Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears CAD apportionment changes; approves Clinton service agreement and authorizes conditional Coventry sign‑off
Summary
The COG accepted a Clinton three‑year dispatch agreement (2025–2027) and authorized the president to execute a proposed three‑year Coventry agreement upon Coventry's approval; members also heard a CAD apportionment update that will shift COG budgeting responsibilities in 2026.
The council approved entering into a three‑year dispatch services agreement with the Village of Clinton (resolution R24‑16), with calendar‑year costs cited as $11,007 for 2025, $12,055 for 2026 and $12,417 for 2027. Chair moved to approve the agreement and the motion passed by roll call.
On Coventry, Leslie said she has reached out and that Coventry is awaiting counsel review ahead of a December 31 contract expiration. A proposed three‑year agreement (approximately $101,680) was discussed and the board authorized the president to execute the proposed agreement on Coventry’s approval so the COG would not need to reconvene to sign the contract.
Separately, the CAD oversight committee reported the committee finalized an apportionment method for CAD costs among roughly 20 entities. The committee reallocated charges to more closely reflect actual usage (for example, separating fire and law enforcement functionality where appropriate). The committee member said the county will absorb the COG’s CAD amount for 2025 but that for 2026 the COG will need to budget its apportioned share (the COG share was described as moving from zero in 2025 to about $15,890 going forward). Example published figures in the meeting: New Franklin’s 2025 CAD apportionment was stated as $17,933.85 and Green’s 2025 charge as $6,794 (down from $22,005 in 2024), with New Franklin previously paying $18,842 in the current year.
Legal counsel (Irv Sugarman) is reviewing contract language where noted; the board asked staff to share the Coventry proposal and the Clinton agreement with counsel before execution. The board also asked staff to pull and circulate the relevant agreements and to confirm whether month‑to‑month extensions are allowable under existing contracts if a new contract is not executed by a partner’s expiration date.
The meeting record shows these motions passed by roll call and the council closed with the Chair offering closing remarks and an invocation before adjourning.
