
[1:27:27] » Okay.
>> Do you have people that come up with
[1:27:29] this already about the dog
>> from the fire department side?
[1:27:34] » Fire. They need I just dogs barking
makes me feel bad or anything like that
[1:27:39] or
>> Nobody's Nobody said anything about the
[1:27:41] dog.
>> Nobody said anything about it.
[1:27:43] » They said that there's multiple people
that have allergies to dogs, not only on
[1:27:49] the fire side, but also on the EMS side.
>> So why are they still on the EMS side?
[1:27:54] Because of the fact that
>> So you're gonna fire them? Is that the
[1:27:56] plan? just fire them because
if there are if there are not ways for
[1:28:01] you to adapt your to your condition in
order to do the job that you're required
[1:28:07] to do,
>> but you're giving an accommodation to
[1:28:11] somebody else's
>> how are you going to give us somebody
[1:28:13] accommodation when you go to a home?
>> See, you're literally saying we can't
[1:28:18] give somebody an accommodation because
we don't know what they're going to go
[1:28:20] through. But you're also saying we have
to give this person accommodation at the
[1:28:24] top because
they're they're entitled to it. So how
[1:28:29] are how is this guy entitled to it? But
this guy who's also entitled it legally
[1:28:33] titled to it legally not entitled to it.
>> This would be a really nasty lawsuit if
[1:28:40] if uh
>> frankly like I'm to the point where like
[1:28:44] you guys approve whatever you want. I
don't really care anymore. I brought it
[1:28:47] to you. I brought my concerns to you. We
brought our legal concerns to you. This
[1:28:51] was done by a lawyer. Not by me, not by
the fire department.
[1:28:55] » This is a lawyer. Like, we all sit up
here and say like, "This is the law,
[1:28:59] blah, blah, blah. This is how I
interpret it." Well, this is somebody
[1:29:02] that actually does that for a living.
>> Yeah.
[1:29:04] » That's their whole job.
>> Sure. And I bet you could see this
[1:29:06] through AI and any report by anybody.
>> So, like really just do whatever you
[1:29:11] want. Like I I really don't care. I can
prove whatever you want and when
[1:29:15] something happens I'm not going to be on
the hook anymore because I brought it to
[1:29:19] you as a concern. So that's let's just
do whatever. I don't really care
[1:29:24] anymore.
>> I I do this for a living too. And and
[1:29:27] this this is a big deal. Um like
>> this isn't me bringing this up because I
[1:29:32] want
>> It isn't your problem. You're not the
[1:29:35] problem.
>> No, but I'm an employer and I have an
[1:29:37] employee who brought a condition to
>> I just asked you that. You said nobody
[1:29:40] did.
>> No, I did not. I said I have You said
[1:29:44] » No, I asked her and she said nobody.
>> You said somebody was upset about
[1:29:49] barking. Nobody's upset.
>> No, no, I didn't say that. I said did
[1:29:52] anybody come with a complaint? people
have brought forward medical concern
[1:29:58] » which is and from a doctor
>> apparently doesn't necessarily
[1:30:05] » I think that
[1:30:08] » licensed health care professional
provider in the state of Wisconsin if
[1:30:13] you have that and that is not supported
then there is potential like April said
[1:30:21] for I mean there there is case law
outlining that and it can be very
[1:30:25] serious. I wouldn't want my name
attached to it nor be on a board that
[1:30:29] approves something like this because
I've worked too hard professionally to
[1:30:33] get where I'm at as well. And it's not
that I'm a dog hater. It's not that I'm
[1:30:37] trying to be difficult. This is the law.
This is the reality of it.
[1:30:42] » Well, we do have a responsibility to
make accommodations for all
[1:30:46] accommodations being made. Um but we do
have two separate employers and so
[1:30:53] providing those medical documents to
somebody else's employer because we have
[1:30:59] this shared space. I think that's where
the the difficulty is like I wouldn't be
[1:31:06] comfortable sending my medical.
>> I don't think he's asking you to send it
[1:31:10] to our to us as an employee. I think
he's asking for you as an employer to
[1:31:14] verify that somebody has it. Like we
would have to verify that our person has
[1:31:18] a medical condition that meets the
standard. Your G commission would have
[1:31:22] to verify that their employee meets the
standard. I don't think they're saying
[1:31:27] dear Gro needs to send me all their
employees records,
[1:31:30] » right?
>> That's not what this is saying. But
[1:31:33] » but it doesn't say that either.
>> But then how how do we have the other
[1:31:37] employer make the accommodations from
the other employer, which is I think the
[1:31:43] missing piece. How do we make sure we're
making accommodations across employers?
[1:31:48] And us as owners of the building, the
village, and the town have to make sure
[1:31:53] that we're we're making that
communication. So then everybody is
[1:31:57] getting the accommodations that they
need and following the law.
[1:32:02] » And I just want to clarify again, I I
have a dog. My family has dogs. We've
[1:32:07] had dogs our whole lives. Not a dog
eater. Um, I I support I understand
[1:32:14] exactly what Chief Link is trying to do
with uh facility support animal and it
[1:32:19] just benefits the fire and EMS service.
I've said that. I agree with that
[1:32:23] [clears throat] 100%. I am just trying
to make sure that my employee is
[1:32:30] protected. That's all I'm all I care
about. Like if we can find a way to make
[1:32:34] it so that my employees are protected,
it is protected. Everybody's been
[1:32:38] protected.
That's all this is about. Like that's
[1:32:41] all I care about. Like I don't I don't
want to like pick on somebody or say you
[1:32:46] can't have this or can't have that or I
don't even want to be involved with this
[1:32:51] to be honest with you. I just got I'm
trying to protect my employee because if
[1:32:56] I don't I'm going to be liable for it
and I don't want to be liable for it.
[1:33:01] That's what I'm trying to say. Well,
sounds like you this is a real kind of I
[1:33:05] hate the word the rock and the hard
place because you're trying to do
[1:33:08] something good and in a sense
>> and Chief Wayne is trying to do some
[1:33:12] Keep Jane is trying to do something good
too. I'm not
[1:33:15] » No, you
>> I'm not trying to pick on him or say
[1:33:18] like I don't want to fight about that. I
I understand exactly why he's trying to
[1:33:21] do it. It's a good program. It's
beneficial.
[1:33:25] I
>> It's just that you have an issue where
[1:33:28] you have a an employee has an allergy.
Sounds like
[1:33:32] » yes.
>> Okay.
[1:33:33] » There's multiple
>> multiple employees. So now it's a matter
[1:33:36] of how
you two
[1:33:39] » and Chief Landers offered concessions to
keeping the dog in his area and the EMS
[1:33:45] quarters and providing hepailters which
we've relayed to our attorney. But
[1:33:52] ultimately this is what he came back and
said would be the best path forward. And
[1:33:59] like I said, I'm not a lawyer and
I
[1:34:03] » the reason why he came up with this path
forward is because it protects the
[1:34:06] people with ADA. The it protects the
people who do request accommodations.
[1:34:11] There are reasons why he came up with
this and it has to do with the people
[1:34:15] who have actual accommodation requests
and competing accommodation requests. So
[1:34:20] » they they have a medical reason.
>> They have a medical reasoning
[1:34:25] awareness.
>> Go ahead. and raising awareness for
[1:34:28] their
>> with their concern. Understandable.
[1:34:32] » What is the fire department offering for
accommodations now for these people with
[1:34:36] allergies?
>> Uh we have different positions and tasks
[1:34:40] and responsibilities. So when we have a
call where that's a possibility, we have
[1:34:44] different roles and responsibilities for
people. Um right now when we bring in
[1:34:48] therapy dogs, we schedule, we make
awareness, we let individuals know that
[1:34:52] there's a therapy dog coming in. It's
oftentimes unfortunate when we first
[1:34:56] learned that we have people with
allergies, we weren't aware of it right
[1:35:00] away. So, um, those individuals had an
exposure and weren't able to participate
[1:35:06] in our CISDS, which was kind of a bummer
for us, um, because that's an
[1:35:12] opportunity for them to decompress and,
um, be involved in an after action or
[1:35:17] after incident CISD. And um it was
really unfortunate that they had to
[1:35:24] leave the room and we didn't understand
why they were leaving the room and
[1:35:27] couldn't participate in that CISD. And
it wasn't until after they said, "Hey, I
[1:35:31] can come in that room and be in that
CISD with you because you had dogs in
[1:35:34] there. You had therapy dogs in there."
And that was when we first learned,
[1:35:40] shoot, we wish we would have known that
before because we would have, you know,
[1:35:44] we would have planned this out and we
would have scheduled this differently
[1:35:46] and made accommodations for you to be
present with us. And so that's when it
[1:35:51] really became a reality for us on how we
have to do better planning and better
[1:35:55] accommodating for people who have who
have needs or have accommodate need
[1:35:59] accommodations. So, um, we plan things
out better now, uh, when we have CISDs
[1:36:05] or want to bring therapy dogs in. Um, so
to answer your question, we plan
[1:36:11] » Question. Is that your lawyer under
there? No, Patrick or
[1:36:14] » No, that's somebody else.
>> That's Patrick. [clears throat]
[1:36:18] No. Oh,
>> on the other hand, like when you when
[1:36:21] you talk about it, the the
accommodation, somebody comes in, they
[1:36:24] puts in they put in one of
>> just say one of the fire people come in
[1:36:28] and ask for a request. JP's point,
there's certain and what Steve said too
[1:36:33] on the fire side of things, whether it's
a dog, a cat, a horse, a parro or
[1:36:36] whatever, whatever animals may or may
not be okayed by the ADA. The question
[1:36:40] is fit for duty. If you absolutely need
this or have this whatever reason,
[1:36:45] whatever disability challenge, whatever
it may be for that service animal, which
[1:36:50] is defined by ADA,
can we accommodate it? And I can't have
[1:36:55] 41 firefighters on trucks with dogs
going into fires. There's just I know
[1:37:01] it's a it's a it's a really broad
example, but if everybody requested
[1:37:07] that, we we can't make that
accommodation because it's harm to the
[1:37:09] animal and the people and everything
else that goes on. That's accommodation.
[1:37:12] We can't make that that way. We'd have
to go look at the position description.
[1:37:17] Can we rece reassign duties? Now, it
comes another policy, which I know Mike
[1:37:22] loves, of okay, you made your
accommodation, whatever power that be
[1:37:27] granted through ADA or whatever
guideline they decided to use. Is that
[1:37:31] person can they meet? Do they need the
service animal to do their job? If the
[1:37:35] answer is yes, does that interfere with
them to be able to duty to do their
[1:37:40] duty?
And sometimes the answer is no, you
[1:37:43] can't and
can't be a member of the fire department
[1:37:48] because of it. So I feel like we've went
on a tangent. I want to try and bring us
[1:37:53] back a little bit. So what my
understanding is what we need to decide
[1:37:59] is
kind of the building side that shared
[1:38:04] services. what happens if there's
competing interest especially if it's
[1:38:08] across EMS and the fire
>> once we have that determination then
[1:38:15] knowing that fire has their process EMS
has their process in there we will be
[1:38:22] all good so the question is how can we
set it up so that
[1:38:28] there is an entity
that can cross the barriers
[1:38:34] to have the conversations about
accommodations based on all the criteria
[1:38:39] for ADA
when there's conflicting accommodation
[1:38:45] requests or I think conflict is probably
the stronger word but when they yeah but
[1:38:51] you all know what I mean so what we need
to make a decision what's that process
[1:38:57] in there
[1:39:01] » right like the the communication of
accom accommodations between
[1:39:07] employers.
>> Mhm.
[1:39:09] » So we can make the space
[1:39:14] accommodate the space to follow the ADA.
[1:39:25] » So my thought, so there's a couple ways
we can go about this.
[1:39:30] One is
I'm going to laugh at saying this, but
[1:39:33] I'm going to throw it out there.
Anyways, you form a committee which
[1:39:36] could be the two chiefs or
whoever else
[1:39:41] that
we
[1:39:47] as in the village in town say for EMS
you're the ones that will be the I
[1:39:53] forgot what the exact wording is in this
draft but the ones that kind of manage
[1:39:58] the competing interests in there and
whatever that agreement looks like
[1:40:04] they're the ones that have to
um
[1:40:09] kind of
finalize the accommodation requests,
[1:40:13] making sure it's all set for the shared
spaces. That's one option. The other is
[1:40:18] we could go to the town or village,
follow our accommodation request through
[1:40:25] our HR process in there. Um which I know
Steve shaking his head in there.
[1:40:31] » I think we keep it in house. We don't
have to go outside.
[1:40:35] You know, we've got the chief and his
designates who see all the medical
[1:40:39] records for their own firefighters
already because they have physicals
[1:40:43] every year, I believe.
>> Yep.
[1:40:45] » All right. We've got Chief Lang with the
medical records and so on and so forth
[1:40:52] for his people plus the fact a better
grasp of
[1:41:02] medical anomalies, you know, more so
than No offense, Chief, but just
[1:41:07] probably and let the two fight it out.
>> I thought we did that already.
[1:41:12] » So did I. But
>> so we established a temporary process
[1:41:17] until this was decided. So now we need
the actual final process
[1:41:23] » in there.
I think
[1:41:27] » I think it's creating
some tensions between the two employers
[1:41:35] to have their
[1:41:40] the the policy administrator, you know,
they're each responsible for
[1:41:44] administrating policy for their own
employees, but I think that there's
[1:41:51] » it's um
It's seems to be challenging. I mean
[1:41:56] that we've been talking about this I
think for many months. Seems that that
[1:42:00] there's there's some difficulty in how
each is defining is is this an
[1:42:06] accommodation a reasonable accommodation
for my staff. So I'm just getting that.
[1:42:12] Would you say that?
>> Yeah. Guess the question is what are you
[1:42:16] making the accommodation for?
>> Right. And in each
[1:42:22] is the current
This is like I I'm on board with Nick
[1:42:26] and everything else. I have dogs. All
this stuff.
[1:42:30] You're adding a dog as accommodation
for what?
[1:42:38] There's not an accommodation being made.
You're you added the you added the dog
[1:42:42] to be trained and that stuff. That's not
an accommodation
[1:42:45] for the employee. That's not an
accommodation,
[1:42:49] » right? But we're not the employer of
that employee. So, we don't know whether
[1:42:53] there's an accommodation or not.
>> I mean, I'm not saying that
[1:42:57] » you don't have a trained dog right now.
So, the dog's not the dog itself is not
[1:43:03] trained,
>> right? So, none of this would apply to
[1:43:05] the dog is what currently this policy.
>> So, you're actually violating
[1:43:10] potentially violating ADA.
I
[1:43:14] » for the people that
>> think it's inaccurate in Wisconsin,
[1:43:17] » not necessarily because of the fact that
>> something as simple as a respirator or a
[1:43:22] mask could
>> fix the problem. That could be the
[1:43:26] accommodation for that person. Here you
are. We are providing you with something
[1:43:31] to prevent, you know, a HIPPA mask, you
know.
[1:43:36] So, I'm not saying that that is the
answer. No, I I No, you know. All right.
[1:43:41] So
even though the the dog does not fit
[1:43:46] this criteria right now because it's
still in training yet, [clears throat]
[1:43:50] we could still offer an accommodation to
those person or persons
[1:43:57] um
for whatever like the old saying goes,
[1:44:01] whatever ails them, you know, kind of
thing. I once you're once you know about
[1:44:06] something on once once this board and
employers are aware of the law that's
[1:44:14] not uh gloss over until the dog. And
again I'm I appreciate both chiefs
[1:44:21] working together. I'm not the anti-dog.
I'm looking at this from a medical
[1:44:25] liability issue and following ADA. So,
>> well, that's what I meant by virtue of
[1:44:31] the fact that regardless of what status
the dog is in right now,
[1:44:35] » we may not have conflicting,
you know, accommodations right now. It's
[1:44:41] just in this case on the fire side. And
maybe it is something as simple as a
[1:44:48] mask if they are that allergic or or
whatever. I'm not saying that it's going
[1:44:53] to be, but it could be something as
simple as that.
[1:44:58] Have either of you talked with your
attorneys about it?
[1:45:00] » What's that?
>> Have either of you talked no reason to.
[1:45:03] » We haven't seen this. This just came on
Friday, so no in general about it.
[1:45:09] » But you know, right here it says
allergies and fear of animals are not
[1:45:13] valid reasons for denying access or
refusing service to people using service
[1:45:20] animals.
>> Just asking opportunity to consult with
[1:45:24] your attorneys about the situation in
general.
[1:45:28] Uh,
>> and maybe that's protected by attorney
[1:45:31] client privilege. So, don't say anything
if [laughter] you don't want to say
[1:45:33] » that, you know, we were waiting for
something to have them review.
[1:45:37] » Okay.
In my opinion, I don't board, but kind
[1:45:42] of, [clears throat]
>> you know, why have them hypothetically
[1:45:44] review something when they're going to
review it?
[1:45:46] » It just says reasonable steps should be
taken to accommodate all individuals.
[1:45:51] Reasonable. Reasonable. Yeah.
>> So, I guess here's my
[1:45:59] » Yeah, I'm trying to move this forward
here. So,
[1:46:03] I I guess here I will make the motion.
>> Oh, it's not discussing kids. It's just
[1:46:08] an update.
>> Just an update. Perfect. Um, but I think
[1:46:12] for me it kind of goes back to again the
bug. We need to have something in here.
[1:46:16] So I would just implore
uh the village in town to find a way to
[1:46:25] look at this not from the employer
standpoint but from the building
[1:46:29] standpoint from the tenants to ensure um
that we're all good following ADA and
[1:46:37] also provide an avenue to address
conflicts because I think Heidi did you
[1:46:43] bring up a point I really want to
reiterate
[1:46:46] And I probably should have picked this
uh when I stated it, but I also don't
[1:46:49] think it's fair to the chiefs to put
them together to fight out if they're in
[1:46:53] conflict in there. That's a disservice
to you all in there. So if there's needs
[1:46:58] to be that kind of appeals or whatever
that process is, it should
[1:47:04] not be the chiefs. It should be someone
else. But the question is who that is
[1:47:09] that's within here because again I don't
want to put pit you all against one
[1:47:13] another because that's not fair to
either of you.
[1:47:16] » I don't think that's what either of them
are saying either.
[1:47:18] » No, it just neither one of them are
saying that. I I'm hearing that they're
[1:47:22] really trying to work together.
>> Yeah.
[1:47:26] » But again, they have to talk with each
other to find out. All right, fire has
[1:47:32] this person, EMS has this person, you
know. Okay.
[1:47:37] what is the accommodation that's
necessary? Okay. And that person needing
[1:47:44] the accommodation is going to have to
provide that information. It's not going
[1:47:48] to be for the two chiefs to figure out
[clears throat] uh is it this? No. Is it
[1:47:53] this? No. We have to come with a
solution to the to their
[1:48:00] issue. Correct? Yes. However, what if in
hypothetical
[1:48:07] the accommodations can be in conflict
with one another in there?
[1:48:13] What is the process to adjudicate that?
>> Well, that hasn't happened yet. And I I
[1:48:20] view both Chief Archbold and
very responsible and and insightful in
[1:48:27] looking into those things. So I I feel
that the two chiefs are going to
[1:48:31] communicate well and and uh Chief Lang
has worked hard too to um promote open
[1:48:39] communication. So um I I you know I
don't think we should plan on what might
[1:48:44] happen.
>> At the flip side, I don't want to get in
[1:48:48] the spot where all of a sudden becomes
an issue and now we don't have a policy
[1:48:50] in place. This is the time to do it
before anything arises. So it's all set
[1:48:55] because again I don't want to put them
into conflict with one another or within
[1:48:59] their own staff in there. I want an
established process so that if something
[1:49:04] comes up we are good to go. I want to do
it right.
[1:49:07] » How would we how would we be doing this
without a policy? We wouldn't we're not
[1:49:11] going to be doing it without a policy.
You can't you can't start something
[1:49:15] without the solution.
>> Yeah. So then what's next? And so that's
[1:49:20] why I say I
>> Well, we thought they were there. It
[1:49:22] turned it started off with it was a a a
good gesture
[1:49:26] for them to have a dog. That's what it
all started with. It wasn't like it was
[1:49:31] any kind of big deal. And the more we
deal with it, the more and they they try
[1:49:36] to be accustomed to each other all the
way through this thing. Now we're this
[1:49:39] thing. And
>> but we got she's got a question back.
[1:49:43] » Yes. Since I go to more than one fire
EMS meeting in a month, um I go to many
[1:49:51] and I go to Stoton and Stoton has a
policy already. I am sure that you can
[1:49:59] contact other fire departments who
already have dealt with this. They're
[1:50:03] not You wouldn't have to start and
reinvent the wheel or come up with fire.
[1:50:10] You would have something to work from. I
don't know. Um, and personally, I've
[1:50:16] worked healthc care 32 years, and from
my experience of patients coming in with
[1:50:22] service dogs, we had to accommodate them
right down to walking the dog outside to
[1:50:28] go to the bathroom and making sure the
dog had food because the woman was in in
[1:50:33] step down unit from ICU. So, um, that is
a bigger deal than all of this, I'll
[1:50:40] have you know, cuz somebody was dying
possibly. So, yes, being positive and
[1:50:47] having going ahead and having a policy,
you're proactive. I applaud you if you
[1:50:55] actually get it done. But you've worked
on this for over half an hour and
[1:51:00] there's no nothing happening.
>> It's been five months.
[1:51:03] » Well, that too. And I sat through the
first one. It was terrible.
[1:51:08] » Yeah,
>> it was terrible. The first time, an hour
[1:51:11] and a half of it,
>> none going home.
[1:51:13] » I got I got to clarify something real
quick.
[1:51:16] » Do does allow dogs in their building.
They allow pets in their dog in their
[1:51:21] building, which is not legal.
>> Well, that Okay, so they have
[1:51:25] » They must have a lawyer, too.
>> My My thought is there's something out
[1:51:29] there you could work from. I I held out
Stoton because I know of it. I I
[1:51:34] » I am I'm incorrect in saying then that
it's they they have the perfect policy.
[1:51:40] » I'm not saying I'm not arguing with you.
I'm just I'm just trying to say like
[1:51:45] when you say another department uses
dogs.
[1:51:49] » There's got to be a policy you can work
from that you don't have to reinvent the
[1:51:53] wheel. I worked healthcare long enough
to know that. I think I think that's
[1:51:58] where our attorney generated this one
from was from other policies that exist
[1:52:02] or he came up with it just based on his
pure subject matter expertise. He's a
[1:52:07] municipal attorney.
>> So he works with municipalities all over
[1:52:11] the county and state. He's
>> I don't I don't see how this document
[1:52:15] anybody could come to a conclusion
between the two of you to do anything.
[1:52:20] » I'm serious.
>> So first off, I created this
[1:52:26] didn't know I was creating it.
Had I known that this was the poop storm
[1:52:32] that was created, maybe I would have
second thought my decision.
[1:52:36] But it comes from
thinking that I would be uh doing good
[1:52:42] for our responder community in in the
region.
[1:52:46] Um and maybe a little bit myself too.
there through asking many people there
[1:52:55] is no policy. No one has a policy.
Either it is 100% we follow the city's
[1:53:03] policy or we have an unwritten policy
that says you pick up after yourself.
[1:53:09] So to find someone else's policy there
well there there wasn't one to find
[1:53:14] otherwise we would have used someone
else's policy instead of drafting from
[1:53:19] from a blank sheet of paper.
Um I think the policy that was presented
[1:53:26] as I reviewed it some of the things that
caused me grief were it didn't
[1:53:30] specifically say who was going to be
evaluating a person's protected health
[1:53:34] information.
Um, and the impression I got would be
[1:53:38] that it would was going to be some
somebody
[1:53:42] some overarching entity that wasn't part
of EMS or wasn't part of my employer
[1:53:50] group that was going to be evaluating my
employees
[1:53:56] protected health information.
Um, and and maybe I misread and I think
[1:54:01] some proposed edits that that April
mentioned adds some clarity to that.
[1:54:08] Um, and then when [clears throat] it
comes to request accommodations, then
[1:54:15] whomever, whether it be uh myself and
Nick, we get together and make sure that
[1:54:19] there's no um competing accommodations
that we can work to engineer out um or
[1:54:25] not engineer out. But it's all about the
working through the reasonable
[1:54:30] accommodation while attempting to
accommodate all requests.
[1:54:34] Um, as far as my staff, um, it was
initially identified that we may have an
[1:54:40] allergy to,
um, dogs. Um, but that has since been
[1:54:45] found to not be the case. So, I have no
other requests for accommodations of my
[1:54:50] staff. And if I received any, I would
make appropriate accommodations for
[1:54:55] them.
Um, it's it's all about working through
[1:55:00] the process. It's way more stressful
than it ever needed to be in my mind or
[1:55:07] I ever thought it would be, I guess, is
the better the better statement.
[1:55:12] » Yeah. I wouldn't think it would be quite
as bad as CO, you know,
[1:55:20] and as as far as if we would never as a
part of an accommodation tell someone,
[1:55:25] yep, you're if you're going to come into
the building, you're going to have to
[1:55:27] wear a mask. That's not an
accommodation. So, we would work through
[1:55:30] that appropriately.
[1:55:35] It's a big thing.
[1:55:40] » Yeah. So again, I just want to say I
appreciate all the conversation. Um,
[1:55:45] again, I appreciate Chief and April for
you all working through this. I
[1:55:49] appreciate Chief Lang also as well for
having through it go through this. So, I
[1:55:55] feel like we've had a great discussion.
Um, kind of identified some of the the
[1:56:00] challenges in there and then it goes
back to my initial asses. I just hope
[1:56:04] that moving forward uh the town and
village can find a way to
[1:56:10] establish a process to make this as
smooth as possible moving forward so we
[1:56:14] prevent potential [clears throat]
conflict.
[1:56:19] Have you have you guys looked at a way
of accommodating your people that have
[1:56:23] come to you with this
>> other than saying no, we're not going to
[1:56:27] have a dog?
[1:56:31] » Probably not, right?
>> Are you looking at me?
[1:56:32] » No,
>> you do.
[1:56:35] » I do. I do not typically handle the
medical request. Those go the
[1:56:40] administrative stuff goes with April.
>> We have to make the accommodation
[1:56:46] » for us. It would be really complicated.
I mean, like Jess said, we have like
[1:56:53] fitness for duty expectations in our
SOPs, and I would I I personally would
[1:56:58] expect EMS and law enforcement to have
something very similar in their SOPs.
[1:57:03] So, um, they operate very similarly to
us as emergency responders. So, um I
[1:57:10] would be surprised if they didn't have f
fitness for duty expectations as
[1:57:14] emergency responders, but that's we have
something like that in our SOP.
[1:57:17] » Oh, gee, we're we're going to have a dog
shortly.
[1:57:21] » What What should I do if I come into a
meeting and I don't like dogs.
[1:57:25] » It's not about liking dogs. That's not
what Maybe it is. I don't know that.
[1:57:31] Maybe some of your people don't like
dogs. You don't have medical stuff that
[1:57:35] says they have they're against having a
dog because they have an allergy.
[1:57:40] May they probably do. I don't know. I'm
just saying. We got to find out if
[1:57:44] that's true or not.
Not just somebody's opinion.
[1:57:52] » I don't think that's anything we've ever
said nor accused anybody of. that if we
[1:57:57] were approached with a reasonable
accommodation request, we would
[1:58:00] definitely work to to meet it.
>> It's in the personal personal protective
[1:58:06] their social protected health
information for one. So, it's not
[1:58:09] something we could discuss.
>> If there is a request or an
[1:58:13] accommodation, we would at most I would
know generally speaking unless it
[1:58:17] directly came to me right away. I would
be made aware that there's an
[1:58:20] accommodation being made
>> and reasonable steps should be taken to
[1:58:24] accommodate all individuals
[1:58:29] » and that's
>> that's 88 or whatever it is
[1:58:33] » dog DA or whatever it is
>> the attorney the attorney drafted this
[1:58:38] » and so who determines
if a reasonable accommodation has been
[1:58:45] offered and how is that appeal process
or how how is it determined
[1:58:52] that I think that's the important part
of the policy
[1:58:56] » is how how what is the criteria how do
we decide if a reasonable accommodation
[1:59:03] » the employer would have to take and
>> sit down or committee whatever sit down
[1:59:09] with each person say what is your
problem do you have a doctor's excuse
[1:59:14] » uh are you just saying that or you don't
like dogs or whatever And if somebody
[1:59:19] really comes up with one, well then
that's not good,
[1:59:24] » right? Well, and what is the
accommodation being made? So they can
[1:59:27] what is accommodation and that's where
>> is it a mask?
[1:59:31] It might not be that might not be the
accommodation. The accommodation might
[1:59:35] be okay. They have a true allergy. They
may need ADA.
[1:59:41] Now the question is you have to look at
the position description.
[1:59:44] » Is there a combination that can be made?
Are they are they fit for are they fit
[1:59:48] for duty? But what is the ch Steve said
challenge or disability or ADA approves
[1:59:55] and it comes through and yes they meet
the guidelines of the medical provider
[1:59:58] these other things and we go down that
list there's just going to be some
[2:00:01] things that
>> it becomes a hardship
[2:00:04] » I'm correct in saying this what we're at
right now this is really a employee
[2:00:09] employer uh labor law type
>> yes exactly
[2:00:13] » I would say so
>> for sure not so much anything that
[2:00:16] really has to do with the town or
village
[2:00:19] We're just the building owners,
>> right?
[2:00:21] » But you establish the process.
>> Well,
[2:00:26] » I thought we' done that already.
>> Establish
[2:00:28] » five months ago
>> by policy. You establish the process.
[2:00:32] We'll follow
>> that building policy, which is
[2:00:35] effectively what's in front of you.
>> That's that's the two pieces. There's we
[2:00:41] can do that for our building, but then
there's still your employee. How are you
[2:00:45] going to manage your employee? That's
what the policy tells us how we'll do
[2:00:50] that.
>> So again, yeah, goes back to my
[2:00:54] comments. You have debs hazard policy,
fire hazard policy. We need the building
[2:01:01] policy which covers the middle and there
be sticky. songs.
[2:01:18] » [clears throat]
>> I would say it comes down to
[2:01:21] fire department and the EMS to
just find something where they can get
[2:01:29] along
and nobody's going to be sued because of
[2:01:34] employees or
>> you get along great. Just so you know.
[2:01:39] » Of course you do. I know you do.
[2:01:43] I don't think that's ever been a a
question, but
[2:01:49] we get this stuff here and all of a
sudden we're
[2:01:55] just read it says said that you should
make accommodations.
[2:01:59] I hate to say it, but
so there's a little bit more to this
[2:02:04] thing here.
>> So we're we're at like an update. We're
[2:02:08] not approving anything.
>> We're not approving anything. you know,
[2:02:10] we can take it back to our, you know,
various attorneys or maybe our labor
[2:02:15] attorney is more suitable to review and
provide any comments back um
[2:02:26] on this on this policy or edits that we
kind of talked about like policy
[2:02:30] administrator and defining those.
[2:02:37] » Yes. Okay.
>> Yeah.
[2:02:40] And if your board has anything that you
discuss in the meantime though on this
[2:02:44] topic back to next meeting,
[2:02:49] anything else?
>> Anything else on this?
[2:02:51] » No, no more, please. [laughter]
>> Other than what you got something else?
[2:02:55] » No more.
>> All right. Item eight, discuss and
[2:02:58] consider plumbing maintenance item. Um,
so this was um coming up in May. Um um
[2:03:08] we had some sediment build up I believe
that was causing some issues. Um we are
[2:03:15] going to bring back some
quotes for this month to consider. We
[2:03:20] can still consider approving this
maintenance item. If we have um some
[2:03:25] quotes that correspond to this
maintenance or we
[2:03:29] » Okay. So, this this repair has been a
challenge as can be attested to by Nick
[2:03:33] and and Steve. Um, I reached out
[laughter]
[2:03:40] to other vendors. The and I had an email
for the last meeting from uh Persorn,
[2:03:46] which is a plumbing contractor in
Madison. Um, their quote was roughly
[2:03:50] $1,500, but it's not a mill
and jet like um
[2:03:56] Matt or Mickey's or Freddy router.
>> Um, so Steve reached out to Rotorooer of
[2:04:05] McFarland.
Uh, and they too were reluctant to send
[2:04:10] someone out to write a quote.
>> Oh my god. Um they they did send a fella
[2:04:17] out
>> um
[2:04:20] » showed him where our bathrooms are and
he's like, "Well, we would use our
[2:04:25] knifey thingy to break to break up the
sediment and then if that didn't work,
[2:04:31] then we'd have to mill it."
So I'm like, "Okay, so you're not Nope,
[2:04:36] we don't do that. Someone else would
have to do it." um between Perzborne and
[2:04:41] Readyrooer, they're both a time and
materials type of company. So, they
[2:04:46] don't necessarily know how long it's
going to take, so they could neither can
[2:04:50] give a super accurate quote. Um if Ready
or Rotorooer didn't email you, I'm
[2:04:57] assuming they're not going to because
they were out early last week.
[2:05:03] So,
I think the whole building basically was
[2:05:08] what $6,500 from Mark's ready router or
whatever it is.
[2:05:14] » And then there was an additional $3,000
if if we did something else. I I don't
[2:05:22] have I did not bring that quote with me
>> on the last one. Um,
[2:05:30] and it
the
[2:05:34] it was a big challenge. You know, Chief
Lang tried himself. I tried. I mean, I
[2:05:40] was calling all the way to Walkishaw
trying to find someone explaining the
[2:05:46] situation and what was actually
occurring here. And everybody wants to
[2:05:51] jet. You know, jetting is the way to do
it. But when you have
[2:05:57] » tree,
>> the minerals
[2:06:00] » that are just attached to the inside of
that pipe
[2:06:04] blowing high pressure washer water on it
isn't isn't
[2:06:10] the hot ticket.
>> I think with Marks coming out and taking
[2:06:14] a toilet out and scoping it, they know
what they were quoting. It's does on the
[2:06:18] face of it look like a a lot of money,
but it's probably the most realistic
[2:06:22] quote.
This the second quote milling all the
[2:06:26] bathrooms lines to the city main then
jetting out the city main to flush out
[2:06:30] the system after milling $6,400. Is that
the
[2:06:34] » from Mark's ready router and plumbing
that second portion of that quote also?
[2:06:40] » That was the second part up into two
parts. The first part was $3,200 just to
[2:06:44] do the two bathrooms
>> and the quarters
[2:06:48] » and then the 6,400 is all the built
the bathrooms to the city main. I would
[2:06:54] make a motion.
>> Caveat quickly though.
[2:06:57] » Go ahead.
>> My I don't know where my mind was the
[2:06:59] day Mark came out or I don't even know
if it was Mark, but the dude came out to
[2:07:03] to do the the quote of I forgot about
two bathrooms. I don't think they're
[2:07:08] probably going to have to do anything
with the upstairs bathrooms because of
[2:07:14] » the but the main ones would. So, it
might come in higher than that. I don't
[2:07:20] know for sure.
[2:07:25] I I think the main ones and the EMS ones
need need attention.
[2:07:28] » Everything on the first floor. Yes. To
include the EMS quarters, the
[2:07:34] » public one behind the kitchen and all
that area.
[2:07:37] » So, what was the burst? 6,500.
>> Yeah.
[2:07:41] » Downstairs.
>> Well, I make a motion.
[2:07:44] » Those pipes go right past it. So,
they're effectively milling out
[2:07:47] everything as it goes past the basement
toilet. But I would to make a motion
[2:07:52] that we spend no more than $8,000 on on
this uh on this
[2:07:59] what's the company?
>> Mark's ready rotor
[2:08:02] » on Mark's ready rotor bill. No, no more
than
[2:08:08] a motion. Do I have a second?
>> Second.
[2:08:11] » Okay, I have a motion and second uh to
approve that maintenance. Um, as of last
[2:08:15] month, just a side note, the building
maintenance line we had 15,500 for 2026
[2:08:21] budget and um, Kim ran the report 2400
2420 had been spent. So, um, we have
[2:08:29] room in that it seems in that building
maintenance according to last month's
[2:08:34] report.
>> We need a motion to say that's where
[2:08:39] it's coming from to
>> versus the ESB repair fund. Mhm.
[2:08:45] » You think that's fine.
>> You good with
[2:08:48] » Go ahead.
>> Yeah. So, add the building maintenance.
[2:08:50] » Yeah.
>> Item. Okay. You're good with the second
[2:08:53] on that.
>> And where does it come from?
[2:08:57] » Maintenance fun.
[2:09:00] » Okay. We have a motion and second um
>> not to exceed uh is that 8,000 for the
[2:09:09] plumbing maintenance item from the
building maintenance fund. Uh any
[2:09:12] further discussion on that item hearing?
None. All those in favor say I.
[2:09:16] » I.
>> Any opposed? Same sign. Uh abstensions.
[2:09:21] Motion carries.
>> Okay. Some additional building
[2:09:24] maintenance stuff. It wasn't agenda this
way, so no decisions could be made. Um
[2:09:29] we had the roof inspected and they found
some spots that need repair and they
[2:09:33] sent us an invoice for $1,500 to repair.
Um I actually have photos of it. Let me
[2:09:40] share my screen.
Is it leakage, chief?
[2:09:45] At least
>> I don't think we've had rain since he
[2:09:47] came out to look at it.
>> Yeah, [laughter] but there's leaks and
[2:09:51] there's leaks.
>> I It's not leaking that I I I'm aware
[2:09:54] of, but it's also we we've been
identified that would have penetration.
[2:10:01] » Yeah.
Yeah. They've done a lot of work for
[2:10:04] what the last five or more years or
more.
[2:10:07] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. Um, so a component of that is
[2:10:11] there's $1,500 for that repair that gets
us through. They they'd estimate still
[2:10:16] like a five-year outlook on potential a
full re-roof and their estimate for a
[2:10:21] full re-roof and today's cost would be
$180,000.
[2:10:28] » Uh, I would like to request that the
chair put the Great Lakes roofing on the
[2:10:33] next month's agenda. Okay.
>> For action.
[2:10:36] » All right. Great Lakes repair. I will
add that
[2:10:40] to next month's agenda.
>> And then one more item of things from
[2:10:44] that were of lengthy discussion. Last
month, I had a window contractor come in
[2:10:50] for one quote. I'm waiting for a second
quote. The answer is on when they need
[2:10:54] to be replaced of well, I mean, they are
30 years old. They're not leaking, so
[2:10:58] they're fine for for now. Um, you'd hat
you'd like to get them before they do or
[2:11:04] don't start to leak. Um, the exteriors
company, I believe is the company's
[2:11:08] name, they would replace windows and
frames um for to the cost of $96,000.
[2:11:14] Um, Helen Brand Glass came out to do an
estimate on just replacing the the
[2:11:19] glass. Um, because uh the view would be
all we need to do to make the frames uh
[2:11:25] work well again is recock them and then
we can put in higher quality glass. I
[2:11:30] have not gotten that quote yet. It's all
just for future planning information.
[2:11:36] Um, and I can put that in a document to
to give you all as part of a future
[2:11:40] discussion item.
>> Okay. I'll add that to you as we're
[2:11:44] looking at budgets and a joint meeting
to talk about the study and facilities.
[2:11:48] That'll be good info.
>> Nothing that was urgent or short-term.
[2:11:53] It was a more midtermish
for planning.
[2:11:58] » Thank you.
[2:12:01] Um, all right. So, that's uh maintenance
items. So, item nine, discuss and
[2:12:06] consider adding LOSA to the 2027 budget
proposal. There's um an attachment
[2:12:14] in our packet talking about the length
[clears throat] of service program.
[2:12:21] » So, we did a staff survey because we
were asked about what the staff wanted
[2:12:27] to be added. We have 40 41 members and
we had 29 responses.
[2:12:34] » 29 responses
>> of that nine people said they wanted
[2:12:38] BOSA and then it was split between
didn't want it and uh no opinion. What
[2:12:45] was the percentages on those two people?
>> Uh
[2:12:51] that 29.
>> Hold on. Sorry.
[2:12:54] » 29. So it's 10 and 10. So roughly 30% is
what I mean%
[2:13:00] about 30% said yes and then the rest the
70 it was 31% said yes and then uh 70%
[2:13:10] said no or no preference.
>> What was the split on that? Uh 11. No,
[2:13:17] just give you the numbers because that's
No, wait. 31% said yes.
[2:13:23] 13.79%
said no, and 55.17%
[2:13:29] said no preference.
>> What was the last number?
[2:13:33] » 55.17%
said no preference. Like I don't really
[2:13:37] care.
[2:13:43] Um so this is kind of as uh they start
to prepare the next year's budget is
[2:13:49] this something we want to give them
direction you know based on the
[2:13:55] information here and the survey is that
something we'd like to you know the the
[2:14:00] village board was generally wanted made
a takeback that they were generally
[2:14:04] supportive of the program last year when
we considered it and would consider it
[2:14:09] again But
yeah,
[2:14:13] » give them direction on whether this
should be included in
[2:14:16] » and there's there's two different
options for LOA as we talked about. So
[2:14:21] you could start a program right now
where nobody has any everybody be
[2:14:26] starting fresh at zero no past prior
years are counted. Um, and then
[2:14:33] the cost for that would be what's
a year?
[2:14:40] » Uh,
18,900
[2:14:44] a year plus a $500 initiation fee and an
$800 annual fee and then $20 per member
[2:14:52] for an annual fee. So, $20 20 time 40
4,000.
[2:14:59] No, 8,000. No. Oh my god, it's getting
late in the night. 20 * 40 800.
[2:15:06] » Yes,
>> true.
[2:15:11] » Roughly, let's see. 200 + 500.
>> 2100 plus 189.
[2:15:18] » Roughly 21,000
to start. LOSA and then the first year
[2:15:23] would be 21,000 and then after that it
would be just whatever you're putting in
[2:15:28] for your employee cont contributions.
The other option is if you wanted to go
[2:15:33] back and pay people that have length of
service already. Like this is what this
[2:15:37] chart shows is people how many l how
many years of service that people
[2:15:41] already have.
For those you wouldn't pay as much for
[2:15:44] the previous years because you didn't do
it in the front end. So,
[2:15:49] April calculated out it' be all the
total years of service would be 436.61.
[2:15:55] If you paid $100 per year service for
the previous years, that would be
[2:16:00] 44,000. So, if you wanted to back pay
people, you'd start with a contribution
[2:16:05] of 44,000 plus the 21,000
for the year and then move forward from
[2:16:11] there. would be roughly the
I don't know 21,000 again every year or
[2:16:18] whatever roughly 20 to 21,000 a year
depending on members
[2:16:22] » I think [clears throat] you get you get
those people vested that way that's the
[2:16:27] one benefit of doing the back pay I
believe you get those people with those
[2:16:32] past years vested [clears throat]
10 years I
[2:16:36] » think it's five years I'd have to check
but um oh no tenure you're right I'm
[2:16:40] sorry it says right 10 year vesting.
>> Yeah.
[2:16:44] » But also like if you have someone who's
got four years, you'll get them vested
[2:16:48] for four years and then maybe you're
likely to keep them for five more years
[2:16:52] » so they vest and get their 10 years.
>> So this isn't approving LOSA one way or
[2:16:59] the other tonight, right? It's just
whether we want to see this in our
[2:17:02] budget documents for next year proposed
and we can decide then. But we don't
[2:17:07] want them to go through a whole bunch
more work of adding it into the budget
[2:17:11] if it's not something we're interested
in implementing.
[2:17:16] » It seems like most of the people don't
care.
[2:17:21] » Yeah. So, I would attribute that to they
like seeing an immediate reward versus
[2:17:28] having to wait for a a reward. And I
would guess that that's likely why they
[2:17:33] don't care. They they probably would
they probably want to wait or they
[2:17:38] » when you get the money how long
>> 55 retirement age
[2:17:44] » 60 got to wait till 60
>> I'm sure a lot of them are going to
[2:17:48] » so that might be that might be it
they're thinking well I might move in
[2:17:50] five years or you know I might not be
doing this in five years something like
[2:17:54] that so they're thinking I'd rather see
a benefit now versus then and maybe I
[2:18:00] won't even reap the rewards of this so I
don't necessarily care I don't have a
[2:18:04] preference
>> if I'm correct LOSA is non-t taxable
[2:18:07] income. So as soon as they draw on it,
they have to pay taxes on it.
[2:18:13] » Yeah.
>> So part of part of that and no
[2:18:16] preference or a is say you go back 10
years or you go back what you put this
[2:18:20] $62,000 in taxes get taken out of that.
So basically you're paying in taxes for
[2:18:28] somebody to do that. Not saying that's
the only reason not yay or nay not to do
[2:18:31] it. there's 41 members that have a
choice to do, but it's something to
[2:18:35] think about
>> where privately investing. You have
[2:18:38] other options where you
>> where you can do an IRA where you're
[2:18:41] doing on the back end if somebody had
the money, but we don't obviously do
[2:18:45] cash anymore.
>> To give you additional perspective, so
[2:18:48] if somebody puts in 20 years of service,
you guys are putting in $450 or $400 and
[2:18:54] it's matched at $400. So that's $800 a
year. You times that by 20, that's
[2:18:58] $16,000. And then they got to do taxes
on that. So they might not they might
[2:19:03] go,
you know, I don't they might not they're
[2:19:07] kind of doing the math on it and going
I'd rather is it worth it? Am I really
[2:19:11] going to get 20 years in and am I really
going to get 60? You know, they're kind
[2:19:14] of weighing risk the reward of it and
going I don't know. I think they're
[2:19:21] » I don't think anybody and also I think
nobody denies this is it's a significant
[2:19:24] gesture by a community to even consider
>> Yeah. what
[2:19:30] the these bodies have done and even
talking discussing about it talking
[2:19:33] about it but always making sure the
paper call and always making sure we
[2:19:37] have good apparatus bringing the things
in what's reasonable what you know take
[2:19:41] care of things and things like that so
there's a little bit of everything
[2:19:44] that's involved in
>> I'm just trying to give you an idea
[2:19:48] perspective of why we see so many going
55% going I don't care
[2:19:54] » are there other incentives that you
heard from staff what they what be more
[2:19:59] lucrative.
>> So when we ask, it's really funny when
[2:20:01] we ask and do the survey like what what
do you enjoy snacks? Like we literally
[2:20:05] had someone type in more snacks. And so
we do that, you know, we'll buy we'll
[2:20:09] buy snacks and have them over there.
It's funny stuff like that. It's just
[2:20:12] they like the positive environment, the
camaraderie. They really like just the
[2:20:17] work that they're doing. Like they don't
necessarily sign up for the money all
[2:20:21] the time. Um we did get some feedback
that they do like the paper call. Um,
[2:20:26] but not all of them, like not all of
them are signing up for the paper call.
[2:20:30] So, you see some going, "Yeah, that's a
great incentive. It helps." But others
[2:20:34] are saying, you know, there's other
things that they like about it. So, um,
[2:20:39] it
snacks is one that makes us laugh
[2:20:42] sometimes. So, we will bring a bag of
Twizzlers in or bags of chips and um
[2:20:47] it's little things like that. But, as
far as like
[2:20:49] » Who runs this? Who actually runs it? The
state.
[2:20:53] » Yeah, it's through the state. And then
um VFIS our insurance company helps with
[2:20:57] would we would recommend Horton our
insurance company to be the manager of
[2:21:01] it.
>> Yeah.
[2:21:02] » And the state does match.
>> Yeah.
[2:21:04] » Which is one, you know, benefit I think
to really consider
[2:21:11] » and I think they're up to $450 right
now.
[2:21:14] » It's increasing. It increases every
year.
[2:21:18] Other
[2:21:21] questions, thoughts, any
consideration whether we want to see
[2:21:26] this in the budget proposal?
>> Not to me.
[2:21:37] » I think there's other things that might
be more valuable to the staff. I I
[2:21:42] really do appreciate bringing that input
and surveying.
[2:21:46] » A dog.
>> Yeah. [laughter]
[2:21:49] Oh jeez. Here we go. We have to go back
to that and you [laughter] have to
[2:21:54] » read the room.
>> I just I ruined the road.
[2:21:59] » They're really happy with their training
prop.
[2:22:01] » What's that?
>> They're really happy with their training
[2:22:04] prop. [clears throat]
>> Yeah.
[2:22:06] » Yeah,
>> that's what we could do. We'll give the
[2:22:08] fire department the training prop.
>> Fair. [snorts] Um, so do you want to
[2:22:14] turn that into a motion to not have it?
>> Oh, just a
[2:22:18] » 2027 budget.
>> I would make a motion we don't discuss
[2:22:21] this for the 2027 budget.
>> All right. [snorts]
[2:22:24] Can I have a second on that?
>> I'll second that.
[2:22:27] » All right. Motion and second to leave
low 2027. Any further discussion?
[2:22:33] Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
>> I. Any oppose? Same sign.
[2:22:38] Motion carries. Uh so then moving on
discuss pay-per call. Um so we have
[2:22:47] I guess then some input on what might
look good for 2027. There's some
[2:22:52] effectiveness June 2025 versus you know
yearto date 2025 versus 2023. So that
[2:23:00] was also attached in our packet.
>> I know that.
[2:23:05] » Yeah. So it's kind of a mixed bag. I
mean, there's a couple people that
[2:23:08] really started responding
[clears throat] more and there's some
[2:23:11] people that responding significantly
less. I don't think it's I don't think
[2:23:16] it's a reflection of the money. I think
it's more so of kind of like when the
[2:23:21] calls are coming in, what what people's
commitments are. You know, like I'm down
[2:23:26] I'll just use myself as an example. I'm
down 3% this this winter. I spent a lot
[2:23:31] of time out of town for work, so I
missed quite a few calls that I wouldn't
[2:23:35] normally be making. Um, but everybody's
situation kind of changes a little bit.
[2:23:40] I haven't, you know, you did ask a
question about paper call on the survey,
[2:23:45] right?
>> I did. Uh, let me go back to that. Hold
[2:23:48] on.
[2:23:51] » Do you have an overall number, April?
>> An overall number of what
[2:23:57] » percentage of people that like it or
>> No, no, no.
[2:24:00] or what
>> uh I just said um
[2:24:07] do you believe it improves responder
turnout and I got 41% of people said
[2:24:12] yeah to that. So
[2:24:17] yeah, I mean they like it. So and you're
getting almost half of the department
[2:24:21] that appreciates or says that it helps
with responder turnout. [snorts] So,
[2:24:30] » okay.
>> Oh, I should think we stick with it,
[2:24:34] don't you think? Or
>> I think so.
[2:24:37] » Yes.
>> I'd make this just for discussion
[2:24:41] apparently.
>> Well, if we're not doing the LOSA, then
[2:24:44] should we increase the pay per cup?
>> Well, I don't think we only had this a
[2:24:49] year. One of the things that didn't get
into the packet that we just got it too
[2:24:53] late, it was the uh every year, I mean,
just all the fire departments in the
[2:24:58] state do the survey that tells you how
much their pay is
[2:25:03] » for different positions.
Um, we did send that to Kim and Cameron
[2:25:07] today just so they could see it for each
municipality. Um, could probably be
[2:25:12] forwarded out to all of you guys as
well, just so you guys have reference
[2:25:15] for it. But um I think we're right we're
still right in line for what everybody's
[2:25:20] doing for pay per call like
>> yeah there may be like two or three that
[2:25:24] are a lot higher which is unusual but
there's a couple that are way up there
[2:25:31] but for the most part everybody's right
around $15. So I think we're pretty
[2:25:36] standard. If we wanted to, we could
maybe go up to 17 or 18 for making the
[2:25:42] truck and then 12 or 13 for not making
the truck, but
[2:25:47] » you just made the math so much harder,
>> right? [laughter]
[2:25:51] » It's going to be so confusing for me.
Um, it might be easier to change it by
[2:25:55] fives. [laughter]
>> Um,
[2:25:59] you know, seeing the feedback from the
staff, I don't I don't know if it's
[2:26:03] necessary in the first year. I almost
would like to see a full year's worth of
[2:26:07] data to see the difference and see see
the numbers and then do this survey
[2:26:12] again. We do this survey every year with
our staff and kind of see where they're
[2:26:16] at and what they want and how they're
feeling about the department and the
[2:26:19] district and um what we actually need to
do as leadership too to make staff um
[2:26:25] feel happy about the culture and the
policies and the procedures and we get a
[2:26:29] lot of really good feedback from them um
on what changes we need to make too. So,
[2:26:34] um I think it, you know, they might
listen to this and be like, gosh darn
[2:26:39] it, April. But, um it it might be
helpful for us data wise to see where
[2:26:45] we're at next year. But, um if you guys
are inclined to say no, we as a board
[2:26:51] want to increase it, we're not going to
stop you either. So, um I I don't know.
[2:26:57] Do you have anything
>> or snacks?
[2:26:59] [laughter]
>> Yeah. No, that'll be the next thing be
[2:27:01] What types of snacks? I mean you you
start going thing but that's honestly
[2:27:04] that's been a cheto. That's something
you can take that's something that
[2:27:08] that's an easy button right so you can
we as leaders then the board is a
[2:27:13] separate side of the operation side
that's something we can throw minimal a
[2:27:17] nominal amount of money at and just take
care of them right so it's these other
[2:27:22] things that go like that but I I would I
would tend to agree that I would
[2:27:26] publicly say absolutely not don't do it
um you know I'd like to see if it it is
[2:27:32] is it making
from your perspective I if I was asking
[2:27:36] I'd be like, "What is your intent? What
is our intent of the of the paper call?
[2:27:41] And is it is it doing what
our what we expected it to do in in the
[2:27:48] short time that we've done that? I don't
know that we have an answer for it." I
[2:27:51] think even the staff not doesn't
necessarily know it quite yet.
[2:27:54] » One of the biggest goals was for
recruitment and retention. Like that's
[2:27:58] ideally 100% what it was for is for us
to pull in a draw of staff and
[2:28:04] advertise, hey look, we we pay you to
respond to calls and try to draw in more
[2:28:09] staff. Um not necessarily so much for
turnout on getting people to come to
[2:28:14] calls because we do okay with that. It's
more of generating uh you know more
[2:28:20] volunteer staff to join the department.
>> Not that we're necessarily doing bad
[2:28:24] with that either because we're okay.
We're pretty steady, but if we can get
[2:28:28] more volunteers and build up to our
number 50, that never hurts. So,
[2:28:35] » yeah, JP and then Steve and I had
something too.
[2:28:38] » So, I know in the last meeting you
mentioned that we were wrapping up
[2:28:41] quarter two. Yep.
>> Um, so just out of curiosity, have you
[2:28:44] had a chance to kind of look at where we
are budgetwise? Are we staying kind of
[2:28:48] in the allocation? Yeah,
>> I know that's like it was a moving
[2:28:52] target first time doing it. So,
>> we weren't we were curious as to how it
[2:28:56] was going to go and we used uh 2025's
and 2024's data to kind of estimate what
[2:29:02] our call numbers were going to be and
build out what our budget was going to
[2:29:05] be for 2026 pay for a call and we're
pretty much right on. Um even knowing
[2:29:11] that we're just a tad higher for call
responses. Um the staffing turnout is
[2:29:17] very similar for 2024 and 2025 as it is
in 2026. So that actually helps with our
[2:29:24] calculations to kind of work out where
right where we need it to be. So um
[2:29:30] quarter one was uh I don't know if you
want me to say it. Um I'll just say it.
[2:29:34] Uh 17,420. Quarter 2 was 18,120. So, if
we stay right in those numbers, we're
[2:29:42] going to be right around probably
[2:29:47] » 65 70 72ish
>> 74,
[2:29:50] » which is I believe right around right
where we budgeted for because we're
[2:29:55] [clears throat] including just so you
know, we're including training, Sunday
[2:29:59] duty, and pay-per call all within that
number. So, that's not just pay-per-
[2:30:04] call in that number. That includes our
training budget, our um Sunday duty
[2:30:08] budget, and our incident response. So,
we're paying out every quarter all three
[2:30:14] of those items.
So, if you look at in our budget, I our
[2:30:18] line budget
um the amounts that we have for those
[2:30:22] three things and add those up, which I
don't have that in front of me right
[2:30:26] now.
>> How about we talk about it at budget
[2:30:29] time? Yeah,
>> will likely come under
[2:30:34] Um I did have one question about the
Pleasant Springs contract says fee shall
[2:30:39] first be applied to the operational
expenses incurred by the department to
[2:30:42] provide services to the if we respond to
Pleasant Springs. Does it come out of
[2:30:46] the Pleasant Springs fund or does it
come out of the regular?
[2:30:50] » No, it's primarily Pleasant Springs is
allocated towards capital funds. So, we
[2:30:57] have to be really careful and we kind of
pay attention to what we request
[2:31:02] Pleasant Springs funds for because the
Pleasant Springs funds portion of that
[2:31:06] is 2% dues funds from Pleasant Springs.
So, we kind of know that's what Pleasant
[2:31:10] Springs is doing with those funds. So,
that means that those funds can really
[2:31:14] only be spent on certain items, which is
um fire apparatus, public education,
[2:31:20] fire inspections, and LOSA if we were
ever going to buy LOSA. And that's only
[2:31:25] to that's typically to help make sure
that those funds are properly spent to
[2:31:30] assist Pleasant Springs during audit
time.
[2:31:33] » Okay. Yeah. Because it that's good to
figure out what the definition of the
[2:31:38] operational expenses incurred by the
department to provide services to the
[2:31:42] residents of town of Pleasant Springs
pursuant the PS contract and then any
[2:31:46] remaining fees shall be applied toward
capital expenses. So that was I just
[2:31:50] wasn't sure what
>> so we know as a department that th
[2:31:54] that's how Pleasant Springs uses or
allocates those funds and gives them
[2:31:59] puts them aside and how they're using
their 2% use funds. Um and that they're
[2:32:05] using those 2% dues funds to help fund
that contract so then when the
[2:32:10] department is audited that
[clears throat] those funds are properly
[2:32:14] spent a certain way.
>> Okay. Yeah. I was reading the agreement
[2:32:17] trying to figure out what exactly that
meant. So um so uh if there are
[2:32:23] adjustments I know it's costs more to
live and recognizing that you know if we
[2:32:29] think that there should be some kind of
cost of living adjustment because we
[2:32:32] recognize the sacrifice that the
firefighters are taking away from you
[2:32:37] know their lives and it's more expensive
to live to hire a you know babysitter if
[2:32:40] you have to have someone come watch your
kids or you have to be away from your
[2:32:43] job.
um if I would support that if it comes
[2:32:47] forward in the budget um to to do an
adjustment in the pay um I would
[2:32:53] understand that. But if we want to keep
going with more data and
[2:32:59] so I guess that's just my I thought we
don't have where it's not consideration
[2:33:04] tonight. It's just kind of update and
>> you can talk with the chief and show hey
[2:33:08] here's what I'm doing with the budget,
>> right? Yeah. Yeah. So that'll be coming
[2:33:12] in budget to continue the program.
>> I appreciate the feedback on the staff.
[2:33:19] » Does the budget come to this committee
next month or September?
[2:33:23] » September, I thought.
>> Yeah.
[2:33:26] Yep. September.
Um any other
[2:33:30] comments, thoughts on paper call?
[2:33:36] » Okay. Item 11, discuss and consider
commission meeting location remaining at
[2:33:40] town hall or switching to ESB. This was
brought up to me last month. Um, see if
[2:33:45] we want to
uh consider that
[2:33:49] » fourth Monday EMS,
>> right? Training. So, it might
[2:33:54] it works out to just stay here and we
don't want to
[2:33:59] spend the first Monday.
>> What's that? I don't know. I I do know
[2:34:02] it's Monday. [laughter]
[2:34:06] I mean, we have some months that we
don't have fourth Monday training, but
[2:34:09] it's the months you wouldn't want to
have a meeting on a fourth Monday
[2:34:12] either.
>> Yeah, we're not
[2:34:14] » December and May.
Fourth Monday is always
[2:34:22] » This is item 11.
>> Yep. Item 11.
[2:34:26] we could just not take any action and
it'll stay here or um if someone's
[2:34:30] inclined to
>> motion to keep it at the town because of
[2:34:33] the fact that the fourth Monday is EMS
training at DEES.
[2:34:37] » Second
>> motion and second um to keep our
[2:34:41] meetings here at town hall. Thank you
for hosting us by the way.
[2:34:44] » Yeah.
>> Um any further discussion on that item?
[2:34:49] Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
I.
[2:34:52] » Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion
carries. Um item 12, discuss and
[2:34:57] consider moving the September meeting to
Wednesday, September 30th, 2026 or other
[2:35:02] date that week. I have a conflict on the
28th. So I was hoping that I could still
[2:35:07] be part of the budget conversation and
that you might consider rescheduling the
[2:35:13] September meeting so I can still be part
of that. Otherwise, I would send my
[2:35:16] alternate
>> a quarter. [laughter]
[2:35:17] » It'll cost me a quarter. I I could make
cookies and bring them over. I'll turn
[2:35:22] [laughter]
[clears throat]
[2:35:25] » keep the quarter. I'll take the cookies.
[2:35:32] » It's the fifth Wednesday, so there
shouldn't be a different regularly
[2:35:36] scheduled um meeting from either
municipality, but I don't know. It's
[2:35:41] » okay by me.
>> Yeah.
[2:35:43] » What date? That's Wednesday.
>> Wednesday the 30th. Um,
[2:35:49] I wouldn't be done with work until 7
that night. Anything,
[2:35:55] Lori? I mean,
>> no. I mean, it's not a there's no other
[2:35:59] meetings at night. If we wanted to go
back to a 7 o'clock meeting
[2:36:03] » and I'll start I can um I'll join Zoom
until I get here.
[2:36:08] » Yeah, we have just it takes a little bit
to get through the first few items now.
[2:36:12] And importantly, of course, is is that a
night that
[2:36:17] all of you would be available?
>> Yes.
[2:36:23] » All right. Thank you so much for
accommodating that.
[2:36:26] » Make a motion.
>> Uh, yes, please
[2:36:28] » make a motion to move
>> September
[2:36:33] meeting to the 30th
>> at 7 p.m.
[2:36:38] » 7 p.m. Second. Second.
>> Motion. Second to move September
[2:36:41] meeting. Thank you so much for
accommodating that. I really appreciate
[2:36:44] it. Um all those in favor or any further
discussion.
[2:36:48] » All those in favor say I. I.
>> I. Any opposed?
[2:36:52] » Any abstain? Motion carries. Um then we
have one other item. Our October meeting
[2:36:57] falls on the village board budget
workshop.
[2:37:01] uh is if we can always talk about this
later if you don't have October
[2:37:06] meetings, but uh I wanted to bring that
up earlier rather than later. If
[2:37:12] you might consider moving October, I
mean we could also
[2:37:19] if if there's nothing I don't know if
there's we would have already talked
[2:37:22] about our budget.
[2:37:28] » What's the Tuesday the 27th?
You would have training on Tuesday the
[2:37:33] 27th. Is that
>> Oh,
[2:37:36] » would you have training on the 26th?
[clears throat]
[2:37:44] » Yeah. Tuesday the 27th created.
>> Okay.
[2:37:49] Fourth Wednesday
commission, right?
[2:37:53] » What about Tuesday the 20th,
the week before? So nobody trading me.
[2:38:01] » Oh yeah.
Um Wednesday the 21st.
[2:38:04] » Thursday the 29th.
>> Huh?
[2:38:06] » Oh yeah. That's the fifth Thursday. So
>> Thursday the 29th.
[2:38:10] » No 21st. You're in October.
>> On Wednesday the 21st.
[2:38:15] » I have a library board meeting.
>> I have another meeting.
[2:38:20] » Third Wednesday.
>> Yep.
[2:38:23] » On the third Wednesday the 21st. Yeah.
21st. What about 29th?
[2:38:29] » 29th.
>> It's a Thursday.
[2:38:32] » Thursday.
>> You come dressed for Halloween.
[2:38:37] [laughter]
>> Themed themed night.
[2:38:40] » Theme night. Theme night.
>> Halloween theme night.
[2:38:42] » Firefighter.
>> I can do it. Just dress in soccer.
[2:38:50] » So, October 29th
>> at 6:30.
[2:38:54] » Yes.
>> Yes, please.
[2:38:55] » Is that a Thursday? Yes. I don't like
Thursdays.
[2:38:59] » That's okay though.
>> I don't like Mondays. [laughter]
[2:39:04] » Is there any possibility?
>> I didn't mean to scare you guys at 6
[2:39:07] that night or no.
>> Or you're coming in coaching gears.
[2:39:12] » I I would prefer six, but I can make six
work. It's fine. So, whatever this I'll
[2:39:17] make whatever the
>> whatever the group consensus is.
[2:39:20] » Okay. All right.
>> Six.
[2:39:23] » Life is good.
>> Come dressed with Halloween treats.
[2:39:26] All right. So, um I'd make the motion
then to move October's meeting to
[2:39:31] Thursday the 29th at 6 PM.
>> Okay.
[2:39:36] » That's six.
>> Yes, sir. Six.
[2:39:40] » I'll second it.
>> Okay. Motion second. Um on October's
[2:39:44] meeting. Any further discussion on that?
Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
[2:39:48] » I. Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion
carries. Um our next meeting date then
[2:39:53] August. If we flip back a little bit,
it's August 24th,
[2:39:58] Monday night at 6:30 p.m.
[2:40:03] and uh we have
[2:40:11] building maintenance. We can talk about
if something we have the plumbing
[2:40:16] maintenance item.
>> We have results of the rotorooer job
[2:40:20] item, [laughter]
>> right?
[2:40:22] Do you have other items that you can
think of right now? Otherwise, let me
[2:40:26] know as we come up. Anyone else have any
other items for
[2:40:31] » That was the 24th for August.
>> Yep. August 24th. Our regular 4th
[2:40:36] Monday.
Um I would that says discuss and
[2:40:40] consider also. I move that we meet
August 24th uh at 6:30 p.m. We have our
[2:40:48] agenda items.
Any second?
[2:40:54] » Okay, motion second. Uh, any further
discussion? Hear none. All those in
[2:40:58] favor say I. I.
>> Any opposed? Stain. Motion carries.
[2:41:03] » And finally, item 15.
[2:41:09] » Second. [laughter]
>> Motion. Second. Non debatable.
[2:41:12] » All those in favor say I. I.
[2:41:18] is
>> 911.
[2:41:19] » 91.
>> Are we out?
[2:41:21] » We are done.
>> Anybody want to go for breakfast?
[2:41:26] [laughter] Anybody?
>> Oh, you would. Yeah, sure.
[2:41:29] We start in that feeling.