You might want to tell >> today's date is January 28, 2026 p.m. Stand to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God indivisible
with liberty and justice for all. Presid or amending the agenda to approve the agenda. All in favor? request to approve the minutes for the January 1426 questions. The first one
that appeared as a donation through us to go to them. So, it's we're the pass through. >> Okay. >> 2,000 came to us and then we're going to turn around and get a check because they don't have a number. So they gave it to
us to pass off to them. >> Okay. >> We closed on that and that was the final work on selling the ball field to the school. half of those expenses. We made an agreement with this
uh school that half the expenses >> they would pay half and we would pay half. >> It was on the whole closing. >> All the paperwork didn't get uh finalized until and his bills are a month behind. So
from December valve water But because of the proximity and the house shut off. >> We do that every quarter. get 80% of the fee and we keep 20
because they are the ones that do our building permitting process. So we pay them quarterly. >> Metro sales maintenance. That's not part of the >> scanning. >> We had the the hand the handwritten
>> from history was all scanned. So in case to the handwritten leather bone manuals. We have a copy of it. >> Okay. So, the copy for Wells Fargo, what was that? >> Sorry, that that is the copier. >> The monthly what he was speaking with.
It sounded like it was from Metro Sales because >> it goes to >> Good evening, Bob. Can you hear us? >> We can. Mayor, thank you. >> I'll make a motion to approve bills. agenda
business the ambulance committee appointee. So I talked to the board president. There's really a minimum one meeting a year that needs to be attended. If you feel so inclined,
you can attend their monthly meetings. But really he wasn't quite exactly sure what Yes. EDA community members met There's insurance and I have Joint Power Truck Association agreement.
>> Yeah. So, seems like there's a little bit of back and forth. I guess I'm not sure from what I understand it's back with their attorney. I guess I'm honestly not sure why. >> Bob, I'm sure
he he emailed it to me to give to Bob. You got anything on that fire powers agreement? Bob? >> Yeah. So, mayor and council, uh, you can all hear me. Okay. I can't I'm having a hard time telling. Yeah,
you can hear. >> Okay. Well, so um so I I would say since the fall of 2025 when we've kind of gone through all of the various provisions of the agreement,
u things have changed, right? So the association fire association has hired a lawyer, Bob Rupy, who u is somebody I work with all the time. He represents townships. represent cities. So, he and I work
together all the time. So, that's a great step forward, I think, for the association group. Um, he's presented a new agreement to us that I've reviewed and I've sent back comments to him and
he's changed the agreement for my comments. Uh, and so now we have in front of us a new agreement that he's produced that kind of I think closer to something we could accept and I presented to you some comments or some
questions about provision in that agreement. So I'm not sure mayor how you want to go through that but I mean that's kind of where we are is there are several sort of policy decisions to make in the agreement about voting rights and
you know what what authority Goodwill will have over budget decisions etc. So, you know, I'm open to talking through all those how you want to talk through those, but that's that's kind of where we are.
So, I guess one of the big things obviously looking at this that I am not in favor of 2.2 governed official each governing body
previously. So I think that one aspect that I would really like to see Correct. Correct. Historically, as long as Yes. >> Correct. I think we need to
Correct. >> In talking to the other members, I think the other members are also is that is that is that a suggestion we want to take >> I'm I'm not sure I I'm sorry I'm not sure I'm following what you know
let me let me summarize if I can I mean just to to try to expedite the the concern I've raised in my comments in the red line my document you guys have seen. I mean my my concern is just that um
if good is expected to contribute roughly I mean this is obviously roughly 23 24 25% toward the purchase of anything or any budget issue that comes forward. So the
city would be you know kind of a roughly a quarter a contributor to the budget or the purchase entity. Um, should the city have more control over the organization? I mean, that's
fundamentally the question I've presented. So, I I'm totally I I don't know where you want to come down on that, but just getting feedback on that issue does good to you think that if you're going to contribute 25ish%
to the group, should you have more control than one of 10 or 11 I'm not sure how many I haven't counted accurately the number of organizations in the group but should you have more control than one out of 10
I mean so fundamentally that's a question I think I presented >> but I understand that but at the same token um if you look at it fundamentally That's not always how it works. Even if
you are a taxes in the United States, the state of California doesn't get more representative in the Senate than anyone else equally. It's two universally no matter if you're Rhode Island or no
matter if you're California or South Dakota. And that's the philosophy of theology that has this and in the joint powers agreement also
I don't think you're going to get any of the other entities involved to agree to that >> and just to add that I mean at the end of the day the only way to solve that problem or if it is a
problem issue is to do a because it's not just good. There's other contributors that are pretty high as well. >> Hey Creek, you got
15. You could do we talked about this the last time it's called the 10 at large votes that would be distributed like the top threeardless
of that you still would Right. And it's not that good%. But there's still other not the bill entirely. But I do see the point of yeah >> yeah that's not that's just Mayor if I mayor
may speak >> yeah so under 4.3 of the proposed agreement uh which relates to purchase of equipment and I think that's probably the most important provision right because I
think there's some belief that maybe the the fire department needs a new truck at some point. A new truck would cost a million dollars probably. Um if that's if that's true, um you know,
4.3 says whatever percentage you pays, which is roughly 25 23 2, you know, whatever the number is, 23% um that can be approved by seven of 10
member communities whether good you agrees to it or not. That's that's what that's what it says. So >> you could also say that would have to pay
to pay 181. >> True. There would be negative there would be negative there would be financial consequences to all of members. No question. But as the formula is set up good bears the most, you know,
good hu is is proposed to be the largest contributor. I mean that's I mean that's that's what's >> as a result then you say the final say on everything because that's not that's not an association. >> No I'm not I'm not I'm not saying what
you should decide at all. I mean that's entirely up to you. I mean it's up to you what you should decide of course. >> So >> the biggest thing that I look at is if you look at history
it's not like they just show up to this meeting and they're like, "We decided we're going to buy a pumper truck. Uh, here's the one option we have. We haven't ever talked about this and it's $1.2 million. I think we should buy it." It's always been historically that it's been years and
years and years down the line in prepend. So, it's never a sudden surprise. when they got the new bumper truck, again, that was a three or four year lead up to purchasing the truck that
they were talking about. We need we need to age out this older bumper and get a new one. And so, you know, that's why it's important to attend these meetings and to be involved in the association to then make our own
organization aware of it so that we can be swirling away our money so that when it comes time to make these purchases, we don't have to bond. We don't have to bond for our payment. We can face the
problem head. Um, so I agree that, you know, yes, it' be nice to have a final say, but that's just not how it works. 4.2 ownership of property ownership.
Correct. They may never see that. >> The problem is you think it's a Chester Township, the smallest township that we have within our association.
Last numbers I remember there was 10 to 12 homes >> in the in there. So yeah, we're giving a 3% ownership to a township of 11 homes. But at the same time, you look at it,
they only 3% ownership. The likelihood of those 11 homes ever having that equipment being used on them is astronomically small in comparison to good or township or township where you
have an entire township within the organization. So >> yeah, but but mayor and council, I mean, just to be clear, with respect, council member, you're agreeing, if you were to agree that proposed agreement in front of you, you're agreeing that a township
with three residents with homes served by this fire association. That township has equal authority over the expenditure of your resident's money that you do. That's
what this agreement says. So you are agreeing that a township and I've already said it that makes I've never seen that. Literally never seen that that you would have a a 10 township and
city agreement where a township with three residents has as much control over the expenditure of a million dollars for a new fire truck as a city. many many many residents served by the same fire
associate. I've never seen that before. So, I don't make policy decisions. I write agreements, but I've not seen that before. >> Have you ever had an agreement that was copy and pasted between three different associations exactly the same word for
word with no changes? >> Never. No. Never seen that. Prove my point right there. What what point does that prove? >> That no agreement is the exact same. Just because you've never seen it doesn't make it wrong.
>> No, you're absolutely right. I agree. >> We're also very unique of a city and area. There's not many small town schools left. Thank goodness. But our community and the surrounding area sticks behind it real well. We can do
the same perfect% ownership, but that's not perfect. I think the only for especially $20,000. So you're is saying that the problem is
is you could have a truck that is falling apart and we say some one person there can show up and say I don't want to do it and they can be the whole hold up and you can ask them why they just don't feel like it. So you also have that problem where you
can't meet shown up. So if we had a unanimous vote right there that vote concern is the committee Everybody is
pushing 45% where We're not the only top% top three middle equipos
20 That's the only question. >> I have a question. What's the um intent at this point with getting this and they're looking at it? What's the Was it a here it is, we'll
negotiate, or was it a here it is, this is the way it is? Did you get a feel from their lawyer with this version? >> Sorry, Lisa, you're I think you're aiming at me. Yeah. No, good. Um, I
don't I don't know what um I I don't I don't know what the direction is to me. Yeah, I'm not sure. >> I guess I would go uh whoever their attorney is if you want to reach out to them and ask them what they're what they
wanted out of this. Like I said, I think the only thing that we see is going from 10 members back up to the 20 like it was and has been and then changing all the verbage in there from six out of 10 to, you know,
12 out of 20 and seven out of 10 to 14 out of 20. >> I'm I'm sorry, mayor. I'm I'm sorry. I I don't know what you're talking about. >> I'm So in 2.2 it talks about the
10 members, right? The board members 10. >> Yeah. >> So but so that's there are 10 member communities, right? There are eight townships and two cities. Those are the members. >> So that's 10 members, >> right? >> Eight townships and 10 two cities.
>> Correct. And we've always we've always had two per town or community. And now it's showing as only one. That's where it comes into the 10. 2.2A. It says the governing body of each
member shall name one elected or appointed official of its governing body to serve as a board member. We're wanting to change that to the governing body of each member shall name two elected or appointed officials of its governing body to serve as a board
member. Is this the right step to do to to work it this way? They give you the the suggestion suggested edits. Is that what they want from us? >> I I I I'm not sure. I don't I don't
know. I don't know. >> I I don't know the best way to proceed here. I mean, so the association >> I've tried to I've tried narrow down the issues that we would have. It appears that council members have
other issues other than what I've identified. I'm not, you know, so that's great. >> No, we're we're good. We'll we're going to we're going to hold off on this and then Michael will bring it to the meeting on Friday.
So we'll joint powers agreement >> all right. So, next thing on the snow ordinance ticket. >> Yeah. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is
and I appreciate the opportunity this evening to speak. I'm here regarding a parking citation I received on December 10th at 12:50 a.m. The ticket was issued while my vehicle was parked on the street outside my place of employment here in Good Hugh. As many of you know,
I work as a bartender in town and on that evening, I was actively working during normal business hours. Due to the cold temperatures that night, I parked out front of the bar while I was inside finishing my shift and completing my closing duties, including cleaning the bar. I did not leave the premises, and
the establishment was still open at the time the ticket was issued. This occurred before 1:00 a.m., which is still within standard operating hours for local businesses. I understand and respect the purpose of parking regulations, and I'm not here to dispute the need for enforcement. However, I do
believe the timing in this instance is unfair and creates unintended consequences for both employees and customers. Ticketing during active business hours places an undue burden on those of us who work late shifts as well as patrons
who may still be arriving at the establishments prior to closing time. This situation not only affected me, but it also has the potential to neg negatively impact local businesses by discouraging customers from coming downtown during evening hours if they
are concerned about receiving a ticket while businesses are still open. With that in mind, I respectfully ask the council to consider adjusting the off street parking enforcement time for the city of good to begin after 2 a.m. This small change would better align
enforcement with business support local workers and businesses and still allow for effective parking management. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Just shut it off before it starts beeping. That's all.
All right. Next is the facade program application for >> this is So what it is is you go up and speak and talk about it and then you kind of plead your case. We don't discuss it.
>> So we discuss it >> at the work meeting. Um, but if you go back and look at the minutes from the last meeting, you'll see that things were changed. >> Just I'll take a minute. So, Jeremiah being here, we uh Sarah and I own the
Second Street Pub. Um, we we try to our best keeping the sidewalks clean, make keep everybody safe. U we do have a lot of people that park in that area that that really aren't supposed to be parking there and so that takes up a lot
of spots for our business. Um but we do drive by in the early hours and I do I brought a couple photos with me of vehicles that that clearly have snow around them and there was no tickets to be found. So I just feel like if we're
going to be, you know, targeting one person, maybe we should do it to all of them. So, and that I'll just leave this with you. >> Okay, so Kyle is reopening the hardware store is replacing
the signing. So the whole thing00 >> starts actually last So yeah, very exciting. I see that he was talking. >> Yeah, I thought they were too. I thought
they were in black. That look like the You know, they look like >> Yeah, I think that's what they steel. >> See, I think they're steel shingles. >> I can ask
sh I think it could be shingles. I don't think it could be like >> this is a business. Yeah, he's got >> Let me see. I got the metal roof or >> Central States Horizon block
26 gauge. But still looking at The roof itself. So this is what according to central >> it doesn't even look like >> we can't allow steel shingles anymore
and we can't allow steel anymore. Exactly. >> Which build? >> There's no difference. resial commercial >> and so problem is we've set a double standard. We have told resowed it in other spots and in a resial
location that I know of >> since this ordinance. >> Oh yeah, this ordinance is 2003 2023, excuse me. >> Okay. So are you talking about >> 24? You talking about fertilizer plant
the extension that they just put on ago were they push out their storage and change a loading station and all that >> that I mean it's all within the city of good which falls underneath this.
>> He's running the business. >> I agree. and we're not going to go down there. >> So, how do we solve the problem? >> As far as I'm concerned, what says falls within
I just started >> Yeah. So I thought what this issue related to was a economic development authority EDA authority loan. >> No loan. >> What is what is this rel it's our facade
grant program? >> Okay. And that's an EDA grant program, not a city council grant program, right? >> Well, we talked about the city. >> The city is the one that pays the money. >> The issue del.
>> Well, cities don't have authority to grant these kind of loans. So, it's an EDA program, >> right? It's it's EA program. It's not it's not a loan. It's just what the the the city does to been doing it for
a long time that we pay business owners for improving their facade and help them with covering the cost. So there's no loan. You're not paying your EDA. Your EDA does that. That's why you have an EDA. You have an
EDA to allow you to do those kind of programs. >> This body that's meeting right now tonight is not the EDA. So I'm not sure why we're talking about that. >> All right. So, um, I mean, acting mayor, I mean, not acting
mayor, mayor, mayor. I mean, you're the mayor. Uh, EDAs have authorities that cities don't have. And and so the the EDA has the authority to give sad grants that the city council doesn't have. This is not
an EDA meeting, so we shouldn't be talking about >> I don't think we're talking about the money. We're just talking >> a >> but here's a question going forward since we're no longer having the EA as a
normal part of the city. Do we have to eliminate the facade? >> No, you just have the EDA board that meets prior to the city. >> Oh, I see. >> They discuss anything and then you close that meeting and you city
no big deal. >> All true. Okay. >> Yeah. It's perfectly fine for the the city council members, the five city perfectly fine for the five members of the city council to be the EDA. That's
fine. But we have EDA to make EDA decisions. That's all. That's all I'm saying. >> I have a board is already approved. So, it's it's done. We're just going to cross that off the thing because
>> you would have to move forward. >> It would have to move forward. >> We're not discussing this. So, >> um All right. So, you want to go back to the joint? >> Yeah. So, I wanted since there seems to be we're not on the same page here. So,
was your expectation that we would go through Okay. You put a comment. You put you put a comment in 2.6. Is your expectation that we should be discussing right now. >> Um, yeah, I appreciate that question. I
appreciate that question, council member. I mean, you know, all of my comments basically boil down to >> given that good has asked to contribute a lot of money toward this organization, how much control
should you have over the organization? So, yes, I would like to In my perfect world, which doesn't ever exist, um I would like to hear you debate discuss how much control you should have when
you're contributing 25%. That that that fundamentality to me is the question. Yeah. >> Okay. So, let's step through them. So, regardless of what our contribution is, you made a comment. So, >> yeah.
Let's just say it's whatever. So not in your estimation. >> No, I mean that that's a policy question. I mean that goes to so the board, right? The board is going to be the group that gets together to decide
how the the association the fire group acts on a dayto-day manner and and you know that will be apparently council member Bron course initially right is your appointed representative um is it okay if six members of you know
I mean look the bottom line is that there are seven eight townships that get together to talk about these things and two cities, right? US and Bchester. Uh, and is it okay that they can take action without either city being
present? That's what this says. It says that the cities don't have to be present to decide everything can be decided without the city being present. Is that okay? I I wouldn't think that would be okay, but that's me copy. That's up to you.
>> So, would an alternative be members with some verbage around the two cities have to be present. >> Yeah. I don't I don't I don't I mean I I don't want to presuppose what you expect to be the case but I mean these are big
financial decisions that are being made right theory. So uh do you want to have to be present or not? I I can craft language to change these things if the view is look we're we're
contributing just under 25% of the money here. And if that's the case, we need to be on board with what's going on. If that's all you said to me was we want to be on board with everything that's decided given that we're contributing a
quarter of the money here, I can I can do that. I can just craft when I say that, but I haven't ever heard that from you. So, I'm not, you know, I'm not gonna push back against the lawyer for the association saying that we have to have that unless you tell me that's what
you have to have. But that that's fundamentally what we're talking that there are many provisions here that say you could be boxed out. You could be, you know, seven out of 10 members means that you don't have to vote for something and you'd have to obligated to
pay for it. That's many say that many say if a million dollar fire truck gets built and they want to do it, you have to pay a quarter whether you want it or not. So I don't know if you want to accept
that or not. So that's one Yeah. So, I think that's what Bob's question is, right? >> Yes. Yeah. We're fine with everything in here. >> The only thing that we said was that instead of having one member from each
community, we want two members from each community like it was and we wanted to move forward with that. So everything else is good. We just want >> Well, so mayor mayor talk me through that. So if
every every community there are 10 there are two cities and eight townships. If every community can appoint two members, then every meeting of the board, the the group that gets together that talks
about the stuff is going to be a 20 person meeting. Is that feasible? >> That's how it that's how it has been for >> oh 90s since >> that's why we were kind of confused on
why it got changed to 10. Each community had two people present for the meetings and were voting members. >> Was that a change from their lawyer? >> Yes. >> The two down to one?
>> Yes. >> Not not >> well historically good has never sent any members to a meeting. So >> no. Okay. Go ahead. >> Incorrect. >> Tell educate me. Yeah. >> Um, previous to me it was Joe Benda.
>> Previous to Joe Benda it was Jason Tum. >> And previous to that I don't have recollection to who it was. >> Whether or not those people attended the meeting or not was not up to my discretion, but I know that someone was appointed to the association to attend
the meetings. >> Okay. But look, members. Look, this body, this fire group deciding what to buy and how to provide fire services and deciding who to hire
the fire fighters. This group has to be able to make decisions. You are saying now that you want there to be two members from every community.
That will be a 20 member board. Correct. >> So the 20 member board will have to get together to decide whether to hire a firefighter or buy a new, you know, ra
that's >> Yep. So it's always been >> I guess I'm confused why you're confused that that's confusing. >> Well, I've been told in the past that good had
not appeared at multiple fire association meetings at all with any representative and then you council member Ror started to appear uh which is great but for some period of
time the city had no representation whatsoever and now you're asking for every community all 10 to have two representatives appear That seems like quite a dramatic change from the way this has operated which is
that very few people have appeared apparently historically right very few representatives can appear at these meetings but now you're demanding that 20 human beings here in make any decision about this group that's not
going to happen right I mean historically that hasn't happened that isn't the way it's worked So, I'm trying to figure out how this is going to work. I'm happy to write in here that everybody has to send two representatives to a meeting, but that's
never happened. Historically, that's never happened once ever. So, how is that going to work? So, normal meetings, not everybody has to go. No, the fire association, the fire truck
association, there's only ever one annual meeting annual meeting >> and that's the one >> and that's the one up here. Um, I'll be honest, you're right. Not everyone shows up. That's that's why a quorum is consisted of 610
or 128 is because you're right, not everyone does show up. But at the same time, that's also why we can't have a unanimous vote on anything. It's for that reason. But it's also in
my discretion that I was elected by the people of good to serve for the people of good. So, it's my duty and obligation to show up to best represent them. Whether or not that happened in the past is the past. It's water under the
bridge. That cannot change. I can only go forward and continue to show up to this meeting to voice my opinion that I have for the city of good you and its vested interests. So whether it be strange to you or not.
Okay. But it doesn't change the fact that that's what I and several of the other members neighboring communities and townships have not agreed but expressed
>> in this the current that we're working on two representatives from each township >> for the association for the It's not like it happens every month >> the uh the So I appreciate that council
and I I would like to simplify the agreement. to actually match what we do like how this works. I I've made this comment already to the I mean I should have said at the outset. So Bob Ruby the working
association is somebody I know well. He's a good lawyer. We work together a lot. Um I so that's that's enough said. I mean he's he's he's a good guy. Um we're trying to work this out in a way
that makes sense for all the I believe totally consistent council member Bre what you said that the more we can simplify this agreement because look at the end of the day in five years or 10 years from now if there's a disagreement
the court will decide who gets what unfortunately and they're going to just read the agreement right so the agreement just has to be correct it just has to say what the deal is I like very much for the agreement to say in a very
simple way what the agreement is and I think Bob Ruby for the association would like that too. So I think our goals his goal as a lawyer for the association my goal for good you are the same just make this simple but what you just said
council member Bron course is not simple and that's not a simple thing what you just said which is we just kind of work it out at meetings and we just sort of okay fine but how do we write that down in an agreement the fact of the matter
is as I understand it the association want to buy a very expensive piece of equipment in the near future. So we are faced city of good with the question how much are we going to pay
for that piece of equipment a new truck whatever it is and what control do we have over use of it that's a very important question for good you and as I sit here now I don't know enough those
question. I I don't know what a fire group wants to buy. I I don't know how much money we're I don't know any of that stuff, right? I mean, no one's told me any of that. So, but I'm led to believe that that could happen. So, I'm trying here on behalf of Good You, my
client, to prevent a situation where we are obligated to buy a quarter of something that we don't think is necessary. Right? That's all I'm trying to do. So help me do that. That's all I'm
asking you to do is help me protect good and the taxpayers of video from buying something that's not needed for video. That's the goal here. I just kind of >> we keep spinning the wheels keep getting
spun at the same section and I feel like not everyone's wheels are spinning at the same spot. >> I was one said % didn't seem like enough. We spent four months talking about this brought up
and >> that's what we wanted. We wanted them to get an attorney so our attorneys could work together. >> Yeah. And mayor, I would say that it's been very successful. Their their hiring of an attorney has made the language
much clearer. It's it's sort of synthesized the issues I'm laying out here much better. So, I think that's been great. You know, to the extent that the city council wants to on these terms. The
terms are relatively clear >> and I think that's what we want to do is move forward with these terms with the exception of going to two members per community. If you take that back to their attorney
and say, "Hey, they're proposing two members per community. and then change the verbage. >> I assume that the point that Janine brought up about the exhibit not being there is going to be put in. I I don't know where that was.
That's probably the percentages. I'm assuming >> it just wasn't in there. So that would be another change. Is it that example that wasn't included? >> Yes. To the same round about numbers. >> Um
No way church. >> Then the percent So, >> so move forward with everything. Everything looks good. Just bring it up with their We would like two people per community.
>> All right, moving on to public works comments. snow. How we doing? I heard it was deep. >> Hey Bob. >> Yes. You can hop off if you can hop off if you want. I think
we're good with you now. >> Very good. Thank you, Mayor. >> All right. Thanks. Have a good weekend. We didn't do we didn't do an acting because there wasn't a full it wasn't a full council at the beginning of January.
You could certainly do it or if you want to wait until the next >> one just want to make sure we get it on it somewhere. >> You don't want to show up to a meeting without Chris's working out for
I mean I'll definitely put on the next >> I have it because I was waiting until we had a full council. >> Okay, perfect. We discussed >> he asked that he would be or could be or
wanted to be. I don't know what words he used. >> He actually said he would prefer it. The only thing that would be kind of and I don't know I'm just bringing this up when they are separated. are the joint or the fire truck
association that we're still covered by having him be the city of good emergency director because he's not a good employee. He's now a fire truck. >> So I just it may not be legit. It's just
that if we're splitting >> I was basically just have to be appointed to that permanent position. That's the only thing that we would if we're okay with doing that. >> But the problem is what I said to her.
You talked about it too. I went through it. I don't live here. So something terribly bad happened. >> I mean there fire team >> here and he said he would want to wanted
to be Prior to any talie there are still >> always change it. We've been updating it and he asked to see it and we were just making sure that because it had really old it had names
all over the place. >> Lot of names. >> Yeah. >> The plan is he's going to look through and then it'll be on a work agenda in the future for you all to look at it before it became law. things like
>> that would kind of be the only thing that we would have to make sure if he's doing this on the city or if he's doing it being a fire truck association because this agreement is going to make them association. >> Correct me if I'm wrong. The way I
understood it was emergency management director for the city to report. It could be a huge storm or whatever may not be able to be here. Correct.
>> Yeah. >> Whatever that might be. There's different things like that. So just you've also have the It's just that something like that people
don't need resources and contact. >> So there is training to go through that are required for this or I'm confused. >> Well, that would be the only thing. >> And if there is who? >> So then we hire him as a city.
>> Well, that's what I was just wondering. This is going to separate and then now he's going to be it, but he's technically employee of the truck association. Well, this is >> I guess
>> that's the only >> that's the only thing that complicates it is this new agreement. >> You bring it up at another time. I just want to which is fine. Right. And you don't know what's going to happen at your house.
>> Well, that that was just the way it ended. He just asked to read it when it was done >> and he asked if he didn't ask to be it. He he said he would be it. It is um on the work session already for February.
>> Yeah, I will not be willing but I'll be coming in. 11. >> No, I'm going to miss the 11th. There's a possib I don't have anything. I don't have anything.
Oh, okay. Outside of a work work session or for the work session. >> Okay. >> Okay.