know that Bob is here. I'm trying to listen when I am here. >> Beautiful. >> Thank you. >> I think I'm in either the edge of Nebraska or the other edge of Colorado. >> Cool.
>> Okay. So, we'll call the special meeting to order. Let's stand for pledge of allegiance, please. Help Chris. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> So, we'll take roll call. I'll go first. Mayor Ernie Venuela.
>> Michael first. All right. Well, do new business. Um, reate the joint powers agreement of the Goody Community Fire Truck Association. You have the right. Everybody have the right file.
Is this what you have? This one. It should look like this. There's one that was delivered. >> Okay. >> I never got one delivered. >> That one. >> It should It should have like page numbers at the bottom.
>> No, that's not the right one. >> Oh, it's towards the back. This is the only one we should be looking at. [Music] >> Mine's out of order. Hang on. >> Yeah, that's the one with this one.
>> Well, I don't know cuz I >> Yeah, I didn't print it with I didn't print it with color. Not all of them were printed. >> No, I printed this on myself. >> Yeah, >> yeah, I had the right one then. Yeah, >> there we go. Got it. >> Right.
>> Yes. What's this? >> I have no idea. >> Don't get it out of order. >> Okay, this is not one, two, three. Just going through the page. >> Everybody should have 10 pages. >> Okay.
I know that's because that's because I'm >> So this is what we all should be looking. >> Sorry, just >> Yeah. Um, [Music] so What?
>> More about it. 22. >> Mhm. >> So, so in for 2.2 Bob, are you there? >> So, so I think and Michael, correct me if I'm wrong. I I do I think that governance is might be mislabeled.
Um, so I I had I had a hard time wrapping my arms around this as well. So governance is actually the members, you know, about the two elected officials. Those are the members. So there's 20 members.
>> Does that make sense? >> So you're calling them directors, but they're really members. It it it doesn't in the sense that the agreement uh as it's been drafted refers to each member community, good Hue, Bel,
the six townships, it refers to each of them as a member, >> right? >> So you can't refer to the the communities as members and then also refer to the two people that they appoint as members. That's just confusing as heck. So
on the board as directors and you refer to the communities that are member communities as members but just this is just a drafting thing right it's not a substantive thing it's a drafting thing but you should refer them both member communities and the people on the board
as members that's just really confusing >> okay so what would So if we call them member communities, right? >> So you would call the you call the community members and then you would call the two people from each community
would be directors. So then what would you call people who are on the executive board? Would they still just be directors? >> Well, they are directors if they're on the board. Everybody that's on the board would be a director. But if you're on the executive committee, then you can
call them executive committee members or you can call them officers. They are officers of the board. That's another way to refer to them. That's what you know in a business corporation. You've got board of directors and you've got, you know, people that have titles. They're still directors. They just have
titles. That means they're corporate officers. The president, the vice president, the secretary, etc. So that's what we're trying to mimic here. And so >> that's how I would refer to it. >> Okay, Michael's writing that down. Okay,
>> so just just to be clear, say that. So you would call >> Well, just like the executive board positions, it it lists as chair, vice chair, secretary, treasurer, >> right? >> Yeah. No, and I think that makes sense. I think that's kind of what we were
trying to mimic. Okay. No, that's an easy correction I feel like we could bring up to the to the um committee here to talk about. And I think that's really just a
clerical error at that. >> Okay. So then your next comment was about the secretary and the treasurer, correct? Yes, I understand that that position
would be if you have a single person who would serve as the secretary and the treasur and that's common. That's typical. What isn't typical would be to have that person be appointed by the board, not appointed by the member communities and not a person that's
appointed by the member communities. So in other words, every community, as I understand it, is going to have two directors. They appoint two people. So that's 16 people, two from each of eight communities. That's 16. And then the secretary and treasurer could be a 17th
person, I guess, that the board would appoint. And it wouldn't have to be a member of your communities. It wouldn't have to be a person who's a director on the board. It wouldn't have to be somebody that anybody serving on university council or any of the other government entities knows. >> And that I've never seen that before. I
don't know why you would do that. So, so the reasoning behind that is if we had a secretary treasurer who were to resign currently and there was no one
else within our organization or association, um we would have to find someone from without whether that be a service um or a company of sorts or what else. Um and
so that's where we have it. Um in your comment here, it also says that they unilateral have or they have unilateral control over all money. That is not correct. The secretary treasurer um as stated in a different section, but I do
not remember said section. Um has does not have unilateral control. they have all checks must be signed by them and the chair and if the chair is not available the
vice chair can also make that signature. Um but also um you know any purchase over $25,000 um must be approved and or within the capital improvement program or finance
plan. Um, so there are stipulations to how that person, company, business, whatever it may be, spends the money >> possibly in the 3.2.
>> Yeah. So, let me just take uh I'm not worried about council member. I'm not worried about the second point. I understand what you're saying that any checks would have to be signed by two people from the board. I get that. Um, and and my concern is that there's language in there that says that this
secretary treasurer is the sole person who keeps all the books and records. But I'm not I'm not actually worried about that very much. What I'm primarily worried about is the idea that I mean, let me take a step back. It's common for cities to have accounts, right? to hire
an accounting firm to audit your books and records, but it's also common for there to be a secretary treasurer in a lot of cities. And that doesn't preclude that person from hiring a firm to help out, right? I mean, that's that's the
normal thing is that any board that has a secretary of treasurer might well need to have an accountant. That that's all work. That's fine. But you still need a person who is the person who's in charge of communicating with the accountant and is in charge of presenting the records
to the board when the board meets. And I I don't know why that person wouldn't have to be a director on court. That's always the way it is. Person who is the secretary treasurer is always one of the directors. And I I don't know why you deviate from
that because it seems to me you want the person who is in charge of this to be somebody that one of the member communities appointed. And I and I guess I I go back to the issue that we are not faced with now, but we're looking down the road at is if
there is no one within a community in the association that would want to be our secretary treasurer, then we have the option to look outside. Let's say there's someone in
a section of Chester Township that's not actually within our association. let's say someone in Makuda Township. Let it gives us the ability and that's and that's where we're looking. Um
and that's what we want to keep avenues open to. No different than if we didn't have anyone at the city here who could look over our budget. We would have to find someone to do it. And that's what we're trying to keep open in this
instance with this provision in here. >> Yeah. It nothing would prevent you from doing what you just said. If if the secretary treasurer needed to be a director on the board, which is always the way it's done, that would prevent
you from hiring somebody to help with the books or use somebody from another township or whatever you could do. I mean, that's fine. That's normally how it's done. So it it it just I I don't know why I I don't understand why you would have an officer on the board, a
person who is literally has a title on this board who wouldn't be a director appointed by one of the member communities. That's I I just I don't understand why that would be the case. I mean, would that So if the secretary treasurer wasn't a director, would they
not get a vote then on matters related to the finances? You you would think that the secretary treasurer would present the report and then actually get to vote on things too along with the board. But I again I mean ultimately this is up to you guys. I just I've never seen I've never seen it
done this way. >> Isn't the secretary and treasurer aren't they considered a director because they're part of the executive board? >> Yes. >> So >> no no that's not the way it's written. No. What the agreement says as it's drafted is that the member communities each appoint two directors
and that's the board. It's not the two directors plus other people. So, and I don't know how it can be two directors from each community plus other people who aren't even members of your community. [Music]
Um governing body of each member as shown in 6.1 shall name two elected officials of its city council and or town board to serve as directors on the association board of directors. Voting director shall be appointed
appointed for one-year term. The governing body alternate members. The governing body of each member shall name one elected official of its city council or town board to serve as an alternate director. So we go on. Well, then it goes down to 2.3. Executive
board positions. The directors shall elect five executive board officers. Terms of the board shall expire December 31st of the year at which they are elected except for each director shall serve until a successor has been duly
selected and qualified. Board members serve at the discretion of the body that appointed them and may serve more than one term. Those positions are chair, vice chair, secretary, and treasurer. So that's four. Where's the fifth?
>> Secretary, treasurer is one titled together. So you have chair one, vice chair two, secretary treasurer is a combined title. So that's three. And then you appoint in section three of 2.3. You select two at large.
>> So those five are completely separate from the two members of each community. >> So that's what makes Yes. That's what makes up the executive board. So think of it as you have a chair as being your CEO. You have your vice chair
of your I don't know VP or whatever you want to say president and VP. And then you have your secretary treasurer as your I guess CFO. And then you would have two at large. >> And where do those two at large come from? From within the >> from within the organization. They're
chosen chosen >> from within the communities that it serves. But they're already they would already be directors. So let's say >> John and >> that are on they're members.
>> They're already they're already attending these meetings. They're not extra people. They're already one of the 20 people that attend these meetings because there's 10 communities. Each community sends two people. There's 20. And then from that pool of 20, you have
five directors. It's confusing. >> Well, is it I'm sorry. Are there 10 because I thought there were eight. >> Um I thought there were 10. >> Yeah, there was 10. >> There's 10. >> Okay. Yes.
>> So, I apologize if that's if that's correct. Now, I'm gonna be aggravating maybe, but I didn't say this in any of my comments. Maybe I didn't get but I'm surprised I don't have my comments in front of me as I drive here. But I I just have to say um
having a board with 16 representatives directors if there were eight committees or 20 if there were 10 I I don't know how that's going to operate. I mean I literally don't know how that's going to operate. That's that's just such an unbelievably large group for an
organization like this. And what's the problem with that is that the way it's spelled out now, every director would have one vote. >> Yeah. >> And so if a community's director doesn't show up and their alternate doesn't show up, then that community is losing a vote
on any matter that comes up. >> Correct. So there's going to be an impetus for this to be everybody, but there's no, we all understand there's no way. I mean, you we'd never be able to call a meeting ever of all 20 people, right? I mean,
that's just not practical to think you can get all 20 people in a room. So I guess I the logic behind that escapes me. I don't know why we've made that so complicated. Um I just it seems like every community could have one director and that director to be expected to show
up uh and that would greatly simplify everything we're talking about here. Um, otherwise, you know, that I mean, I realize I'm jumping around on issues, but it it is >> so then you would still have one >> director.
Hang on, Bob. We >> You broke up there. >> Bob, um, you you broke up probably about two sentences ago. See this is >> so if I may um
from what I understand this uh this part of the document is very similar to what we have had for the last 50 years. And for the last 50 years they've been able to call a meeting which is three-fifths of the members to
show up which for context three-fifths would be 60%. >> Yeah. 60% or that would be 12. No. Yeah. 1220. >> That's not what it says, right? It doesn't say three fifths of the communities. It says three fifths have been correct.
>> Yep. Yep. And we we have for the last 50 years. >> No, no, no. The the board the board is not 20 people. The board is five. When we call an annual meeting though, we have
>> the executive committee is the executive committee is five or four depending on how you count it. But >> that's not the board. The executive committee isn't the board. That's just that's the the heads of the board. >> Correct. And and we can get to 12
people. It happens every year. >> You have to get to have a quorum. If there are 20 directors, two from each of the 10 communities, then I guess three fifths of that would be what? 12 directors. >> Yep.
>> Okay. And so you're saying that you're you're saying that those that hasn't been a problem. Get 12 >> directors in the room to have meetings. >> Nope. >> I I just I have a question. If if there's been two from each community, how come we only have one assigned from
good? It's Joe. >> No idea. That's why I went. >> No, no, no. I mean like the 50y year history. I'm just saying that >> I have no idea. >> Two votes. >> You would have >> because we weren't a part of
the voting thing until that's what this is all about is becoming >> No, under the current agreement, there's no non voting numbers. There's no idea. The idea that good hasn't had a vote is just wrong. That's not what the agreement says. I I mean
maybe that's the way it's been done but that's not the agreement agreement that >> could you does not have this idea that there are any non voting members >> correct good you has had a voting say yes why they have only sent one I
couldn't answer that because I'm not that old I haven't been around that long and I don't know the history >> but that's behind us that's why we're >> smooth point now >> yeah so So, I I I think, you know, I
understand your concerns about this, Bob. Um, and I think that's why I like to think we we are elected to do our due diligence, to show up to things that we are elected and appointed to do, and that's what we're here to do. Um,
so I I I think I totally understand your your viewpoints and and worry in that, but um maybe we're in an anomaly, but we haven't had an issue of it in the last 50 years that I've heard of. Um, so and I can tell you the only
people that didn't show up to the last meeting was Chester Township. So we had 18 out of 20 people there. Um, so we >> and that's that's fair and and again
we're jumping around a little bit, but so I mean you know I think you all understand that I am concerned about the urgency here and us as the largest member community and the one that's being asked to contribute the most that this is sort of being pushed on us. I'm
concerned about that perception. But that said, I council member Runor, what you just said was the reason we're doing this, the reason we're doing this amendment or or changing the bill is to avoid this problem where good you is not a voting member, but that's not correct.
We are a voting member. Maybe we haven't been voting. Maybe we haven't been sending two people, but that's just our problem. We should be >> correct. >> We should be sending two members, but that's we don't have to change the agreement. The agreement doesn't say we're a non voting member. We are a voting member of the current
>> and I agree with that Bob. I'm I agree with that. I I'm not disagreeing with that. We are a voting member. You are correct. This past year I did vote and so yes, I'm I'm not sorry that notion of and I don't know where it
started or why it started and we talked about the last meeting as Janine can attest but no good is a voting member and we agreed upon that. Now to the to the you know everything else I I guess in that is a moot point. Let's move on.
>> Um so next comment's irrelevant. We just went through that. >> Um and okay so the next comment we already went over that's talking about you know how is there only a full board's 18
people doesn't work out. We went through that. Um, so, um, next comment. >> Council member Brown, can I stop you? >> Yeah. >> Sorry to interrupt you. I just, it's hard. You know, I'm sorry that I'm not there, but um, is the objective here? Is
the goal of the committee that the executive committee the five people the president the you know whatever the titles are going to be is it the idea that those five people can convene a meeting and take actions for the whole group or is that not the goal?
>> That is not the goal. No. um the executive board or the five people, their biggest thing is they are there to help um convey issues from the fire relief association, which is the
firefighters to the other communities that are involved um and to help take some strain off of the fire chief. Um so they are more merely a pass through um >> the liaison between
>> they are the liaison. Yes. >> Firefighters >> between the firefighters and the neighboring the communities within the association >> the presidents. >> Yeah. So, um, no, they are not gonna they are not the ones that have the
power nor authority to make any drastic or rash decisions for the members within sorry membering community. >> Got it. No, that that that clarification helps. >> Okay.
Um so your next comment Bob here it talks um reading it out back to you giving the member member communities an equal vote when good you will um contribute almost 25% of the money compared to 2% by other towns seems
quite unfair regardless of the members each have two directors does this mean each director gets one vote if so if so say that um no so going to second line there. Um, each
d sorry, each director does get a vote. Um, so yes, each community then has two votes. Um, so there is a total of 20 votes if a full board is there. um as to
your point on you know good you contributing 25% of the money compared to 2% by actually a township um so good you were at roughly 1300 people the
township can chipping in 2% Chester Township figures are rough because Wabasha County does not have the data as readily available as good county Um, but there's roughly 20 people within that area of Chester Township that contributes. Um,
so if we try to, we are trying to push a fair number on everyone and that's our whole goal of this is to push a fair number upon everyone. Um, so you also look at it and and we look at it in this sense is you can't charge them nothing.
Um, if we did it by population, they would go down. If we did it by acreage, any monetary value of homes, everything, they would go down. Um, the reason we chose 2% as a minimum for them
to pay is we figured out, we did the math, they would actually be paying like 1.1%. So, of $150,000 leies, >> I understand all that. I I just want my point not to be lost. My point is is very simple. It's that um if every
community here is going to have equal voting power, every community is going to have two senators. If we were comparing this to Congress, every community is going to have two senators that all get equal votes. And the fact of the matter is that good Hugh will have equal power to make a decision on
the budget or on new capital purchases or on anything else. you'll have an equal vote even though you will be paying in well over 10 times more than the townships than a couple of the townships and that's just inherently
financially unfair. Now, you know, it's a policy decision. It's not this is not a legal observation. This is just what I've seen from many joint powers groups. You're going to be paying in over almost 25% of all of the new capital purchases and you're going to have no more vote on
whether to do that purchase than a township that's paying in less than a tenth of what you're paying. I mean, so it's the representation here is not proportional to the amount of investment the communities are making.
Bob, do you have a number in mind that you've been thinking about that you think is fair? >> No. No. I mean, there's a lot of different formulas to address what I'm talking about, but the idea of weighted voting, which is what we're talking about here, voting on matters that come
before the board that is proportional to the amount of money the communities put in, is a very common thing in joint powers. But there's different ways to do it. Obviously, >> it's almost like if if we're doing 25% and there's 20 members on the board.
>> It's like good, you should I mean, the way I'm reading it, good. You should be responsible for five of the votes. >> Well, I mean, I would be directly proportional to and you know, there's ways to do it that are less directly proportional. Yeah, you get my you get obviously you get my thrust here is if we're I mean clearly what's happening is
we're being asked to contribute more to contribute to the operating of the organization which I've said in the past I think is probably fair but if that's the case then it seems to me we ought to have a little bit more power since we're the ones paying a big chunk of the money. So, and how you do that exactly
is, you know, something else for negotiation, but that's common for a community like yours to want a little bit more say in what goes on because you're being asked to pay one. Bob, at some point, can you get get us a
formula that you think could be, I guess, a starting conversation of of this fair amount that you think good you should expect to pay? >> Sure. You know, again, it it we could do
it in a way that's similar to the formula that's proposed here for how we decide how much we pay in. I mean, frankly, we could have the same formula for voting that we had for contributions. That would be uh to the council member's example, that would just, you know, we' get a we would get a
quarter of the votes if we paid in a quarter of the money. That would be one way to do it. Another way, you know, straight based on population. Another way would be based on, you know, you can imagine all the different ways you could do it. So, but yeah, I can I can give you an example. Sure.
I I I think the key here at this point, it seems to me, is if the council agrees with the point I'm making, if you think you should have more votes based on your larger uh percentage, I think we ought to just follow through with that and then start talking about the fairest way
to do it. I you know no one I don't think anyone has said this to the committee right I I don't I haven't heard that anyone on behalf of good has said to the other communities hey if we're going to be paying 23 and a half% we should have more than two votes
on special So I'm understanding this I guess. So are you saying then on a board of 20 that then good you should have
four representatives there. >> Mathematically I tell you one way to do it. I'm not saying anything specific because I don't know what the best way forward is. I don't know what the best you know what you guys think is the truly this isn't
fairness land. This isn't legal land. This is fairness land. So I just a lot of groups where the the contributions are not even they're very uneven. Typically the parties paying the most want to have more representation on
the board. We all do have to remember at this point too um we have we are going to be voting on this based upon the current contract which means we only have two votes.
So, you do have to remember how it's going to look when we come in and want to vote as a board that we want to have five directors and everyone else get a proportion of a number. How that will look to all the other communities. How do you have Chester Township have a vote
when they say they have 2%. 2% is third of a person. So, you're going to have to round that up. under the current under the current agreement good you doesn't pay anything toward operating right >> uh to operating correct
so I mean that in that environment it makes sense to have equal voting I mean we don't pay anything so it's perfectly fair to get you to have equal voting with the other communities we don't pay for the operations of the organization other than you know we have to train firefighters apparently pay for that so
but um >> so then why haven't we changed the constitution ution to allow us to have more than two congressmen >> per state. >> I don't think you heard too. >> Why Why shouldn't we change the Constitution of the United States of America then to have more than two
congressmen per state? It's not fair >> based on population. >> Well, that's the way the United States is organized. We have representatives, too. >> Well, that's what we want to organize, too. What?
>> I feel like we're splitting hairs again. I feel like this is a mute point. I understand your comments, but it's I'll be quiet. I mean, this is a policy thing. It's not
>> Well, Bob, I mean, we appreciate the fact that you you give you spread awareness for our policies. That's what we need is, you know, we want to come to an agreement here and >> I guess I'd like to hear from the other
council members on this topic. What do you think about I mean of this of you know us requiring to pay more with less votes. What what do you what are you guys thoughts? I get what I get what he's saying
but I see the other side because I'm I was down there with Michael a couple times as well and these guys have been doing it this way forever. Um I don't >> I mean there's always there's always an
argument to that statement though you know that doing it that way forever doesn't mean it >> you know >> Chris what do you think >> I mean I I understand the point of you know having
equal votes I also understand, you know, like I just I I I did this >> quickly here. Okay, you've got like Zamroa, Chester, and Bchester that are
3% or lower, right? So, what I kind of did here was anybody that was less than 10%, they got one vote. They got one vote because it's just it's simple that way. Good you being that
we're 22.65 we got five votes. Hey got four votes because they're you know they're higher up there. So Featherstone got three and Goodiew Township got two
that came out to your 20 members. >> How many did Bill Creek have? >> One because they were >> 8.91. They were under 10%. So, I mean that's kind of just very simple for me. I mean it could be done a little bit differently with like a calculator or
whatever, but um just quick math. I mean I just did it 20 people 10% that's two people. You know 20% is at least four. Um, but you can give and take a little bit. And
I understand that, you know, I don't want to spend money if I don't have to. But it shouldn't be left up to Chester to make the decision for us when they've got how many people that live
there? 20. >> Something in that range. Yeah. >> So, I mean, I get it on both sides of it. I just I it's hard for me to spend money that we don't have on something. And I mean
that's 20 22 23%. that we have to spend regardless of what our vote is because we could vote no for it and everybody else is going to vote and we still have to pay it. >> Correct.
>> And that's where to me >> but even if we had five votes, 15 people could still vote for >> and vote us against and we're still outnumbered anyway. And that's where to me you you're elected to do your due diligence for your community and you
have to be active in doing your homework outside of this room. So if you and your community feel passionate about not getting the fire truck, not getting a new ambulance, not getting new radios, new turnout gear, then you have to
convince other townships of your reasoning. And that's where we're elected to do this for our communities, >> right? >> We're we're we can't come to this room and do our work here and think it's all good outside of here. We have to
continually do what we need to do and help other townships understand what we're going through because yes, you're right. For Chester, it's easy because they have such a low percentage, but they we also have to other people
understand that we are bearing a large brunt of it because of our population and our building values. And so, you know, when things come up like this at the same notion, that means we as a
community have to do better with budgeting. And again, it's in the past and and and I'm looking forward that every community going forward has to be better at budgeting and saving for the rainy day funds because
as we heard a couple years ago, we bought a pumper truck for 600,000. You know, now it's nothing to spend 1.3 1.4 million for that same truck. And that's five years later. Seven, sorry. Maybe seven.
>> Yep. So that's what sparked this whole thing is we get to use a brand new truck and it it it rubs them wrong that good. You didn't pay. And so I'm I'm not trying to bring that up saying that, you
know, there's anything we should go back about obviously, but you know, I'm just Yeah. that I I understand, you know, and it's at the end of the day though, you know, we do represent our community. Um, and
we have accountability to have this discussion as long as it takes to get it right. That's the thing. We we cannot be left feeling that we have to rush through this and make a decision based on what
other townships are telling us that they want us to do. Um, so we got smart minds here. We just we got to come up with the right formula. And this is a this is a tough one.
Deciding a good balancer. I I >> mean, I don't doubt that everything that the board wants to do or the members or whatever people want to label them as, I don't doubt that everything that they
do, they want for the better of all of the communities. And you know, they want a new truck. Well, obviously, like Michael said, they're all going to communicate that this is what we need. we need to move forward with this now
before the price jumps up. I don't think that they're going to just willy-nilly say, "Hey, we're going to go do this and to heck with what this other community thinks." Like, that's where I'm stuck is because
the association has been so great for the past 50 years that I don't think that they're going to >> No. I obviously >> I obviously wasn't on
any of this in 20 Do you remember what year they bought the truck? >> 22, wasn't it? >> During co I remember that like Yeah, maybe it was 22. >> I know they talked about it during >> Yeah. Um I know they had talked about
buying it from what I kind of gathered for the for 8 to 10 years before that. So there was no let's buy this thing tomorrow, boom, let's go. Okay. Um there was a lot of leadup to it and anticipation to it. Um
for for kind of they want to upgrade radios and we're talking about4 $50,000 and um you know that from what I've been told has been brought up for the last couple years and we still haven't purchased that. That's $50,000.
>> And what was that? >> Radios. Oh. >> Um, we want to get a couple encrypted radios so we can actually talk to the police because right now we have to go through dispatch and everything's relayed and it's terrible. Um,
so you know there there is no fast and immediate rash decision-m happening. Um, for God's sakes, these are old farmers. For them to spend more than like 50 bucks, I feel like it's an act of Congress to happen. So, um
it it just yeah, they um there's no rash decision-m I can guarantee from any of these guys. Um >> so, can I ask a question? >> Yes, I think >> and I appreciate council member Bro what
you just said and I I understand what you said and I I think I I essentially agree with it. Is the way we got here um The way we got here is not something that I understand. I I don't understand all the work that's gone into bring this
forward. And I guess my only question is the I've heard about the committee, this committee that has worked on a proposed new agreement. What what was good's role in working on the committee on getting this agreement
where it is today? >> So, um I can answer that. So, let's track back about three four years. Well, more than that, sorry. Let's track back about seven years. um is when two the
chair and vice chair of the association actually came to a city council meeting were on the agenda and had stated that um they wanted good hugh they asked goodu to entertain an idea to rewrite this
document at that time and basically try to do what we're doing now which is get them as a percentage-based member Um and good you said no. And so a couple years later with a new council they tried again same answer and then I was told
somewhere in the co times they also were on the agenda and and and told the same thing. Um so they they had tried three different times three different councils and um we're all told the same answer. Well, then yes, you buy that fire truck
and 600,000 is divided out between the nine communities that are percentage based members and um it really doesn't sit well. I mean, no different than uh you know, you use a a free boat because
someone else paid for it type idea. Um so, >> council member, I I understand all of that. >> Yep. Yep. I'm getting there. Sorry. And I said I I've said a couple of times I think that the request by all the other members to have good you have more
skin in the game is totally I I that doesn't surprise me a bit. I get it. I'm just asking a very narrow question and the deal that's being presented here you know the formula based on population half and based on building value half
and then just the agreement generally. What has role been in getting through? >> Yes. Yes. Yes. So, so the the five people that were chosen, um, it was agreed upon that they would not be board. Wait, no, I take that back. We
did not talk about them needing to be or not needing to be board members. Um, but it was just basically five individuals from the association um that wanted to be on this. Um, so it was myself. Um,
actually I at the meeting uh in February I asked Joe I said do you want to do this or do you want me to? And he goes you can take it. I said okay. So it was myself uh Richmond majur um it was Steve Mcmera, Roger Bolstone and George Rash um who
designed that. So yes I've been at every meeting. I've voiced opinions, concerns at every meeting. Um, and you know, through this document, the the reason um
how we came up with the formula that we did is yes, there's a lot of formulas out there that we could have chosen and a lot of them and I would say most of them are much easier to mathematically figure out and even easier to write out
on paper. Um, the reason we chose this one is we thought this one was the the best fit for us. Um, the other four members felt that Goodyu needed to pay a fair share of it. And I won't lie, I agree. I I think as a
person who's going to have to ultimately pay it with tax money, yes, I agree. Um, that good use should have a fair portion of it. I don't and and you know um so yes I was at every meeting I
was giving opinions and and voicing concerns as needed. >> So >> no I appreciate that because I'm not I want to be clear you know obviously I've got criticisms concerns about the drafting no agreement I I don't really
I'm not it's not my place but even if it was my place I don't I'm not suggesting the the formula partly based on population, partly based on uh property values. I don't think that's inherently unfair. I'm not I'm not critical of that formula. Um that
might make perfect sense. I guess it's up to you, not me. But I'm not critical of that. I just I think that if all the other things in the agreement are going to are going to get changed too, that we need to be careful about making sure that this new formula that that we're
well represented in how this new formula is going to work for people. >> I understand. I do understand. >> Is this the same formula that was used for the old agreement? No, the old agreement was much more complicated,
honestly. Um, I guess I just want to make sure, does anyone else have any more questions about I guess what we've been going over with um the amount of directors we would have at the head and and such? >> No.
>> Chris, Janine. >> Okay. Um, so I guess comment seven and eight by Bob is very similar to itself and to what we've kind of been talking about of um he's just talking about the obligation of a of a quarter of it um of
the debt issued and that you know it states that the we we have the powers to issue debt as needed. Um, again, it it's one of those things that yes, in a meeting it will be brought up that we're thinking about buying a
truck. You would then the the directors would then bring it back to the council to to let them know about the decision-m and to then, you know, kind of inform everyone obviously as we go through it.
Um, comment nine from from Bob states H comment nine states that uh having the firefighters pick their boss is bad policy and increases potential liability. Um they can make a recommendation but but this needs to be a board decision. Um and and this is
where it's kind of one of another hill that I hate to say it but the committee is going to kind of die on. Um, and the reason is is um the association, think of it this way. If you're going to
go into a burning building, do you want to have some person that we don't know pick to be the fire chief or would you want a person that you can all rally behind, trust with your life to go into a burning building? And that's where the
volunteer fire personnel make the decision of who their chief is. Um the reasoning that we want to put in the provision because this is not currently in our contract now that we want to put in that the board has at any time the
ability to remove the chief is because we're looking at into the future and we're worried. Let's say let's say there's a chief and for some reason something changes with that person um and
the firefighters can no longer trust him or he's going through a hard time, something changes. Um we want the provision to be able to say, "Okay, we've seen that something's changed and the fire personnel don't have to make
the decision. It can be a board decision so that that person doesn't out then his own comrades I guess to say. >> So like a code of conduct violation. >> Correct. Exactly. >> Right away and and handle it.
>> Yeah. >> So >> yeah. I mean yeah like Jane you guys are correct. I mean >> it's kind of >> it's kind of ner I mean to me the way it was explained was you know, the the volunteer firemen and
women appoint this person. >> So, the association has no idea what their chief's qualifications are. >> They should. >> I mean, you understand what I'm saying. >> So, so, so how do I say this? Um, take
it for example, when Derek right now, Derek Marling's the chief. Um, you know, when he took it, there was there was some back thought that yeah, he was he was going to be nominated by other that's typically how it works is
you're kind of nominated to run. Um and there were some thoughts that you know he was the guy with the experience. He was the guy who has been on the department. He knows the department. He knows ins and outs. He knows vehicles. He knows the other personnel.
Everything. It's normally not, oh, I'm on the department my third year and I'm chief. you know what I mean? Um so, so it's someone that everyone can trust. Now, um as the association, this is where the liaison or the executive board
play their role is let's say Derek says, "Hey, I'm not going to be chief this next year. I have a good feeling that this person's going to step up or we're hoping this person can step up because we see them to be the right fit." Um
again this is where our duties as you know um politicians if you will say come in and and we have to do our due diligence to attend these different meetings to be brought up to speed. Um so I I won't say that we're
blindsided. Um and per se for this for this last vote um between Derek and another firefighter. Um the other firefighter volunteered himself and he did have a
few votes but Derek did win. Um and so yes in theory yes someone could be blind in and being chief. >> It has not happened that way. The problem with this is is the
following. Fire departments get sued sometimes, right? Fires go bad. Uh people can lose their lives. Obviously, fire is property damage is common. Uh and lawsuits happen uh as a result of the way the fire department performed.
And when that happens, who made the decisions and how the decisions were made is the focus of that litigation. And the very first thing that gets focused on is how did that guy get picked or gap get picked?
Right? I mean, that's the core issue is was this person qualified to make the call to go into the fully engulfed house. And if the answer is, well, the board doesn't know the firefighters picked this person. That's not going to be an
acceptable answer in mediation. And for that reason, you know, the county sheriff's department, the the sheriff's deputies don't pick the sheriff. Uh in your police department, when you had it, I I don't think I believe the council selected the chief.
Um and that's the way all I think city public safety departments work. And I I sort of think it's the reason is obvious. I mean, you you avoid the problem of favoritism and picking the popular person as opposed to the most qualified person and all of those
things, which I'm not suggesting has ever happened here, but it can happen. It has happened in other public safety departments. That that happens where the firefighters or the police officers or in the military. Imagine in the military if the general was picked by the by the
privates. Um, you know, I mean it it's a problem. So, I mean that's that's the reason for my comment about that. >> And I I I I guess I could understand if like the firefighters recommended or
um nominated and then the ultimate decision came from the board. I can understand that. But, you know, I also understand I wouldn't want to go into a burning building with somebody that I don't know, right? But that's
where it comes in with, well, us 30 firefighters are going to nominate >> Joe to do >> Yeah. >> Fireie and Curly over here. And >> the board is going to pick one, but they're going to be looking at everything. They're going to be looking
at qualifications. They're going to be looking at everything to make that decision. Um, >> what if you added a line that said subject to approval of the board? >> Would that take the liability out of it? >> That they can pick them.
>> That would be 100% fine from my perspective. >> Like they can pick them, but then >> the board just has to >> just has to say, "Yeah, it's okay." >> Could be a rubber stamp. >> Yeah. the board. I mean ultimately ultimately the chief should be approved
by the board. The board should be approving that person not just saying hey this is the new chief. >> So if one line is added there the association chief shall be chosen and or whatever subject to approval of
the board. >> Would that be okay Bob? >> 100%. So they can choose them, but they have to be approved by the board. >> Did you get that? >> So I just have one question about this
one because I totally get where you're coming from. Um, totally makes sense in and I know you're not a how do I say it. You wouldn't be a lawyer that would handle a litigation lawsuit. Maybe you would. I don't know. I'll stop
talking. Maybe you are. I have no idea. Um but my question would be is let's say there was a fire and good you someone did sue the fire department. They looked at this and went oh you know the fire chief was selected by the volunteer fire
personnel. Would they go after the personnel? Would they go after the relief association? Like who would ultimately the money come from at that point? Because that's what they're searching for we all know with money. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean look I mean obviously litigation can involve lots of different
parties. I you know we're speculating but for sure it would be naming the association right the the joint powers group and whatever money it has that would be the first target uh and this association of course should
be insured by the league of me cities I hope it is. >> Yes. Uh, and so that would be the, you know, that would be the primary target. And no, I don't I don't think that individual firefighters that might have voted for a chief who made a bad call in
a fire situation. I can't imagine that individual firefighters could be liable. I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm just suggesting that the liability to the group, the association, is is high. potential liability is higher unless the board has vetted that the candidate has
signed off on the candidate brought forward by the firefighters. >> Okay. Thank you. That answers my question. [Applause] Um, All right. Next comments.
>> Yeah. That was part of the other one. >> I think that was more part of the other one. I mean, did anyone else have comments about question 10 or sorry, comment? Okay. So I I guess your comment 13 Bob reads as this as I uh commented previously
using firefighter used firefighter firefighting equipment depreciates fast. So requiring liquidation of all assets means there are very little money to distribute at the end. I I guess what is your other proposal?
>> Yeah, Scott, I I don't have one. I just know that there are there are joint powers organizations where the idea is that you know >> you're breaking up
question. >> Um, unfortunately last statement was >> flickering in and out. >> Now we can hear you. >> Are you okay? And I'm saying that I don't have
proposed prop. I just see in joint powers groups that are you know they're uh joint powers table joint powers uh any kind of joint powers group >> and we need to go back cuz we skipped
over six which is [Applause] The reception's not so good. >> Skipped over what? Six. >> Section six. >> So be comment >> 14.
>> Yeah, because I said my portion of how I thought it should get. I know that does I know but that's not that's on the votes though >> not on the >> so I guess yeah we're talking about the page that you have >> yeah
I was just wondering what she was going to say about it's on the vote but not on the contribution part you mean >> yeah I don't think we talked I mean we talked about this in relation to the votes but we didn't talk about this >> um as rewritten not been explained that
the contributions are 50/50 taxable value. I'm trying to fix this using the language provide provided although I don't understand why my clear language was rejected. So >> this fall
>> shoot I'm going to take a note. >> So I don't that's the biggest piece of this. >> Yeah, that's what I'm going Well, 11 and 12 are the same thing, right? 13 I think that's depreciation.
15 goes back to the votes, right? I'm just going to step out because there's a call for Joe. That's okay. I'm gonna step out and see. So if so on this number 13, so if they're talking about
>> Sorry, we comment 13. >> Yeah, that's where we're at, right? >> Well, I guess I wasn't sure. We can go to comment 13. That's fine, maybe. >> Yeah, we were >> six. We still haven't really finished it, but >> well, six was we only talked about it in
terms of >> the percentage >> of of of the votes, >> correct? >> Right. But he has concerns about the whole formula. Correct. >> Right. So, but 11 and 12 go back to the same thing with the votes, right? So,
that's the same topic. 13 is what we were talking about. 14 goes back to the votes, right? >> What we're talking about >> what we're talking about and then that's it. So really >> So really I feel like the biggest issue
that we have is six >> is six and then getting those guys to agree about the votes. >> I mean I would like to see the difference in the changing of the votes but >> I mean they're going to
>> it's not going to happen. Yeah, >> that's the issue that this is, >> you know, >> and that's where that's where me going to these meetings, you know, I had to you have to pick your battles. >> Um, and unfortunately when when you're
the person that has the single vote versus four, that's what happens. Um, so I, you know, reading over this on section six of funding, um, Bob has comment there. Yep.
A page with the table. Um, I'll admit it was a little interesting to read. Um, I think if you read it, including Bob's wording,
I do think it is easier to read. Um, >> well, this goes back to the two table argument that we were having. >> No, he hasn't talked about that. >> I know, but he's wondering why we didn't use his original thing. >> Why we didn't use his original language, but he also says also the table provided
is now more appropriate. >> Right. Right. Right. But I just don't want because we only do get one vote. So, >> wait, when? No, I mean >> currently right now. >> Right. >> Right.
>> Well, we don't utilize the other one. I mean, we have it. >> We did at this last meeting. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I mean, in in in theory, if we have to vote on this tomorrow, we would definitely have to have an alternate. >> Yep. But yes, >> um so so I I think
this is my opinion and my thought is um I think we look at six and we we give them and when I say we or I when I say them I mean the committee that I've been
working with if we give them six in both views Um, option one would be how it's currently written and redacting the blue font here. And then if we give them the one with the blue font, but the blue
font would be just black. I think this does clear things up. Um, you know, as stated in Bob's comment, it doesn't talk about 5050 taxable value population, whereas
Bob did add that. Um, that is a large grammar error. >> You there, Bob? >> Yeah, I'm back. I haven't heard anything last four or five minutes. >> We're back to six. >> So, we were talking about section six, which is funding. Um, 6.1 is member
contributions. You had a comment there. Um, I'll read it verbatim, but it basically says that um, nothing explained the contribution calculations of a 50/50 split of taxable value population. Um,
you were unsure why your clearer language was rejected. You also stated that the table that is now provided is more appropriate for showing contributions. Um, so you did say that. Um,
going back to I guess your first paragraph where it says, you know, not understanding why the clear language wasn't chosen. Um, I guess I don't really know why. Um, but I do agree that what you
have added in here and then also removed is a much cleaner, clearer version. Um because we obviously had two gashing errors in here which is we
forgot to talk about the one half of the operating budget is to the estimated market value and one half of the operating budget is to total population. Um so those were obviously gaping holes in this whole thing. Oh >> present it. They just didn't
>> I was talking to no one. Dang it. I thought I did >> that again. I mean we did present his language but this is what they came up with. We just forgot the one half one half. >> Try again. >> Where did you last hear me?
>> You're starting to read from section six and I lost. >> So about the whole way through. Uh basically we're going to do an even shorter version. U you were just talking about how we missed um some gaping errors in here. One being talking about
the 1/2 um of our budget comes from property value, half of it comes from uh population and then you also stated in there that the provider provided table was much more appropriate. Um
so I I I guess I do I do agree with what you have written um and how you have worded it. Did you hear me? I did. >> Okay. Perfect. Perfect. Okay. Um,
did did you have anything to add? >> Yeah. >> Did you have anything to add to that? >> Uh, no. Okay. No. Uh, if you agree with the way I rewarded that, I think that's
that sounds good. Do you have anything? >> No. Any more questions? >> Okay. Um I I will say I think this is going to be and I don't truly understand why because I do think that this is cleaning up language, but I I think this
will be a hard cell for the committee. No. Yes. Committee. Um but I'm going to try to do my best. um the heart cells because they've been doing it a certain way for so long and
it's change is difficult right now. >> That is certainly part of it. Um you know I I guess when I read it that night Monday night when we did this everything sounded good. Um, and then it's one of those things where
you'd take a break and relax and then come back and look at it. You go, "What the heck did I just write?" And I'm hoping that's what they think the same thing. That's why I want to give them the two options. Um, is hopefully they'll say, "This one's a lot more clear." And I'll go like, "Well,
>> especially this member thing here, all of this." >> What section was that? >> Yeah, the first one. >> Oh, yes. >> It made so much sense. And then >> you know what I mean now? >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I'm hoping a lot of these errors or edits that we can make will
make this easier. >> Presentation is key. >> Well, that's So, when when are they what's are they meeting on the 13th? >> The 11th. 11. >> And that's a full board meeting.
>> Yeah. >> Hello again. That's next Monday. [Applause] >> This isn't working. >> Well, based on this on the at the very beginning, it does state that this is
made and entered as of the first day of January >> of 2026. >> 2026. >> That's when this would start. >> Right. So the the urgency doesn't seem to have be so urgent. There's still some time to >> not necessarily because we need to have
a full board meeting to to enact this and we need this enacted in time for um the city of Goody and the city of Bchester to get this into their budgets as well as it's a farming community.
Good luck trying to pull someone out of a tractor or grain cart in the fall. Plus, then you start mixing in kids sports again and school starting up. Um, that's why we're trying to do this all now. >> So, what's going to happen between now and Monday or between now and the
meeting? >> That's where I'm going to have to go around to uh everyone's house and we're just going to have to have a joint phone call or something. I don't know. I have to figure that out. But I think um
I think what we need to do as a council, sorry I shouldn't say need. I think what we can do is we could make some of these clerical errors and fix them. Sorry, not make them. We could look at these clerical or
gram gram grammical errors, edit those um and approve if we wanted to. We could approve a version of this. Then if we can have a committee meeting
and get the committee on board with it, that document could go in front of a full board come Monday, which is I think what we have to do. >> So you're talking about another special meeting? No, we would work this out right now.
>> Like say we would approve or not approve of what we currently have with the additional writing that Michael put in there. >> Or we could literally have Janine go to her car, get the computer that she has this on, edit it, print.
>> Right. >> Let's do that. >> Print it out, look at it, agree upon it, and then >> you'll you'll drive though because driving. >> Okay. >> What if they don't like what you're doing? >> What's that?
>> What if they don't like what you're going to do now? >> Or re-edit it, you mean? >> Yeah. >> That's the chance we take. >> That's the chance we take. That's why beforehand I'm going to have to try to get a meeting figured out. I got two days to get a meeting of the
committee. Can you hear me? >> Yeah. >> So, what is the chance we take >> that we re-edit uh some of the uh wording that's in here right now? Right now, and then take the re-edited version
again and present it uh to the committee. >> Yes. And and I guess somebody was speculating, well, what if the committee doesn't like it? But if what if the changes you talked about here aren't acceptable? I I thought the answer was that's the
chance we take. I'm asking what what is the view on what that would mean? What what do we think the consequence is if the committee says no, we don't like changing TV. This is not acceptable. >> But what's the consequence to that?
>> Back to the drawing board. >> Back to the drawing board. >> Well, not totally. I mean, I guess according to what Rich said was that he threw down the original >> Yeah, that's what he said. >> Uh, contract and that's what they were going to go with. Plus, they were going to throw
>> what was the number? 41 >> 40,000 >> 40,000 >> was our portion. We still have to pay training. We still have to pay workers. We still have to pay the wages. So, we would be double
if it wasn't unapproved on Monday. And that's not at the position we want to be at. That's why I think we have nothing to lose to try to edit this document. And I'll try to get these guys together to look at an edited version. We're not
change we're not changing things earthshatteringly. You know, there there's minor changes that are being happened. >> I can I don't need a mouse. So then ultimately if it is changed it wouldn't matter. We would have no choice. I mean
that's the risk is that >> oh if if they don't change it or I mean if they don't accept it. >> Yeah. If they change it and pass it that's ultimately the risk. >> I also don't know the validity to them to actually and this is where lawyer Bob
comes in. I don't know if they can actually force us to pay all that. I don't that's where that's where we have a lawyer to look at it all. But at the same time, I can tell you if we go to Monday's meeting and we
don't have this paper, I'm not showing up. >> Yeah, >> cuz they're going to bring pitchforks. >> I I I would agree with you. >> That's unfortunate that that's how they want to do business. But >> Oh, that is how they believe me. I was there. Believe me. So then this
>> Yeah, you're Yeah, you're >> 40,000,000,000. >> And again, I don't know the validity to that. I don't know if they can contractually do that. >> That's what we were told. >> I agree. And that's what they think, but I also don't know contractually if
that's Bob. Do you understand what we're talking about? This the last statement that was brought up to us by uh one of the members on the fire association made a statement that if we couldn't
come to some type of agreement um that they were going to just go back to the original documentation and then we are still paying the fire chief. We're still paying training, still paying workers comp, and
then on top of that, an additional $40,000 >> and our other percentage 3100. >> Oh, yeah. >> We can't go. [Music] Hey, Bob. Bob.
>> Uh, it sounds like you're either underwater or in a tunnel. >> Well, he's driving so >> well. What I'm thinking is a telephone call. >> So that's what he was talking about changing all that. >> I can put them on my speaker.
>> So how do I accept this? >> I'm just here. >> You want to try speaker phone? We're not hearing you very well at all. >> I think he said I'm going to call you. >> That's what he said. Okay.
>> Maybe I'm computer illiterate. >> Hello Oh, absolutely. I'm gonna put you on speaker. >> So, what I was trying to say was, and I'm sorry about my
is that I understand that if we don't work out a new agreement, we'll be stuck with the current agreement. So, I totally understand that. I I don't understand though how the various amounts that we are being presented with
having to pay have been calculated under the current agreement and and I just don't know that. I just haven't seen it. So I'm not saying that it hasn't been done or has been done right. Maybe it has been done right, but I don't know how the amounts that were just referred to correspond to the current agreement.
So, >> so they're under they as the committee um that I'm a part of is under the assumption and understanding of the current agreement that we're operating off of that they will continue the
current agreement which means we paid training and and all that stuff um you know work comp stuff like that but then they will also add what our percentage um would be which is that uh I I forget
the direct number. Um >> 23.5 >> yeah the the no yeah the 22 >> 22.65 >> 22.65% of the levy um would also be tacked on um and they say that that is just
requires a three-fifths vote of the >> full board. I I responded to that point in two prior meetings. That's not correct. Agreement doesn't say that and we would not be out
>> and I guess that's good news. >> So that is what they are are telling us. Um I guess is they're saying the opposite. Um and that's where I couldn't speak to the validity of that because I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand contracts that well. Um,
>> and they did say that I was standing right there when they said that. So, >> yes. >> Mayor, if what they're saying is correct, >> then what they're saying is they can do what this proposed agreement says
without our consent. >> Correct. >> They don't need our agreement. Just change the agreement to have us on the for 22 and a half%. And if that's the case, why I mean I don't I guess I don't I'm not sure
how to say this can't be correct. It can't be correct that other townships and cities and just change a contract that could have
consent to changes to a contract. So I don't So, but the consequence of what they're saying would be we're going to change the agreement say 100%.
And we all decided that's the case and you got to pay 100%. And again, that can't be correct, right? Correct. But that's the logical right is why 22% why not 50% why not 60% why not
100%. So I think I guess I guess I don't think we as a city and city council can accept that you can't possibly accept you that
the others to this organization just tell us. >> Yeah, I think that's what Michael was understanding and I think we all understand the tactic that is trying to be used. We just want to make sure from a legal standpoint
if there is any validation to those type of statements towards us. >> I don't know if it's true or not to be honest with you. >> Well, he's letting us know what where we stand. So, >> I'm comfortable with that >> of let's get do what you're doing and
let's, you know, if they don't >> like what they're seeing and they want to throw that, you know, then, you know, I think we're making an effort. I think we're making >> Okay. >> So, so Bob doesn't have to wait though.
How I mean, so I think we're good, right? >> Yeah. So, just accept your own change. >> Okay, I will do that. >> No, I I Does anybody need anything else from Bob? >> I don't need nothing from Bob. I >> I'll take some frames and a Ramza, please.
>> Yeah, >> some what? >> Frings and Runza. It's a Nebraska thing. He just went through Nebraska. >> Nebraska now. >> When you come back, I'll take some frings and a runza, please. My daughter was just talking about that.
>> Well, Bob, I think we're going to let you go and finish up here and I, you know, we'll get this re re-edited and Mike will distribute it and I guess we'll keep you informed. >> Very good. Have a good night.
>> You travel safe. >> Who just came in here? >> Uh, >> Pete. Pete Consul. He dropped something off in the slot. >> He did not come in actually. >> Okay. Okay. So, um, how do I get rid of these
little blue lines here? You said >> Okay. So, you Okay. So, >> that one, that one. So you would accept your own except insertion. >> Okay.
>> Except acception. >> So you have to go hand. It's like you have to accept your own >> my own edits. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> You know I they don't >> or you can do them all. Oh no. cuz then it'll take all of them. So, you don't want to do that cuz we're leaving. >> Do you guys have a
an ending for the very last sentence that maybe it just it just ends. It's not a sentence. page 10 of the signature line. >> Oh,
>> it just ends. >> I don't know what the intent of that sentence is. >> I think it should I think it means on day, year, and month on this day day.
>> The original >> it's nobody picked it up. Um, let me think about this. >> Yeah, >> just get rid of the rest of it. >> That's not the part that was so
critical, was it? No, >> I know how this is supposed. >> So, and the the other clerical one, it feel like the word was removed out, but the sentence wasn't fixed on section 17.
Well, we we'll get there. I know which one you're talking about. >> Okay. So, the other one that we had talked about was 5.2 with the fire chief. >> Yeah. You want to put um you want to put >> um
>> shall be chosen. Um and then after the period put um um chosen based on the association fire shield shall be chosen by volunteer fire personnel based on training experience. >> Um
>> with final approval of the board >> subject approval of the board Yeah. Okay. >> And then >> the rest of this is >> so you can have Michael send this to you then too. So it can get
>> Yeah, we can just print it right now. I guess >> go to all copy. >> I'm just looking for stuff. >> Oh wait. Um, six, section six funding. >> Yeah. Okay. >> We're just going to accept what Bob put in. I think what he put in is the easiest.
>> Yeah. Just go. Just go. Accept. [Applause] Hang on. I think contributions to one of the total operating. >> I guess there's some way this thing will read it to me. Wow, I didn't know people could be that lazy.
Okay. Until you get to this is all the same issue, right? 1326. >> Um, >> yeah, but leave that because that that's all about the >> So, remove his cover. >> No, no, just leave it go.
>> Accept his insection. Um, >> is that what he said? on Bob's. >> No, 7.2. No, I'm only on 7.2. Is this all the same issue? >> Yeah, I removed all that.
>> This thing 13.1 is fine. >> No, just accept this. >> Okay. to write the rest. Okay. Okay.
>> So, I think Hang on. Can you go back to 141? So, as we all look at 14.1, it's on page nine, right? >> No, page eight. Sorry. Page eight. >> Approve. Chris, are you
so 14.1 right now re is uh required approval. This amendment, this agreement may be amended by three-fifths of the association members. >> Well, he's he wants to change that to unanimous >> unanimous unanimous
>> approval. So, that means everyone has to vote to change it. And the issue, this is going to be another hill they're going to die on. >> Mhm. >> They may, but I think it's something
that we we add, you know, I'm sorry. Did you say that they are >> they are Why do you think that is? >> They're setting their ways. >> I I don't think you can even wrap your arms around it until you go to one of
these meetings. >> I mean, >> they're they're passionate. >> They're they're passionate. And I mean, >> there's nothing wrong with being passionate as long as you're you're fair. Well, >> I mean that's that's why we have, you
know, >> in their eyes they are >> in their eyes they're tell they're wrong >> and they're not going to see it any other Michael >> this is pertaining to the agreement correct everything else >> well this agreement is everything though
>> but the amendment of the agreement that's that's the only thing that he's saying unanimous on >> correct >> not not everything else >> correct >> not And this would be going forward the amendments would be unanimous. And this is where
>> you know to be honest you think they'll even notice. I I don't know. >> Well that's not even the point. That's not the mentality we want. >> It's put it in there and in and my personal opinion is we put it in there
and if it has to be discussed again with them then we do that. If not, then they're going to come back with what they want to change or exempt.
>> I don't think it I don't think it would make it unanimous. I three fifths. Right. >> See, the the thing that I struggle with, and maybe this is where we need Bob, is
how how can you make someone pay a bill if they haven't agreed to the charges? Okay, le let's say, perfect example, someone steals your credit card. At some point, you get the money back.
Depending if you're a credit union or a bank, it either has to be within 24 hours or 48 days. But at some point, you get your money back if they can prove you didn't make the purchase. No difference in this instance. So, I I truly think in a court of law if
you took it to that. Well, but we still need the wording proper. >> Correct. So, if we don't change it to this wording here, we have a battle then. >> Well, I'm just I guess I'm just
>> I guess I was talking a lot more in the class, but I'm just I'm looking at it in that sense, and I agree with you, Ernie. I I do I I agree that it's a it's a wording issue, and I think that we do need to change this wording. Um,
and I I do think that I could be a >> here. Here's what I would like to say. >> Yep. >> Michael. >> Yep. >> I don't want to have to feel like to make decisions based on feeling intimidated. I think remember these decisions that
we're making, we're making these decisions based on what's in the best interest of who we represent. >> And and it seems simple to me. You're right. I I I hadn't I haven't attended a meeting and I will because I I'd like to see what it is you guys are describing.
But as of right now, I think our representation requires us as a body to put in the wording that protects us, the city of good. That's my opinion.
I agree. I think we have to do a unanimous. Um, I think we we >> I think it has to say unanimous approval. >> You need power. >> No, no, no. We're good. We're good. It was just It was trying to go to sleep and I had to wake it up.
>> Go to sleep. >> Go to sleep. >> I think we Yeah. acceptation. Hold on. Where's this section? put member of the member in section 17.
That's a typo. The address of the member of the member >> and the clerk for the member. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah.
And then I'm the last one to do. What is there? I don't know what the intent of the sentence was on the day in the year. Oh, I would say on the day and the year shown on page >> because it was never
or can't we just put thereof? >> Sure. >> Yeah, but I know it's just the day and the year first. I think this should be because it's right here.
I don't even know. >> You say above. [Applause] >> Just do Janu Just do January 1st. >> Do January 1st, 2026.
[Applause] Just there. >> Let me just go from the top all the way down again. >> Comments resolve. >> I don't know. I don't know how to do that to be honest. >> Just Okay. I can do it when you're done. >> Okay.
You show them what you want to show without the comments. >> Correct. >> Or do you want to keep some of them in there? >> Well, they're not going to resolve if we don't change them all. So, no, I think
you can leave some more clients. I could just save it as another name. >> I'm going to let you do that. Honestly, >> I don't trust myself. >> Okay. >> It's your computer. That's what I figure.
No. And I guess when I said, you know, I hope I didn't come off sounding rude when I said that you haven't attended a meeting. That's >> Oh, no. No. I know. I know what you guys mean. It's just, you know, it's um How come there's no internets here? Doesn't these hook up automatically or
no? to the printer. >> No, to the internet's >> Wi-Fi here. >> There's no Wi-Fi here. >> No, there is. But I don't know why yours isn't connected. >> You turn the Wi-Fi off, did you?
Huh? >> Um, I don't know why I'm not on the internet. >> Go back down. >> Do you need a password? Click the >> good guest. >> Try the good.
>> What's the password? >> I don't know. What's the password? Oh, she's doing it. >> Why not? >> So, is that for city a good >> staff?
desk and staff. >> Not that >> it says no internet secured. Oh, there it's connected. >> Okay. >> Oh, you did connect all the way. >> Number 17. We want to make sure those changes or
>> So, who wants this file? >> Me. >> Hang on. Don't save it yet. >> What? right here. Number 17. Correction. >> No, no, I have a >> No, I'm number 17 in our thing here.
>> Oh, means correction. >> What's the correction? >> No, I got it. The second member shall be given back to the address of the and the clerk for >> the and of the member and the clerk for that member.
>> Okay. Wait a minute. Do you want all the comments out of there? So, you want these all gone. >> Wait, can you just like I'm going to shut up. You're doing what you're doing. Looks great. I don't know what you're doing.
>> You want all the comments, right? >> Yeah. Right. However you do that, that's figure that out. >> All of them. You want all of them? >> All of them. No comments. Well, this might take a minute. You might want to journ while we do this.
>> Well, no, because we have to make a motion. We have to review this and then make >> Okay. >> At least that's what I hope it. Sorry, I don't want to speak for the whole group. And >> I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name. What was your name? >> Brenda. >> Brenda. Okay. >> Good Township.
>> Good Township. Yep. >> I've only been to a couple of the association meetings and it's pretty interesting. >> Oh, >> can I just say too just like the passion part of it. Um I think like I was surprised that it was 30 years old agreement. It just seems
really old and when we got our $60,000 I we had to tell our people too this is what they want a new truck and this is how much it cost. So I think a little bit of it is just like hey just keep getting $60,000 bills every
other year >> to pay for new trucks you know too just a little bit coming from the township and maybe just the delay on getting because I think they did this in February correct it just feels like >> we've been we've been working on it since February yes
>> and just trying to communicate with your journey stuff too just It's not like he's driving >> because it seems like it would be so slick to get everybody on the same page at the same time. >> But it's just the nature of it. It's a
lot of back and forth for sure. Mhm. >> I think they're anxious just because it's been and like you said, Michael, that they got to know for how many years in a row, not going to do anything. And that kind of gets it wears on you then as a township and then you get a $60,000 bill and that was ours where hey does a
whole bunch more >> right, right? >> Well, they basically voted that we were that they wanted to try because it's your city fire department which they have to be in the city but they're saying we need this, we need this, we need this and to to be able to operate
is what the impression that I feel like you got. So then if it's going to be used for everybody, city included, it should be which it sounds like your turn to it should be more evenly spread out. And I I feel like they'd come to you in good good faith, you know, to say,
"Let's work on it." But they feel like it's been dragged out. >> And it I mean, and I I won't say it's any one entities problem that's been dragged out. You know, we've been we've had several meetings just to get the renditions figured out and then get them edited,
sent out, read them. >> Yeah. convene again to you know make edits just like >> so when you guys get this make sure that you put it before you print it out make sure you put your view into no markup
Here we go. >> Hey, I got an email. It's from you. This must be an >> how many copies you want? I would like five. >> And then all of us
>> that'd be great. Thank you. Sorry. Yeah, I guess. >> I'll take my staple. >> Oh, let's take it stapled. >> I do it just to hear it. >> Yeah, I need to get one of those.
>> Comes with a hefty tank. Yeah. >> Actually live live. Are we >> like Yeah, >> you can zoom or YouTube it right now. >> Yeah. >> Do we have to do like special meetings? YouTube.
>> Oh, I didn't I thought Okay. >> I thought so too. >> This is a regular regular council meeting. Yeah, this is this is a special meeting, >> but it's a regular council. It's not a special work session. It's a regular
council meeting, special council meetings. >> If it was a work session, then it would just be >> that that's why we're going to get the public notice. Well, you had to give a public notice either way, even for a
work meeting. But is that um what was I gonna say? I can't remember. >> I thought you didn't technically have to video record any means.
I guess I know what I'm doing tomorrow after work, >> huh? >> I guess I know what I'm doing tomorrow after work. So you can't you can't email the this to those guys. >> Well, I suppose that most of them won't. Yeah, I could
>> I could lucky they come in with a phone. >> Is it like >> Well, I'm trying >> 1975. >> I'm trying to think. George, Roger, and um what's his name? >> One of those.
>> I call one, I email one, and I text another one. Oh, that's right. >> They all have flip phones. >> Yeah, they all have flip phones. Oh, yeah. A couple of them. >> So, at least you guys can get it. >> Yeah, they do have flip.
>> It's high tech, man. Why would you need anything else? Does this have the date on it then? >> Yes. The back. >> Oh. >> Oh, like a revision date. >> Are you >> No, it's in the file. >> You don't know the very top says it goes
into effect January 1st of 206. >> No, the date that this was amended right up there. Okay. Still Interesting. [Applause] Thank you. [Applause]
[Applause] [Applause] I'll make a motion to approve the amended and restated joint powers agreement of the Goodyear Community Fire Tech Association amended on 86 2025. >> All in favor?
>> Opposed? Motion passed. I'll make a motion to adjurnn the meeting. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I motion passed. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Have a good one. Thank you.