Okay, we'll go ahead and call the session meeting to order. Start with a roll call. McKe here. Lantern >> here. >> Fried >> present. >> Brenamp >> here. >> Nicholas >> here. >> All righty. Everyone's here. Uh and then we will head into the main subject for tonight. >> Go ahead and bring it up. >> Uh so, Mr. Mr. Mayor, what we're going to talk about this evening is a continuation of the last conversation about fire service. And uh at the last work session, you had directed staff to uh connect with the our our three different um fire service providers and talk with them about the upcoming space need study to see if there's an interest in uh participating in the discussions regarding that. Uh and later this evening, that's when council will make a decision about the consultant for the needs. And so that was the timing of that conversation. Also, uh, as we're continuing the conversation to unpack the previous work that was done with the ESCI study in 2018 and then the recommendations from the subcommittee in 2019, uh there's been some guidance that hey, what what do we do with this? uh we have the uh central east uh area gap of service and so um it seemed appropo as we're talking about the space need study and uh the proposed potential locations if there were a fire service building uh also to include this as a solution to potentially address that gap. I also want to reiterate for the record that uh and it said on the meetings that we had with each of the departments that there is at this time no desire or intention for corkering to have its own fire department. And I just want to be on record that should council decide to do that. I'm not the person to help you do that. So uh and with that I'll turn it over to Matt. >> Yeah. So I'll kind of tee it up with a little bit of history so that we can kind of know why are we having the discussion now and in this context. So page through here. So I skipped some of the stuff but just the real quick timeline. We started talking about fire service in the context of ISO ratings and service to the community back in 2015. Um in 2016 staff was directed to start do a fire service study. Uh we did a fire service study between 2016 and it was delivered in June of 2018. So went out to RFP, found some national experts to come and weigh in. And the goal was what is our fire service growth plan for our community as we're looking forward. Um that was the ask of the national consultant just kind of zoom out, take national best practices. What what do you see the city needs to do as it looks forward for fire service? They delivered a plan, but what they what we learned from the plan was uh there's some other benchmarks the city needs to establish and some leg work that the city needs to do going forward as far as establishing what your standards for service are. Um and to so to follow up and I guess take take apart what we've got from ESCI council appointed a subcommittee. It was two council members, our three contracted fire chiefs and myself to follow up on the recommendations from the stud study deconstructed. Do we see this? Is this do we believe that this is true? Is this information validated? And what are our recommendations going forward based on what they're telling us? Um we we need to develop as a city. So the subcommittee report was provided to the council on December 12th of 2019. And with that, it outlaid just the the vision, mission, and values that the city would have for its fire service into the future. Um that was developed with our with our fire chiefs and our council members. this is what we think it should look like. Council took a look at that um adopted them and directed staff to develop a work plan based on those endorsed recommendations. So, I sent you guys a little clip from that meeting where the council was kind of talking about where it came from, how does this align with what we're trying to do and what at the time, what was their intentions with that looking forward as we're mapping out and talking about what our future looks like for our fire service and how we work with our how we work with our partners. Um so in 21 the adopted work plan was was looked at by council again. It was evaluated adopted and um kind of went through the work plan. These are the action steps that came out of the subcommittee. So not new stuff just organized differently as to what we think we need to accomplish in light of um what we learned from the study and the subcommittee analysis. >> And the reason it was 2021 is because they had that little co thing happening in 2020. So that was that was the delay. Y so little little COVID break. Um and then as we as we got back into it in 21, it was okay, we have the work plan. What kinds of things that do we need to to make progress on? As we're going through it, we you know, we were able to make progress on some of the pretty simple things as far as reaching out and interfacing with our businesses and our or some of our homebased businesses and trying to help get some of the expectations out for driveway access and things like that with our community members. But there were recommendations in there that were ical and operational in nature like you should consider renegotiating your contracts with different standards and um a lot of things that would be pretty heavy lifts um and require a lot of analysis and there just wasn't um will to will and ability to move forward at those times. So we in those times we talked about the the possibility of a staff position that would work on delivering and getting us there working with our partners um that didn't move forward in 22 through 25. Um in that brings us to May of last year. We held a work session >> this year >> sorry May of this year held a work session to look at what body of work do we have in our fire service planning and the reason it matters um in the context for it is as we're talking about the context of campus planning. Um so today is a continuation of the fire service planning discussion and we're looking for direction on space needs analysis partnerships and what the plan is or direction for working towards addressing the east central service gap guidance. So again we alluded to this the reason it's coming up in the context of space needs analysis is that was the direction that we had from from our previous plan inputs. This ESCI information was outdated a little bit because Hamill is obviously not one of our our partner stations directly to the south, but generally speaking for our our service partners in Corkran uh as a general representation of where our our partners are serving. This is the ESCI study when they talked about the service gap. So this is travel times. They did separate maps for mileage distances, but travel times from the fire stations serving Corkran. And when you compare that to the map on the right, that was a heat map at the time. old data from 2018 and 19. Some of that was driven by the 116 corridor and the county 10 corridor but also Maple Hill Estates um where where higher density since that time when we look at the developments that have come in obviously first to um Rubinia but along that same corridor more homes along 10 with Bass Lake north and south St. Terres campus coming in and Bellweather to the north and so that heat map may have would have drifted slightly to the north but generally speaking that's where the density of the calls um the heat maps would come in. So that does align unfortunately with what ESCI identified as one of our gap response areas. So what were ESCI's recommendations specifically? So this this one on the left is a is their slide from their presentation um as they approached as they presented the findings of their study. So actually let me start with this. So on page 83 of their study um they say you know they provided a station deployment decision-making matrix. This was as they said it's a generic one. This doesn't mean it's exactly has to be what's right for cork but this is a standard model that's used as cities analyze uh station needs. And their statement the bottom paragraph says reminding the reader that the above table is an example only. It can be viewed as a general guide that could be used as or modified for corps conditions. ESCI finds that the above concept that if the above concept is applied to corporate it indicates that a permanent station is needed if not essential based on the matrix as they presented it their slide is on the left and what the strategies at the time back in 28 June of 2018 recommended they said it is ESCI's conclusion that the approach identified above construct an additional station and continue to contract with surrounding agencies is the preferred long-term approach and it carves out timing has to be based on needs needs, target analysis, um, response and performance, um, and you have to consider how it's going to be staffed. And it says to sustain current 80th percentile response as a minimum, a time frame around two years may be advisable. So that was 2018, and they were basing that off of their their population projections data and the call analysis that they did. >> Can I ask a question? >> So th this report is seven years old. are are we are we certain that the data is still reliable for these types of decisions or would it make sense to commission uh a more current study? >> So what we know is we are advancing population wise faster than what the study um indicates >> which which is actually up right now. >> Yeah. Yeah. So on this slide there, the population they were working off of by based on their projection population would be approximately 8,900 by 2030. We're cresting about 9,000 right now in 2025. Um so if if there is information that's been invalidated um as far as you know if you're if you're trying to align it specifically with what the standards are, the city set its standards. It wasn't linked to outright we will meet all NFPA standards. what the subcommittee said was we like the service that we're getting from our partners. How do we measure and benchmark that? And that's when the data collection started. So you'll see some of the the tables that are in that handout. So um I would say that if we if we were going to reinitiate the same study again, we would probably want to decide what information do we believe would be invalid from the previous one. Um or what do we believe doesn't hold true today based on what they knew at the time. the the theory that they're projecting forward is this is where growth is going to happen and that is what has happened. Uh we just haven't moved on it within the first two years as they had recommended. Uh and so to Matt's point, it also this was paid for by a grant. In order for us to qualify for a grant like that, we would have to demonstrate that something had significantly changed than what was projected. We're actually moving along the glide path that they had projected for us just a lot faster than what they projected. Matt said 2030 was the projected date. We've already passed that in 2025 in the area where they said this is an area of concern. >> I would agree that that's the only thing knowing from the old study that's substantially potentially changes that we just grown faster. >> Okay. >> Can I ask a question? Would it be helpful for us to have I know that one of one of our fire districts has they're doing a fire study. Would it be helpful if we were a part of that study like either by district or overall like a city like this is where the a firehouse should be placed? >> Well, it would depend on what our what our future plans for fire service are and I think that's where we we need some direction. So, one of the questions as they were talking about fire study was how much of your city do you want included? And that the answer is well it depends. The current district or the whole city would be an option but that's they can't do two different studies based on our needs to analyze their entire service area. That's that's a reasonable position. So as we're outlining expectations we have to know how we how our service intends to change if we're going to try and fold in what we're doing with how that overlays with what their planning efforts are. And in this case, the the driver behind it was the reality that we're past our space needs. Uh the renovations that occurred were supposed to be three to five years. We're past that. We don't have any space. So, we have to do something for our civic campus. And that's why this is a strategic opportunity. So, if council's direction were table the fire conversation in order to study it more, that's something council could choose. It's just recognizing that you're giving up the strategic opportunity to potentially build a campus now. And there's there's economy of scale. So So if that that would be a desire, um I I heard Chief Lure say it this morning, fire service is never going to be cheaper than it is today. It's only going to get more expensive. And so if you do not build a building today and we delay to study it more when really the only thing that changed as we can tell right now and experts may tell us something different but but at face value what's changed is we're growing a lot faster than we need it which then would indicate we actually need the fire station more and delaying even further beyond the six years when they said do something in two years that that would have put us in 2020 and we're now in 2025. uh can we afford to hit pause and study it again as costs continue to rise and the concerns that are driving it like so it's a strategic opportunity. We we can study it more but we're going to miss this opportunity because we have to do something about city campus >> and the city likely is not going to go it alone. We need our partners for the conversation as we you know we have to include our tactical experts and operational experts as part of that conversation which was part of the outreach to the departments of hey we have to talk about big conversations about meeting our our plan and our recommendations. So um I'll I'll get through this and then hopefully we can kind of zoom out and talk about what do what does this mean or are there new approaches? >> Can one more question just before we move on. Do we know right now like can each of our fire districts support the areas that they have right now without having another firehouse? >> So this gap area is one of the challenges they're providing support in there but but to your own testimony in previous conversations. Uh the some of the impact of that is distance. Uh saw some really good feedback in terms of some solutions to try and address that with duty crews this morning. uh respon you know so that addresses response time. So there may be other tactical decisions. The the strategic decision that we do need to make is uh do we want to do something with the fire station and if we don't we still have to have the conversation or even if we do we still have to have the conversation about the east center or the central east service area gap. I feel like our need to have a a municipal center is is I don't want to be forced to make a decision on a firehouse along with the municipal center since we don't know completely if if that's where it's going to be with with what those five potential locations could be. So for me, I look at it and I say if I know that our fire services are covered right now, it makes sense for us to do a municipal center because we do need that. But I don't want to be forced to make something just because it's just it's a strategic decision and and that's the best thing to do right now because there's a whole bunch of money that we're talking about that >> absolutely >> that is that that would be a concern of mine I guess. >> So so I would point out that the recommendation from the national experts was that we do something by 2020 >> and we haven't. They said build a station by 2020. Uh at the 1016 intersection is where they recommended was the area. Uh and so now we're in 2025 and if we were to study it again, uh we're looking at several years before we do something. So I don't disagree with you. It's millions of dollars, but uh to Chief Lur's comment, it's going to be even more. So So as as I looked at I was in Chaza in 2016 when we when we did a fire service study. I was the finance manager then >> and a fire station at that time that we looked at was like4 to6 million. They're building a $ 48 million facility now in 2025. >> So, and the answer to your question, the reason for pause is are are they meeting our needs? Yeah, our fire departments are doing a great job, but they each have different challenges. >> West Suburban our our call response is fantastic and the work that they do is great. Um the avail the availability challenges are different for West Suburban than for instance handover. They have different challenges at different times of the day. >> Um different challenges than who's facing volume issues and response to that. So we get great service from our partners. They all have different challenges and as we grow. So if you look at in the last 10 years, our city's population has almost doubled and it's a flywheel effect. So that doubling again is going to happen probably in a shorter scale than the last doubling happened. This is this is really the opportunity to evolve with our partners before things become unsustainable at different levels for potentially for different reasons. >> This should not be misconstrued as a criticism of our partners. They're fantastic. This is that uh in 2019 uh something was identified and this actually helps them do their jobs better. Uh it's just figuring out, you know, so so they can provide better service when there's clarity for this area. We just haven't acted since the recommendations were made in 2019 for a myriad of issues and one of them being cost >> and it's not going to get cheaper. >> Mr. >> Yeah, if I may just real quick guys, thank you for what you've given us so far. Each and every one of you guys, the rest of your families, your other fire the rest of your families at your fire stations and stuff, please thank them for me and I believe everybody else up here too. And In my mind, these are the experts. I don't think we need anybody else to weigh in. I think we paid a pretty decent premium for this information, but these are the experts that we need when we continually talk about a campus. I would really like to talk about it in a more segmented way instead of one central campus. If if you may and bear with me just a little bit. A campus in my mind is I think too big for our community the way it is right now. I think a campus where everything is centralized, everything is one big building to the tune of excess of $50 million I think was the number back a few years ago when I joined on the council. I think that's we don't have that and probably will never get it until at least we hit 3540,000 people in my mind. So when we talk campus, when we talk needs and stuff, obviously space needs for our administration and everything that's been going on well there, another obvious priority is we need a location in this general vicinity for fast response on whoever the partners partner or partners are going to be, who's going to staff it. Um the the volunteer side of things is is falling off in every community out here. Um, if if nobody knows, I was heavily involved in Maple Grove and and building the five departments there over from 1987 until we left in 2007. and part of the continue long range improvement plans, the the plans to buy equipment and replace equipment, all of that stuff. So, I'm I'm smarter than I look when it comes to some of this stuff. Okay. But we have experts here. It sounds like we're communicating better than than what has been previously or people are listening more to each other and stuff. I would really like a fire station, not as part of a general centralized campus, but a standalone building. That's what I want. That's what I would love to see. But again, to staff it, to equip it to all of those things, we need a whole bunch of people involved in that. So, thank you. >> So, so that this space needs isn't saying a civic campus all one. It's identifying what our requirements are and that's that's why we do need people that would consider that to help us understand what would be needed for those spaces. >> Uh I'm not a firefighter. Uh I've uh wanted to play one when I was a kid, but >> when when we were up in League of Minnesota cities, I spent a significant amount of time with one of the people that has built stations and such, >> and I'm trying to remember their name, but uh the most recent >> So the good news is that the contract that's coming before you, they have built a significant number of the fire stations in the metro area and and so the people who help us analyze the data so that you can make decisions based on the requirements ments. Uh that's that's the do that we're doing and and if Matt can get back to finishing the slides that that's just setting the table. That's why we're having the discussion. >> Cool. >> Is because to your point, we need to know what we need so that then we can make good decisions about the timing of it based upon the requirements, the cost, the availability of resources. >> Uh we don't have all that data yet. What we know is in 2019 some experts provided information or 2018 you need a station in two years and we haven't built one and so it's appropriate for us to say all right if we're going to build one what does it look like and then we can talk about where >> I I assume it was the same company that you guys are talking about and stuff with the the example I was going to use was I believe in 2023 they completed the one up in Monaceel is that either six or eight days too um was to the tune of $4.5 million. That's just to build the station. That has nothing to do with the equipment. And the equipment, I think, I don't know if I'll get any head shakes or not, is exponentially more than the building. >> I saw 1.5 million for a new engine today. >> New engines on buck and a half. >> And and and then in terms of good stewardship, I mean, to give a shout out to West Suburban, they just did a rehab. Uh 268 grand. It's going to give us give another 10 years on a piece of equipment. That's the kind of creative solutions, >> but we need to know what the requirements are before we can. >> So, we glanced off the information that I'm that I want to get to in here. Um, so the ESCI information, what what they found in 2018 was finding the current response performance at the 80th percentile in the context of NFPA standards is marginal in some areas. Then it was recommended the city seek construction of a fire station within a time frame of two years. And it goes into exactly as you talked about how it will be staffed needs to be a consideration. How >> can I can I ask real quick Matt? Why it wasn't started in 2020? Why it wasn't built? >> So >> I wasn't I wasn't here. >> So I was here in town but I wasn't here. >> So co so after this they didn't council didn't take this at face value. So I'm getting into that after the ESCI study. >> Um thanks. >> Yep. So it it was said you we They recommend having a combination of qualified responders and partnering with our partners to meet those needs. So council taking the ESCI study said we want our own experts to look at this information and our experts are our three fire chiefs along with two council members. So, councelor DJski, councelor Botmma, um at the time, Chief Feist, Chief Lure, and Chief Malwicki u met and we we pulled the information out of the ESCI study and took the takeaways were give a common operating platform for how we track our response time and our data. So, we we established what the functional response time was, looked at what does the city want to be true for its fire service going forward. And a lot of that was looking at what we were doing at the time because there was a lot of appreciation for the service that we were getting from our partners. I >> I do want to interject quick. The the work that they put on this is incredible as as I've heard about it. Like it wasn't one work session as as I found out was chiefs got together. It was a laborious process uh almost weekly at least monthly. So so there was a lot of sweat equity invested in this plan. >> Yeah. So it was about a year and a half of meetings with our fire chiefs saying okay what does this look like? um and what are the recommendations coming out of that group to meet the needs for the future. How do we mitigate the demands so that our departments are successful and our city is successful in meeting those so that they can be aligned in how we do that. And getting back to the topic of facility as it relates to why we're having this conversation the the subcommittee what the subcommittee found was that the information in the SEI study was validated based on what what we learned from the partners and the recommendations. One of the tier two priorities you can see here it was mentioned no less than five times in the subcommittee to as the city is doing campus planning and as development and campus planning happen this should be incorporated as part of it looking at the facility because opportunities present themselves as areas develop as the city is growing and changing and so it was earmarked to happen when we're doing what we're doing today and that's why it's being brought forward today is that our work plan says you need to incorporate this into any talk about future needs for the city. So that's that's >> and part of the delay too is that because of financial concerns the decision was made to renovate this building rather than to do campus planning in 2018 1920 and so that that was completed in 2122 and so so now we're reaching the end of what those renovations were supposed to facilitate and that's why we're having the conversation now as part of campus planning. I think also to help answer councelor Veram's question, what were we thinking? Um, there was a study to try to establish where the city should start to acquire land to allow for future development of things like fire stations. I think you and I were on that together. >> Yeah, trying to remember that far back. I'm getting old. >> Yeah, Jessica was the administrator at the time. So, it was a couple years back. >> And then we had those challenges besides co the changes in administrators, all that stuff. A lot of this got lost in the shuffles and stuff. >> Well, I I think easily explainable. Uh it's it's expensive. That's come up many times. And so so trying to be good stewards of the public trust that the decision was made to renovate this building and get more life out of it. >> And I I think we've gotten as much life out of it as we can. We We don't have somebody that can come in and give us a $286,000 rehab so we can get 10 more years like like a fire engine. I wish we did. Uh >> we can't put a out there. $286,000 and then put 10 trucks. >> You have a really nice barn. You could have an >> Yeah. Won't hold it. Won't hold it in. Sorry. Look on. >> So So the work plan on our local experts, you guys have the whole documents. It's in the binder, but it was, you know, referenced there five times that this was the time when we're looking at facilities, we need to have this conversation. Um again, the work when the work plan came out of the subcommittee recommendations, it was two of the top five. Incorporate options for facilities and equipment placement within the service gap areas. Opportunities become available through development and campus planning along with begin planning for the addition of a new fire station to address the service area gap considerations forecasting demand development opportunities and financial planning. So in the ESCI study based on the travel times from the the current departments their recommendation was to focus on something near the 10 and 116 corridor based on meeting the response times. Um that was that they incorporated or essentially kind of rolled in some station study analysis at the time um of okay if you do follow recommendation number two of a fire station with you know staff by partners this at the time is where they were recommending based on both the the primarily the service area uh travel time gap but also the heat map that you guys saw earlier >> whereabouts Matt is is 116 and 10 on that map >> right where dot is >> y >> okay >> and and so uh for everybody's awareness uh the space needs study is looking at five properties uh three of those properties already have stuff on them and wouldn't really two of them wouldn't move the needle on this one is uh we're also looking at our public works requirements so one of the spaces that they're looking at is what the requirements are for public works out 19 and what's capability uh the old cane road building is is there anything that we can do with that is there any value thereuh for that space. Uh this building itself, what's what's possible here? What's its assessed value? And then we currently own two properties that have enough acreage with upland that we could do something on them. What is just north on 116 uh you know towards the Dorothy Shetty property and then the other one is the northern part the 19.7 acres of the Rockford Schools property that part that that uh would be adjacent to what's currently happening with with our park project. And so they're looking at those five the 116 property here and the uh and the 10 adjacent to 10 property, the Rockford property would both impact this um and and how those would be details. But regardless of where it is, it's important for us to get the scope of what space do you need and then we could find out would it even fit? What would the cost be? They've got great cost estimators here. So that then we can make those kinds of decisions. That process is going to from the time that you pass the contract and we notify them tomorrow until October is when they're planning on delivering it. And so the conversations hopefully with our subject matter experts, not just for fire service, but we have police department needs, we have administrative needs, we have storage needs for public works. All of those conversations help us look at the totality of our requirement for needs. So we can do a decremented list to figure out what are our priorities. Council can make those decisions. where should we put those? And then the plan is through 2026 uh phase two is to engage deeper because there's other stakeholders that aren't in the room right now and that's our residents. And so we need to have lots of opportunities to engage with them and hear from them how they think about a civic campus. Here's what we learn. Let data drive the decisions as we develop a plan. Uh and so lots of public engagement. So, we develop a plan and then uh that that would be come out like May or June of 2026. Then we have to refine the plan uh because to council member Baronamp's point, our long-term financial plan projects that in 2027 uh we've been projecting for almost a decade that that's going to be the window of time to build something. And what we have in the long-term financial plan is 50 million. Uh and so it projects how that would impact the city and all that. But whether that is that expense or not, there's a lot of steps between now and then. Where, what, how um and fire service is an important variable in the equation. >> Mr. Mayor, >> yeah, >> I think I've asked this question before is what can can us as a city do to start, how do I want to say it? We've got park dedication fees, public safety dedication fees, those kind of things. That was one big way to get what was needed in Maple Grove as far as the other three stations that were needed shortly after I got there was impose funds related to new new developments and those kind of things. the percentage needed to go into fire and >> so so with with the analysis that will happen over the next year part of that will also be what is our funding strategies I it would be premature for us to figure out where we're going to get the money when we don't even know how much money we need yet I've never heard of a of a public safety fee I >> and I'm just asking knowing knowing what I know um for a large manufacturing company to build in Maple Grove It ended up they supplied a ladder truck to get three stories tall. >> Certainly how it's going to impact if if a ladder truck's required to service them. I I've seen those sorts of things in a development agreement before too, but but that isn't a >> a general fee like we do with park dedication. That's that's tied to square footage. >> Understood. >> Um but funding strategy first we have to figure out our requirements and then once we figure out the requirements we can then figure out, all right, how do we supplement that? you know, grants. We've been successful with bonds. I mean, our our new water treatment facility and our water tower, federal funding and state bonding funding were critical in order to get that over. Definitely, those would be part of the strategy. Uh, and when you talk fire service, there's there's lots of opportunities for us to to chase some money. Uh, how successful we'll be, there's so many competing demands, too. You've alluded to that. There's staffing requirements and equipment requirements, and so we don't want to be the last puppy to the to the bowl. You and I have had the conversation, J. My hometown is was 1492 and it had a full-blown fire service all made from donations and I'm sure some other things, but again, we're talking 55 60 years ago and such. How did we miss that in corporate just because of how good these guys? >> I wasn't here 60 years ago, so I'd be the wrong person to ask there. There's a couple here. >> How did the How did Lorettto get it? How did Hamill get something? But we just we're rural and we just >> 60 years ago >> 3,2500 people and and you didn't have the same center. So Lorettto had the train tracks so they had a downtown. I mean cities develop for a lot of reasons. Uh Patrick Corkran came here thought it was cool convinced the people to join them and they started farming. >> Yeah. That's not a way to build fire stations. Well, similar to, you know, if you look at Weisetta and AIO, your school districts are are after the small little birds that they started in and then the large cities happened around them. So, >> yeah, we don't have any of those availability things either. We don't have >> it's post office, same as post offices, same with school districts and fire stations. Those were the communities and this was really largely uninccorporated at the time. So, so we kind of laid it out. This is why we're talking about it now. This is the context that we're talking about it in. And you know, as we talk about the service demands, I I I mentioned this in the work session, but if you took um Corkran's 2024 call numbers in aggregate was about 219 calls for service between our three providers. Um that clocks in in the top 25% of calls for service of all fire departments in the state. So there's 700 and some fire departments. We would come in at like 172 on that list on total call volume as a city. So it gives you some some insight as to the the load that our partners are carrying. um with with our three partners, they do a great job, but as a community as a whole um and we watch that growth come in, that number will will likely rise over time. So, um >> well, also a conversation that came up today in terms of call not just call volume, but also what what the source or the the need for calls are. Uh what was discussed at the quarterly meeting this morning was uh the north um ambulance service and the service that it's providing to the community is uh not meeting the need. Uh just saw some astounding response numbers. Uh but as a result, our police department and our partners are picking that up and so their call volume, if you look at is significantly higher, but the percentage of them that are medical related is huge. And picked up some good strategies that that Maple Plane is applying to address some of those unique calls that maybe some of our new businesses are generating call volume without really bringing resources to the table. uh specifically related to lift assists and some of our assisted living facilities. Um and so we we have to pay attention to that uh to to help our partners focus on um being able to not just show up to pick somebody up in which you know there's there's other things we need them to to put out the fires. We need them to stop the bleeding, start the breathing, treat the wound or treat for shock, uh keep people alive. >> So as we look at I mean you know if if we do addressing this gap and following through with that. That that's an evolution of our service. That could mean things look differently and and that was reaching out to our partners to say we want who wants to be part of this conversation about things, you know, how our service evolves to meet our community's needs. And that was really the only ask of the departments at the time was do you want to be part of talking about how this goes or is your organization saying we're good supporting you now, but this is not part of our it's part of your future but not part of ours. there's there's no wrong answer from our partners, but the it was meant to solicit interest and bring them to the table ahead of time before the city tries isn't going to go and do something without them or without having those those conversations. So it was important to um you know focus the council on is this part of the scope of the of the space needs and are what partners want to be at the table for that analysis or is it not and then a separate conversation would be what are we going to do about the fire plan if anything for fire service and corporate's future as it relates to the work we've done and as we look forward. >> Yeah. So, so tonight's ask would be uh first if council could provide some feedback from this initial, you know, what what Matt's put together. Uh here here is the the vision, mission, and values that that committee came up with for fire service in Corkran. This was the collaborative uh work of the three fire chiefs uh Tajki uh Bodma um and so so this is what came out of that and this is focused on achieving that. um what what are initial thoughts from the information that we give you from council and then the hope would be after we've gotten initial thoughts from you to turn to each of our three chiefs and give them an opportunity to to share their thoughts on it as well. >> I'll open the floor to you guys any thoughts on kind of touched on a bit of know what has changed or hasn't changed since the study and the was initially done. Um, in my opinion, not a ton has changed. It's just that growth has happened. The growth has happened quicker than we antic than anyone anticipated. Um, and I'd say that's probably the case for the surrounding communities as well. Um, and also the 55 plus or 65 plus senior growth has also happened to a greater extent than we anticipated. But besides that >> and more of that to come. >> Tremendous >> which >> driving that. >> Yep. Which in my opinion doesn't change the findings of the study. >> Y I agree. >> Or reinforces that we need to act. >> If I may, Mr. Mayor, just the way I feel again, space needs, they're all a priority. That's that's pretty broad, but I still think public safety is probably number one and obviously our administrative needs and stuff is one a public in my mind um public works 1B and it just I mean we've already are doing plenty. I hope Matt for the police. Um I know we've all supported them tremendously over all of the stuff that's happened. And I again our partners doing everything they're doing from their current bases. They're doing everything they're doing. Some of the some of the stuff I've heard is unbelievable. the one fire down in Ravenia, it was less less than a six minute response time. Thank God you guys had implemented uh the duty crew shortly before that. But again, it was still a total loss and that there's reasons for that. But >> but just that house taking that >> Yeah, a fiveminute response time is crazy. I mean, when I talk to our friends next door, you know, their 10 to 12 minute response time, and that's all with volunteer folks, too. We got to figure out a way to staff this with volunteers. We've already got all of our other satellite staff with volunteers. Are we going to steal from them or whatever? I I it's it's a huge commit to to you just say, "I'll volunteer." But it still takes six to eight months for you're finally able to put your own boots on and straps over your shoulders and everything there. It's a huge huge commitment. So, um again, the space needs number one a civic campus. You guys know how I feel. I think it needs to be segmented, but we'll wait for more information to come back from the group that's doing it. I don't think we can wait a long time for a station in this general vicinity. That's that's my thoughts. But again, there's a lot to go into just doing that. So, for sure, >> and I I I agree with that last part that I think we need to act sooner than later. As Jay said and Chief Lur said earlier today that costs are only going up for this type of stuff, most type of stuff. >> Can we set cubicles up in one of the bays and grow into that before we just there just so many things. >> I don't think that'll meet the new OSHA stand. >> No, I will. That's a whole another conversation. Wonderful friends at OSHA. But again, thank them for making this job safer than it ever has been. But some might be overkill. >> Anyone else? >> I agree. >> So, uh my my takeaway uh from feedback from council is is right now uh there remains a desire to move forward with the um as part of our civic campus study uh to have a fire service component uh in >> but not attached we're not talking attached to the the >> so so they're not in the planning phase they're in the needs assessment this this is space needs assessment >> those will be other discussions >> uh yeah so so between now and October >> uh it helps you understand square footage uh and within that square footage based upon you know So, if you're doing duty cruise, you need dormatory areas. Uh you need some other requirements. So, it helps spell out what that kind of stuff does. It doesn't dedicate where. It doesn't dedicate how you build it. Uh and and then that becomes the conversations going into 2026 as we develop a plan. This is this is developing the data that's driving the need decremented how we want to slice that need and then based upon guidance from you with what needs we want to focus and we start to develop a plan for how to how to focus on those. So any other feedback before we turn it over to our partners for their feedback. >> Okay. So uh if we could invite our partners in alphabetical order that's the easiest to do it. So, uh I believe that we'll put Han over first. Uh so, so Dave, want to invite you and if you could come up and just want to get your impression on what you've heard, you know, uh it's a lot of information, but uh then then also as we're going to have a space need study um for the discussion, is there a desire to be part of that discussion right now? uh or is there too much going on that uh with the volatility of operations or availability of resources it doesn't make sense what whatever the feedback might be >> first of all I want to thank you guys >> can I ask a question >> for constantly service >> so the question is is do we want to be part of the partnership this handover we will sit in we will listen we will provide whatever expertise I can give you, but until we really get down to the nuts and bolts about what it is, what you're looking for out of panel to help provide service, I can't make that commitment being I am the fire chief, but I am not the community. So if I if I can clarify uh chief also for everybody there's not a desire for a commitment to we're not putting a ring on it right now. Uh it's a and what I just heard you say you want to be part of the discussion. >> Yeah. So, so that's that's all we're asking for right now is do do you want to be part of >> providing service to we feel we do but yes we we do want to be part of now and in the future but it all depends on what the financial needs are in the future what we can actually provide. >> Absolutely. >> Can I ask a question? >> How's your How's your driveway in front of your department. >> Oh yeah, you know how that is. >> I know how it is. Did you guys have any input into that with Wright County and stuff? >> Yes, we did. We did. They're dropping down so we can get out and go left or right. >> Going to be satis >> going to be satisfactory for you guys. >> Yes. >> How'd you do that? >> How did I do what? >> Get the county to listen. >> He's in right county. >> Yeah, >> that's why I'm asking. How did he get their county to listen? I I talk to the ex mayor and I talk to the engineer that help me provide service on that. >> Everything you guys do is wonderful. I try to get over there for all your pancake dinners and everything else. And I might I might be incognito, but u >> you got a good bunch. You got a good family over there as do the rest of y'all. So >> I am very pleased with what what we have. >> But what a mess. >> Any other questions? Thank you, Chief Mo. And and again, this this was the just want to be at the table for this discussion. Uh we we've got to figure out the next part between now and October. I'll have details available here soon on uh how the contractor is going to identify when we're going to have the fire service conversation. Make sure that it works with your schedule. Okay. So, next uh R comes before W. Is it bad that I had to go through the Oh, I thought we were going by names. >> Good evening, mayors, member of council. Uh, thank you for continued support. As Chief Meliki said, uh, Rogers is interested in the conversation and we'll stay involved in that so long as it's a mutually beneficial arrangement and solution. We're committed to that discussion until where this is going. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor. May I ask a question quick? I'm sorry. I might >> might be too deep and everything else going. Is there conversations about another station in Rogers >> uh >> south on the south side towards Fletcher or whatever? I mean that's the area you're kind of growing in, right? >> Yeah. Currently in the 2030 uh CIP there's a land acquisition schedule. Well, actually I believe it's next year land acquisition. 2032 is when we were it's pencled in for a station basically at 116 in Valley. >> Okay. >> Um If that occurs, I'm not sure. Um, I presented a number of solutions that may negate the need for that based on current locations with staff instead of non staff. So, at some point, it's cheaper to build another million station for more fire trucks or hire a couple. The other question, how are you guys dealing with? No, let me go with really simple and I'm sorry I'm getting off on this, but um how many trains go through C or Rogers a day? >> How much does it affect you guys? Doesn't affect you much, >> but it's still kind of a concern that you've got nothing south of the river tracks. >> Uh yeah, I mean, yes, but with our crossing locations, I mean, chance three of those. >> You got three. Never mind. Thanks for answering. Cool. I forgot you got three of them. >> Chief, I quick feedback. I came from Shakipia and and they were planning a third station when I started there, too. And the conversation that you're just having, they actually walked away from the third station and went with duty crews. And so, I don't know if you've had conversations with them. I know that's a the staffing solution and and that but but they just had that conversation within the last three years when when I was there. Uh concluded that the building wasn't worth it uh and invested in people instead. >> We still may need to relocate something slightly further east but that would be a relocate station too but it is to have a third at some point. >> One one more question if I may. How long does it take from volunteering to be a firefighter to actually becoming a firefighter? You got to go through firefighter one and two or just one or >> Yeah. So, I think all three of us are a little different. Our current standard is EMTT which is three months and fire one, fire two, which is >> six months that summer months. So, it's about a year. >> Hasn't changed. Okay, >> cool. >> Thank you, Chief. >> Sure. Chapler. >> All right. Well, I probably don't have a lot because they pretty much taken everything, but we are interested in partnering with you. Thanks for your support over here. Um, one caveat I will say and I've told this I' been very has a for quite some time and I've told Matt that for I mean we've talked about this, you know, so this is great to hear that you're looking at doing something because um I' I've been a proponent of the station for quite some time. But yes, we are interested. We will stay in, you know, long until more details come obviously. But as Jay said, this is mostly about just or this is about just the uh, you know, the analysis on the station. So >> Chief L question. >> Sure. >> How is your future hopes for a new station coming >> here? No, over in L. >> So, we're doing a we're doing a station study. >> Is it coming? >> We're doing a state study in 2026 to see where our station should be placed within our fire district. We're currently 50 square miles coming with us at the end of the year hopefully. That put us 72 square miles. So, obviously we need to figure out exactly where we need. You think of 72 square mile that's two. So we want to make sure we place them in the right >> almost three. Yeah. >> So >> thank you for everything you've done on your equipment and uh buildings that you have. Thanks the thank the family again. You're all one big one but a whole bunch of brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles. All kinds of stuff going on in our three departments. Uh so for the council and for all the chiefs uh on once I link up with who's going to be our contractor with the space needs we should have a detailed schedule so we can provide and and you know have conversations on your availability for the discussion so that we can get that scheduled. Uh so that that will be and it will happen as far as that details pretty fast. Uh I would suspect being able to share that with you next week uh communicate back with you next week. >> Um >> I'll commit right now. I will fund it if I win the lottery. >> Is that okay? >> It's on the record. >> Yep. On the record. >> Is that something I can say? I'm asking. >> I can do whatever you want if you win the lottery with it. >> I'm just saying. >> Well, Mr. Mr. Mayor, that that was that was the big rock for this evening's uh >> that was that was the big rock for this evening's conversation was to get that information out to understand it. The the second one is there any additional guidance in the near term or desires uh for the reality of this gap. So, so we're talking about the future facility needs, but then the reality of this gap is is there any other guidance in terms of, you know, we we continue to have this conversation, but as far as direction for move in a particular direction, is is there anything that you would like us to consider uh that you know, is it time to again do a subcommittee to look at attacking that same that specific problem? Is it okay? We're going to accept the status quo and we'll focus on this on the fire station. Um what what is the >> opposite committee looking at that narrow >> at the east central >> area >> see what feasible options there are. >> So potentially a subcommittee. Is that what you're saying? >> Again I think we've got experts here. Um the one expert that we did have on the council, Bottom is uh chosen to do something different and stuff. >> Maybe be a resident consultant. >> He he >> but he'll probably say no. >> I don't think so. >> I don't think so. >> Would he jump on it? That'd be cool. And then not to bring up bad feelings, thoughts, or anything. And please, nothing negative towards our friends in the deal in the audience here. Has there been a conversation on more interaction between us and our neighbors to the west. >> Greenfield. >> Greenfield doesn't have >> other west. I was going to say >> other west other east. >> The only the last the last time was that I think they were approached officially was during um I think was a couple years after the study. The question was ask Grove if they have any interest in further engagement with our community. At the time the answer was they had no interest. They said we're happy to support you and happy to help you but we are not interested in contracting. I think the last time that question was asked was probably early 2020s maybe 202 with the latest was probably the last time that it was even just question asked and it was pretty quick at the time. >> So one thing that I that I have heard in terms of Maple Grove's present capabilities I've heard this from Chief Lure and so so they're having challenges meeting their their present needs. Uh so it as far as a conversation I know two of our partners are already having conversations with them about how to help support their needs. Uh and so it it might be apppropo to say like okay you know as you're talking this whole area I I heard Chief Lure say that the future is going to be collaborative partnerships. >> Y >> uh and and so talking to any potential collaborative partner seems wise especially with limited resources like people. H how are you doing doing the people? Uh and they just as I understand it, they're doing a fire study. Uh I think they just approved it >> last meeting. >> Okay. The last I knew they were having it was coming up. Uh and so they're having the conversation about fire service. >> No, I'm I'm aware. I'm just saying has anybody asked about >> not since not been recent. The one >> collaborating because there was issues back in the day and >> I mean even back to the point of didn't want to supply sewer and water to our city and with I was on the planning commission and part of and work with the council we got that opened up and >> one thing I would say >> thank weinian supply bell weather supply all these things but fire is >> as we talk about exploring partnerships or subcommittees um if there's a subcommittee I would ask of the council to have very explicit marching orders we want the subcommittee to look at one two and three or we want the subcommittee to talk to Maple Grove about a partnership because I I want I want to make sure that there's venue and space that we have these discussions together because very quickly it turns into that subcommittee a couple members talk to somebody over there and the telephone game turns into well Corkran's trying to get a number from Maple Grove to take over their city or I think it's important for us to as much as we can be very public about our intentions the conversations that are we're having and the intentions of those conversations >> and that's what I'm asking I'd rather instead of a subcommittee doing all that asking and such is you are public safety director. Uh whatever we design or whatever we do, um I' I'd rather it come straight from I mean there's four people in here right now that are doing our our public safety support and stuff. I'd rather come from is there a way that any of these can help out the others and and stuff. right now that everybody's kind of the closer you get east the more self-centered they are the further you come out this way the more open they are >> so so if this is acceptable what I hear you saying if there's a consensus that would be helpful feedback >> is uh I I could engage your city administrator and that would really be a helpful gauge on is there interest and then if there's interest then it comes down uh and if there's like absolutely no interest I can provide you that feedback but just >> yeah we don't want to have a conversation right now, then there's not >> uh >> that'd be fine. Then I'd say the next step either way would then be identifying potential short at least short-term solutions to close that gap. >> So, so to Matt's point, I think it's helpful to drive back specifically to work plan goals so that then we have metrics to determine how successful we're being on achieving those goals. So like right now the fact that we're we're pursuing one of the goals as part of campus planning that's OEA2 uh that that helps us uh and so um we'll go back and look at one of those so we tie it specifically to a goal so it doesn't look like we're just willy-nilly running around doing something. It's tied to something that is got some directed outcomes. Um so with that in mind like that that's a conversation I can have with Heidi here soon based on her availability. Uh if there is a desire um how would you want us to proceed with that because also those start getting traction really fast and you know so we don't have another work session planned right now for fire services. This this was initial guidance because uh until we get the feedback for the space needs study, that's when we're going to come back except for this other conversation about the area. Is this a we want to start solving this service area and having more conversations about it immediately or is this uh let's focus energies with our partners between now and October when the space needs study is done and then shift our focus to the to the area. Do you understand what I'm differentiating there? >> I I already probably know the answer from the east and stuff. I I think it's everybody on the same page here and what do we need and then at some point who's going to be able to support it? That's what I time's up clarity. >> That's that's just me. I again I I think you've got a room full of experts here and uh to involve others is probably a mistake knowing how these gentlemen and ladies are. Well, I think for due diligence, it doesn't hurt to ask the question. >> Ask it, but I would still with what we have, the players we have and stuff, come back in October, >> but also our partners have made it clear that they they can't meet their own needs right now. And so, they're seeking help from some of them is is my understanding. And if I'm speaking out of school, I apologize. >> No, you gohead. >> Yeah, not necessarily. I mean, they are they're in phase right now. I will say um to the immediate who said that they since the area Rogers covers is the closest to them. They are in our initial box response already. So you're already getting a fire truck from them immediately for just >> they're already kind of in the game a little bit. So are we are we do we talk to our ambulance service and stuff and what are they doing to get >> so >> to get the support to the >> to lift and go. I guess I already know the answer to that one. >> Punch bowl. >> I I punch if there's a structure fire. Maple Grove is is rolling trucks. >> Y'all are y'all are there in a heartbeat. I know. We have we have good we have good relationships with all of our neighbors and from the medical part they've been trying to get better for a long time and we're still seeing the struggles. I think depends on who you ask when the last conversation I had they said staffing is a lot better. I haven't seen that in play out. I know just it was on Pioneer Trail we had CPR and it was an ambulance coming out of WIA and >> I mean it's we're we're looking at some substantial weight times and Jeff shared some stories this morning. of other ones where we're we're waiting a half hour for an ambulance and we shouldn't be >> I'm hearing new with ambulances to build a a little base that they can be that doesn't >> and I'm hearing the same thing Matt my daughter is a 911 dispatcher and her biggest issue she tells me is they just aren't getting assistance in those medical lifts the ambulance side those kind of things. And as she has told me, she puts out a fire call and it's like there's 20 people sitting at stations already to jump in the truck and go put out a fire. I mean, thank you all again very much. But, uh, her biggest concern is when she's got a medical and nobody responds, >> but she's shared a medical >> other than police, other than fire, the the ones that have the drugs and everything else to help the people. taking longer. >> Chief Ler shared a story this morning that that should be really concerning to all of you. That was in Madina at McDonald's. A child was injured. Took 27 minutes and 16 seconds for a an ambulance from Princeton >> to come. You talk about how he knows from Princeton because it had a big deer on it. >> Yeah. But >> I don't know which one you're talking, >> but all all all of the other locals had been called off and then it should be shocking to us too. They had gave a warning that during the Fourth of July weekend, he said just be aware there is going to be no ambulance service for your area. So, so that that should be really concerning to us and and uh as was discussed this morning, we're really limited on what we can do to try and address that. But for legislation and so so when we have opportunities with with our with our electeds in in the state representatives and state senate, those those are really important topics of discussion with public safety is number one priority because ambulances aren't here. What would the state be able to do about it? >> So, the EMSRB board is essenti I know there was some legislation that changed it about a year ago, the makeup of it, but it's essentially privatized. So, the hospitals have service areas. They're not willing to give up service areas that their primary response and they've they've drifted as a business model drifted away from ambulance service because it's also as a business not always profitable. So they they support the need as they're required to by the district, but there's not a huge incentive for them to invest heavily in that either because that's not where the financial incentives lie in a private business. And that's what as local government we've we've raised issue with for a long time saying if we can do better or need better for our service, we should have a voice in this service provision. Um and we've been held out of that meaning in meaningful ways of that conversation. I I don't know the details of the legislation a year ago that they they did tweak the makeup of the MSRB, but it's it's really I mean we we show up and we provide patient care, but when you talk about transport and to where the statutory authority designated by that board and the boundaries that are laid out by that board, we can't change that on our own and the private stakeholders are reluctant to give up that authority or power. I will say I think we have a a well historically we've had a good working relationship with our medical director and we've talked about trying to roll out things like when we brought on Narcan and Epip and some of the more prescriptive type stuff. So I think from from that standpoint they have worked with us in that regard but as far as transport or changing boundaries or some of those those care things I haven't seen any movement on. I'd take feedback if our partner saw something different from that. I'd just like to comment on that that the ambulances are there, but they're tied up with lower priority calls, meaning that they're not available for the life safety call when it comes in. And the ambulance services are getting better at mutually with each other for service, but the low priority calls are still eating up the ambulance service. >> And again, those folks are are heroes also. It's just their direction that they give us. How much, if we're still talking, okay, to keep talking. How much are you guys able to support the first aid and all of that stuff? I mean, y'all are first responders as far as medical or not? Most of you are. And then our police is the same thing. throwing them in a journey and taking them down. >> Well, I think part of the issues that we run into is as we talk about the delay in ambulance service, we're we're on call on scene longer. And so, you know, the limitations like when we talk about for the fire service, but also in the police service, if we only have one officer on or even two officers on, we ran into where we had two or three officers tied up um last night on calls for service. A medical comes in, if we're tied up, it's call concurrency. That's that's the issue. the limitations that gets exacerbated the longer we're held on calls um being able to backfill for to cover the rest of the service area and also concurrency within within our community. So I think that's the immediate one. That's in my opinion where we're seeing the it's not more eventually the ambulances get there but sometimes it's long after it's effective. We say it would have been it would have been a lot better if you were here 20 minutes ago. >> Yeah. But in terms of if a police officer is on site, they're trained. >> Yeah. >> They don't have all the same equipment. What limitations exist for a patient getting care from a police officer or a firefighter that they could get if an ambulance were there? >> It depends on who which officer. So our our police officers vary between first responders. We have some EMTs. Same thing with fire responders that are there, which is different than paramedics. So it it talks, you know, as you talk about medical care that's provided, you know, we now have our fire departments have a Lucas device, we have a Lucas device in the police department. So we have AEDs, we have Lucas devices, but when you start talking pushing drugs or um when you start getting to more the advanced some of the advanced stuff, it starts getting has to be more it's more scrutinized under the direction of a doctor and and the uh the ambulance service. So I'd say once you start getting beyond the basic care and feel free if you guys have different distinguishing features in your agency feel free to chime in but that's kind of where we're where we're seeing it is that the advanced stages of care um and the transport and getting them under >> you can't bring them in right >> we we don't we don't transport >> so I think the distinction that that Chief Mwicki made was really helpful so the most important medical resource that we have is not always attributed to the most pressing medical So, so you have you have a lower level need that's preoccupying the resource and then we have response but they don't have all the capabilities to meet the medical need >> and and so it's it's a it's meeting the need with the resource at the right time >> that transport is going to pay the pay the hospital quite frank there there's no question that that bill is going to be paid and there's a chance if they respond to an emergency call there's a chance they might get paid so they're taking the sure money when it's there not not to be crew Yeah. No, that's a good way of saying it. >> There's very limited money though with all the state >> but also in their defense they're responding as they come in. >> Yes. >> And so if a higher level medical need comes in walking away from the present I mean just do no harm. You can't walk away from this. That's not the way that their current >> guidance actually has patient care been initiated. Have you made contact with that patient? If not here's a higher priority. >> Oh thank yeah. So, so I was presuming care has already been started. You're not going to walk away from >> there's no statuto mandate that they respond to anything weird out of the world. Um, so yeah, they will start to like if you call and say you can respond, you're going to go back to the bottom. I think the officer in the still 57 minutes for you know answer why. >> So >> that's a pretty tier one call. Think you would hurry. Uh I am a paramedic. I'm not practicing right now, but it's basically the post it's and transport. I mean the number one even for cardiac arrest if we do CPR that's fine. At some point they need to be transported. >> Yeah. >> So it's time >> probably don't want to throw on are great all day. The hardest working >> don't want to throw them up on the hoses and take them in the fire truck. >> We're one of only two states in the US that allows the PSA services. >> So, so that's the answer to your question about medical. Uh I I think the resources that we have are doing a great job meeting the need. >> I mean, just when you when you say responding to a baby waiting for an ambulance for an hour, uh I I imagine you're talking to it by the time they show up. >> It's starting to walk. >> Can I ask a question? >> I just little So the analysis is one thing and then is this subcommittee are we part of that or is that the sub a little bit. >> So, so the what what I took away and this is helpful. Well, thanks for bringing us back to that. This clarification, the the analysis conversation is uh going to be actually with a consultant and so we'll be in the room. They'll be gathering data uh and uh then that feedback will come in October and then the next step will be talking about the results of that potential application that the engagement plan. Uh separate from that is for the the east central area. Uh, I I heard from the mayor a desire to do a subcommittee. My question following back up on that would be the timing of that. >> Well, and I think council kind of maybe suggested not a subcommittee. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> So, full council to reach out. Sorry. >> So, so, so for me to reach out to to Maple Grove, but there's still a conversation coming back with R8. We've got that feedback, but our partners conversations with them in order to get to to use your words, our subject matter experts to the table to to put our heads together to solve the problem. Uh is is that a next step? >> Well, I think I think part of it is framing do we have a common understanding of the problem? And I think the service gap is related to available facilities and equipment. And I don't know, >> you know, response time. Would it be fair to say the service gap is more pressing on the medical side to the point that we are getting >> well I think it also has ISO implications and so I think it's across the board but where I was going with it is that the gap identified is based on station location and resources and I don't know that a subcommittee is going to tell us different I mean our response times our our partners are getting there quickly um so you know short short of you know what solutions do we have the outline problem service gap is a facilities and equipment issue and short of the other analysis I don't know if we gave marching orders to the subcommittee saying come back and give us three options um the problem outlined is a facility and resource issue there I don't know that that changes necessarily so again goes back to if we do decide to go to the subcommittee I would ask for very clear please do bring us back an analysis of XYZ >> let's hold off on the subcommittee >> yeah rather leave it in your guys' hands. >> So, so I I'll get feedback from them. I would suspect that >> Well, we'll find out. >> So, we will have another work session then after that analysis is done. >> It depends what the answer is. >> So, so I'll I'll get I'll get an answer because right now we know we're moving forward with discussion for the facility. uh and and then this might be another variable to potentially bring other resources to bear. But but candidly the fire stations that they have, you know, we've already heard there's some challenges in staffing them. So there's some some of the partners are already helping provide their areas. I I guess I'll get an answer and then we'll come back and see if it actually helps. Do we have a recruiting poster for >> Corkran in support of West Suburban Hanover and Rogers fire departments? We need >> So we've got good numbers in each of the departments is my understanding. You know there's Cork and residents. Uh I think I saw 10. Was that the number this morning? Yeah. >> So ironically this service area we we don't have a lot of folks at St. that are really in a good spot to volunteer for the fire department. >> We could part >> just to help for us to come to the table for when we have facility discussion if the agreed upon is 10 minutes to every call your desire as a city or whatever because that's really going to change. Are you staying with the same you know outcome as you wanted or problem that you identified >> or is that number going up or down because that would drastically change what my recommendation would be equipment staffing. >> That's really helpful feedback. Thank you. >> So really identifying what that service level desire is. >> Um because you know we average seven and a half minutes out the door. is 10 minutes automatically start >> duty crew or whatever. So that's just going to change the size of the building when I just went through a building process, you know, drastically start to change that discussion. So it just would help me. >> Yeah, that's helpful. Yeah. So, the the city outlined the service and response time goals in that in the uh subcommittee recommendations and that was based a lot on the analysis of what they were what we're receiving at the time for response times. Um, so is it a is there an expectation for a dramatic shift? I haven't heard a desire for a dramatic shift from the expectations that were outlined in that subcommittee. Again, that goes back to is that a variable has changed that the city would like to um either lose, you know, would they like to have a a longer time or a shorter time? And I think it was there was it was referenced to NFPA standards but it wasn't indexed to NFPA standards >> and is medical and fire the same >> and that and that was outlined in that as well that there was a differentiation between there which is one of the reasons why we started tracking how we track call times and >> I just want that would really because that is going to drastically change what I would say is needed just from building a station recently. >> Yeah. >> So that's thanks for bringing that up. I I I think what I've heard from council and and also uh very happy with the service that we're getting from our partners and and those three partners help shape the standards that were established in the recommendation. And so there's not a desire at this time to deviate from the standards just to ensure that we're able to meet those standards in this particular service area. >> Is that Yeah. Which which then would tie to the facility. >> Yeah. So this not changing the standards just recognizing that this is going to help us meet the standards better in that service area. >> So if you if you do open up it's in the binder in the email. There's a page 11 on the subcommittee recommendations. >> I just wanted to make sure that we're >> I appreciate you flushing that out so that we don't all of a sudden hey what standards are we trying to achieve? That's a helpful clarification. Chief, >> just one thing. Um this is more of a commentary. I think the time frame of this building that we're talking about that could drive a little bit of the in that area. That makes sense. >> Flush that out for me. >> So I mean let's say the building don't get built for three, four, five years. You know, they're not going to put up tomorrow. As you continually are building, there's more service call. So I think the service level might be explained, but there's going to be more calls for service. So that may change how we provide service even though there's not a building in place. that kind of >> yeah that that that's that was my comment about that's the second part of the conversation >> right >> uh so so the timing of the building is going to solve it long term >> right >> near term we we are at some point going to have to have a conversation of until we have the building and then even when we do get the building I mean there's this is the first step uh when I'm not working here anymore we're going to have you you and I had that conversation about uh as Corkran continues to build out what's the next step. This is just trying to fulfill the recommendations from the last service study uh with the current MUSA. Um and and with the next comp plan, if the MUSA changes, uh depending on what happens in a lot of different areas, that's going to change hotspots and this is the the first move. So I agree with you >> and and trucks are three, four years out. >> My truck is three, four, four years out. So that's part of the thinking process also, >> right? in the training pipeline. You just said a minimum of a year before you get somebody uh from I'm interested to I can help. >> I heard selling trucks. >> It's a whole another conversation. >> You may want to you may want to reach out >> though. You may want to you may want to reach out to >> you may want to reach out to Maple Grove because I do know there is frequent turnover of their vehicles every I'm trying to remember what I helped set up but I mean a lot of lot of >> life cycle replacement is pretty >> a lot of their trucks are 20 25,000 miles and you rebuild all the pumps and everything else and there's been some small rural communities that have gotten some pretty good vehicles. It's a whole another option. >> Well, I think we've accomplished uh what we needed from council today. Thank you. Uh I think this was productive and helpful. Uh and then uh ne next steps, I will reach out to our partners when I've got clarity about the space needs timeline uh and provide that to you. And then I will also uh reach out to our neighbors to the east just to get their feedback on I mean it'll be interesting what's driving their get a better understanding what's driving their understanding of their fire service study. Uh um is there anything else that you have for staff? I'd like to just I'd like to add one comment that as we're doing this, I appreciate all of you being here and I think it's important to note that nobody's working towards something other than what we've talked about in this room and I would ask everybody that's in this room if you hear people saying something different. >> Please feel share with them what you know and what you heard and what you and what you know from from both the council and and from the fire staff that you you were in the room. You are part of the discussions and you are you're our valued partners. We can't do this without you. So, please help be help spread the right information and if they don't believe you, come come to city hall. We're happy to talk. But I really believe that the more we can have the more conversations we can have with people in the room at the same time, the more helpful it is for making sure that everyone is of the same understanding of the information because one person can have the same conversation three times and it gets received differently. It's not intentional. I know it's not malicious, but um there's a lot of people that care a lot about their community and their fire service, and we want to make sure that people have the right information. So, please help be stewards of accurate information if you hear something other than that. >> Yeah. My comments about not building a fire department is because during the rodeo, I had multiple people come up and and aggressively ask me why we were building a fire department. And uh so so uh um I just want to make it clear to everybody. Uh my beard's already white. Uh >> I've had some of the same conversations. >> I can see why don't we have full-time firefighters? Why don't we? And I'm like how much are you willing for your taxes to go up? And they're like what? And I'm like, a full-time firefighter, if I remember the weighted number, is 13,000 with benefits and everything else. How many of those do you are you going to be able to support, >> but like I said, if I win a lottery, our problems are solved. I can get a building for a couple months >> and getting the equipment. >> Yep. So, so a shout out to our dedicated volunteers. I learned something this morning. uh is you know so on average I saw some stats six to seven hours is what what normal volunteers are doing right now uh just at least for West Suburban our volunteers are 12 to 15 hours a month is is the number am I getting that right oh 12 I did say week sorry my bad six to seven hours a week versus reality is 12 to 15 hours hours a week uh and um that's a big commitment that's impacting families uh and so there there's self, you know, service above self is just notable. We we could not have the public safety priority we have in our community with without all the people that are stepping up to the plate uh >> and their department. I >> mean, you're out for dinner and your alarm goes off, either those folks get a really cool friend at the restaurant to take them home or they're going to have a good night at the restaurant waiting for you to come back and get them. So, thank your thank your direct families to please. I I know what that is. If you don't know, my wife was a firefighter in the western eastern suburb to here and uh loved every minute of it, but uh was a huge commitment. So, thank you guys. >> All right, >> that's all staff has, Mr. Mayor, unless there's something else. >> Sounds good. And with that, there's nothing else. I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> You get the pick. All those in favor say I.