# Council Public Safety Committee - November 5, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 5, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3162 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3162?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-11-05 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 17,154 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Public Safety Committee met on November 5, 2013, at 1:00 p.m., with Peggy Henson presiding. The committee addressed five agenda items during the meeting, taking three votes and hearing five public comments. The committee approved the summary from the previous meeting. Two items were deferred for further consideration: the Division of Police Home Fleet Policy and Items in Committee. Two presentations were delivered on an informational basis: one on Fire Stations and ISO Ratings, and another on DEM Emergency Preparedness. Overall, the meeting balanced routine approvals with substantive policy discussions and informational updates on public safety matters. ## Attendance **Present:** Peggy Henson, Kevin Stinnett, Chuck Ellinger, Diane Lawless, Bill Farmer, George Myers, Jennifer Mossotti, Harry Clarke, Ed Lane, Chris Ford, Richard Moloney, Mike Sanner, John Sheed, Chief Baston, Commissioner Mason, Commissioner O'Mara, Jamie Emmons, Pat, and Mike Sweeney. **Absent:** Shevawn Akers. **Late:** None reported. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included three motions, all of which passed by voice vote. **Motion to Approve Meeting Summary** [timestamp: 0:00:00] Harry Clarke moved to approve the summary of the meeting, seconded by Diane Lawless. The motion passed by voice vote with no abstentions. **Motion to Discuss and Consider Revised Language of Section 16-14 of the Code of Ordinances** [timestamp: 0:04:00] Ed Lane moved to discuss and consider the revised language of Section 16-14 of the Code of Ordinances, seconded by George Myers. The motion passed by voice vote with no abstentions. **Motion to Adjourn** [timestamp: 0:05:00] George Myers moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Ed Lane. The motion passed by voice vote with no abstentions. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed several financial matters related to the Lexington Fire Department's operations and equipment needs. **Appropriation for Fire Department Vehicles** Resolution 0073-26 approved $1,000,000 in funding for new fire department vehicles for the Lexington Fire Department. **Fire Station Operating Costs** The meeting discussed the annual costs to operate fire stations with full staffing: * Engine-only configuration: $650,000 per fire station * Engine and ladder configuration: $1,335,000 per fire station These figures represent the full operational expenses required to maintain each facility with complete staffing levels. ## Public Comment Mike Sweeney, president of the Turn Order of Police, addressed the council regarding the home fleet policy [timestamp: 0:36:52]. He argued that the policy is vital for community safety and officer presence, citing that officers answer approximately 5,000 off-duty calls annually. Sweeney urged the council to reconsider the policy and expressed willingness to negotiate a letter agreement with the city to reinstate it. Council Member Lane raised concerns about fiscal responsibility [timestamp: 0:44:01]. She emphasized that the city's surplus came from borrowed funds rather than tax revenue and cautioned against overspending despite the perceived benefits of the home fleet policy. Council Member Akers addressed potential precedent concerns [timestamp: 0:51:20]. He questioned the implications of renegotiating collective bargaining agreements mid-term, specifically asking how such action would affect other unions, including fire and corrections departments. Council Member Lawless spoke in support of the home fleet policy [timestamp: 0:54:31]. He emphasized that public safety is the primary obligation of government and noted that the home fleet policy provides tangible benefits, including the 5,000 off-duty calls answered annually. Council Member Massadi addressed fire station planning [timestamp: 0:53:49]. He expressed support for the need for new fire stations and requested detailed cost and timeline estimates for proposed stations in the Masterson, Polo Club, and Hayes Boulevard areas. ## Contested Items **Home Fleet Policy Reinstatement** The committee was divided on whether to reinstate the home fleet policy. Members supporting reinstatement cited public safety benefits as their primary rationale. However, other committee members opposed the measure, emphasizing fiscal responsibility and the importance of respecting collective bargaining agreements. The disagreement resulted in a split vote, indicating the committee could not reach consensus on this issue. **Fire Station Expansion** The committee engaged in a heated discussion regarding the expansion of fire stations in high-growth areas. The debate centered on multiple concerns: the urgency of building new facilities, the associated costs, response times in underserved areas, and long-term planning considerations. Committee members also raised concerns about changing building materials and evolving fire dynamics, which factored into their assessment of expansion needs and priorities. ## Approval of Summary The committee approved the meeting summary without dissent [timestamp: 00:00]. Harry Clarke made the motion to approve, and Diane Lawless seconded it. The summary was approved with no objections raised. ## Division of Police Home Fleet Policy The committee discussed the Division of Police home fleet policy, examining its effects on cost savings, officer morale, response time, and public safety. Key speakers in this discussion included Chief Baston, Jamie Emmons, Mike Sweeney, Council Member Stinnett, Council Member Lawless, and Council Member Lane. [timestamp: 0:04:00] The discussion covered multiple dimensions of the policy's impact. Committee members and administration representatives addressed how the policy affected departmental finances, the morale of officers subject to it, the speed of police response to calls, and broader implications for public safety in the community. The administration confirmed that the home fleet policy would remain in place until the next collective bargaining cycle, indicating that any changes to the policy would be contingent on negotiations during that period. Despite the administration's position on the policy's continuation, the committee expressed strong support for reconsidering the home fleet policy. This indicated a disconnect between the administration's stance and the committee's preference for revisiting the policy's terms or implementation. The outcome of this agenda item was deferred, meaning the discussion did not result in an immediate decision or resolution, and the matter was postponed for future consideration. ## Fire Stations and ISO Ratings [timestamp: 00:54:37] Chief Hoskins and Pat presented findings on fire station coverage, response times, and ISO ratings to the committee. **Key Findings** The presentation identified three areas with response times that exceed the national standard of four minutes: - Masterson Station - Polo Club - Hayes Boulevard **Committee Action** In response to the presentation, the committee requested that the fire department provide detailed cost and timeline estimates for new fire stations to address the coverage gaps in these areas. **Outcome** This agenda item was informational in nature, with the committee gathering data on current fire station performance and coverage to inform future planning decisions. ## DEM Emergency Preparedness The Division of Emergency Management presented its emergency preparedness framework during this agenda item [timestamp: 0:54:37]. Pat led the presentation, which outlined the agency's comprehensive approach to emergency management. The presentation covered four key components of emergency preparedness: - Planning - Response - Recovery - Mitigation A central emphasis of the presentation was the importance of community-wide coordination in emergency preparedness efforts. The Division highlighted the critical role of the Emergency Operations Center as a central hub for coordinating emergency response activities across multiple agencies and community partners. This was an informational presentation with no formal action or debate recorded. The outcome was informational in nature, providing the meeting attendees with an overview of the Division's emergency preparedness framework and operational structure. ## Items in Committee The committee discussed the need for a resolution to reinstate the home fleet policy and examined the legal and procedural implications of renegotiating collective bargaining agreements mid-term. [timestamp: 0:57:59] Council Members Stinnett, Lawless, Akers, and Lane participated in the discussion. The committee considered the requirements and challenges associated with reinstating the home fleet policy, as well as the complexities involved in modifying existing collective bargaining agreements outside of their standard renewal periods. The outcome of this agenda item was deferred, meaning the committee did not reach a final decision and postponed further action to a later date. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve the summary of the meeting - **Motion** — passed: Motion to discuss and consider the revised language of Section 16-14 of the Code of Ordinances - **Motion** — passed: Motion to adjourn the meeting --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next on the agenda is the Division of Home Fleet Policy, and this item was placed in committee by Councilmember Stenet. Do you care to speak, Councilmember, on this? I'll wait. Okay. And I would ask Commissioner Mason. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon. I'm going to turn this over rather quickly to Chief Baston and let him go over the particulars of the home fleet findings in terms of our calculations. But I think you'll see from the first slide there has been some reduction in mileage and in gas consumption. So we'll let him get into the particulars of that. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chief. Thank you for joining us. I know the last update that we had, I think, was on May the 7th. So Council Member Stenet promised that he would ask when we had a complete year of data since the change in the home fleet plan, and we have that now. And I'd really like to thank John Sheed and his team because they produced everything that we asked for in terms of statistics and data, and they've done an outstanding job of tracking all the metrics that we followed. So before I get into it, too, I want to explain. This is not as simple as it might seem on the surface because there's so many moving and changing parts all the time that it's hard to evaluate apples to apples and come up with a constant. The number of officers change and fluctuate. The numbers of officers assigned to patrol, which does the majority of our driving, fluctuates, so that makes differences. When we have strategic assignments like we have in some neighborhoods right now, when we really put a lot of resources and use strategic overtime to fund those, that's an extra presence that affects the mileage that we drive. The age of the division's fleet certainly affects the maintenance numbers. As the fleet gets older, we see cost change with that. Off-duty assignments worked by officers, and the numbers of those worked affect the amount of income that we have from the current contractual obligation. And then fuel prices seems to change every month. So we're trying to look at something in a very changing environment. So we're trying to do the best we can with that, given that. Okay, we can go to the first slide here. The summary is we experienced an 8.27% reduction in mileage-driven throughout the period, and that was from September of 2012 to September of 2013. that we looked at. We had a 4.18% reduction in fuel cost and a 3.44% reduction in fuel consumption. Sometimes it's hard to follow why you have less of one and more of the other, but the changing fuel price is one thing that goes into that. I think on May 7th, at that time, we reported that we had a 9.57% reduction in mileage-driven, so that's dropped to 8.27%. and an 8.4% reduction in fuel consumption. So some of the variables that we've seen that I mentioned, the strategic overtime assignments and some of the areas extra effort we're putting into some areas, in summer is just a busier time. So that, I think, accounts for some of that difference that we're seeing. The next chart will actually show you some detailed information. It shows the miles traveled broken down by month of the period that we're talking about from fiscal year 12 and 13. When we started the year, the first part of this year, the year period we're talking about, we were realizing 15%, 12%, 13%, you can see the chart, fairly significant savings in miles driven. But then as spring came and we've, I guess an extra recruit class came out then too, so we had more officers out on patrol driving cars, more miles were driven. So as the year has progressed, or that year period, there's been less of a savings that we've seen in miles driven. Next is fuel cost. And as I said, that has bounced up and down and all over the place. And it's kind of hard to compare because of the changing prices. But we did save a total of $70,530 for the year of real dollars. gallons used we saved 18,092 gallons for that year period which would be a 3.44 percent savings or reduction difference and then vehicle maintenance this this goes directly to the age of the fleet as you can see in FY12 13 and 14 it's get that number's going up any way you look at it. So as we drive the cars longer, certainly there's going to be more maintenance costs. We're going to be getting some new cruisers going into the fleet this year, which should offset some of those high maintenance costs that we're seeing. As we replace the oldest and more maintenance, that would need more maintenance, we replace those with new cruisers. So we hope to see that figure recede some in the next fiscal year. So we get down at the end of the day, and when I talk about operational cost, I'm not talking about depreciation or insurance or any of those things. I'm talking about fuel and maintenance. So that's what these figures represent. And the difference between the last year that we had the home fleet plan, as it used to be, and the current plan was $28,404 is the difference between the two. I think in May there was some mention about have we tracked crime statistics, crime totals, to see if crime is going up or down during the period. As you can see, crime for this period is down somewhat compared to the previous year. So there doesn't seem to be a relationship with the home fleet plan and crime going up or down or whatever. In terms of personnel, we actually have more officers currently assigned vehicles than we had in May. In May, when we reported, we had 488 officers that were assigned vehicles. Now we have 507, so that accounts for some of the reduction in savings on mileage driven that you saw in the latter part of the year. We had, at that time, 167 officers resided out of county. 137 of those participated in out-of-county take-home usage and as you may remember that is provided in contract and we've had that it was the contract before the most recent one that that provision was included where officers can pay the mileage from the county line in the adjacent counties that they live to to their actual destination at home and drive the car back so they're paying from the time they leave the county line until they get back to the county with mileage. They reimburse the government. And then at that time, we had 321 officers residing in Fayette County in May. As you can see now, we have 507 officers currently assigned vehicles, 169 residing out of the county, 146 of those participate in out-of-county take-home usage, and we have 338 officers that actually reside in Fayette County. So those numbers have changed. Currently, according to the contractual provisions, out-of-county payments have averaged $8,440 a month for the officers that drive them from the county line to their home and then back to the county line for a total of $101,000 for the year of revenue that came in to offset costs. in the current contract, most recent contract, there's a provision which allows officers who are working off-duty jobs which may want to use the cruiser for the off-duty job, such as directing traffic at one of the churches or whatever on Sunday. If it's approved, they may use their cruiser, but they have to pay, I think it's $50 a month, in order to be able to use the cruiser in an approved off-duty job. and that's just to and from the job and while they're at work on that assignment. That has averaged $5,464 a month for a revenue for the year period that we're talking about of $65,000. So the cost difference, and these don't include depreciation or anything, but actual direct cost, we had a savings of $70,530 in fuel. We had revenue, which would offset costs of $65,000. And then maintenance, because of the aging fleet, we spent $42,000 more because of the higher maintenance costs. So at the end of the day, we netted, we believe, a real dollar savings for those costs mentioned of $93,404. The next slide shows off-duty officer-involved collisions. The estimate on that, I think, that went into the total projected savings, the assumption was it was based on a percentage of mileage driven and an assumption made on percentage of mileage that was thought to maybe be driven off-duty. And I think we had $119,290 was what the projection was for the insurance costs. And as you can see by the chart, we went back and pulled every accident, an officer's accident that they had when they were off duty. We had to pull those by hand and then track the cost for those accidents, and those are the damages for the years listed. So that projection was more than what we've experienced. Previously reported, I think we said we projected $444,322 in operational savings costs, $119,290 in insurance costs, and then $268,337 for depreciation for a total of $831,950. and this year period, as we just talked about, hasn't shown us that amount. Does anyone have any questions? Thank you, sir. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Chair, and Chief, thank you. It's always good to see you and get an opportunity to hear how things are going in your department. I know we're not diving into any other details besides the home fleet, but thank you for you and your command staff for coming today. I put this back into committee for a couple reasons. One, this was an issue that obviously last year during collective bargaining was one of the concessions made on behalf of the FOP to sign a collective bargaining agreement. I guess what I would want to hear from our law department, I know Ed Gardner, you're here. If we made any changes to this policy, tell us how that would be handled and would we have to go back to the bargaining table and how that would work internally? Basically, it's in the contract. It was negotiated at the table, as you said. And in order to change it, we would have to operate through either formal bargaining or at least working through the union as the other party to the contract. that could not just be unilaterally changed. And would you have to get the bargaining teams back together, or could it just be done administratively with a representative from each side? I would have to maybe think a little more on that, but basically it would probably, since it was such a major part of the contract, it would probably, maybe not the full committee, but it might take more than just a representative. Okay. Thank you. And then back to Chief, in your opinion, I know you've been on our force a long time, a lot longer than most of us have set up here, obviously. How do you think this has impacted your department? This was a policy that, to be honest, I was very much a fan of allowing officers to take it home, and still am, and being able to use it on personal use. Tell us, from your side of the fence, how has it affected morale, recruiting? Has it been a game changer? I don't think it's been a game changer, but it's had some effects, certainly. It's affected the visibility of officers on the street. I think when officers were able to drive their cruisers off-duty, certainly there was a much greater degree of visibility. The last year that we had the home fleet, I seem to remember we tracked the number of off-duty calls or responses that were answered by officers who were off-duty, And I think we had about 5,000 of those instances where officers responded when they were in an off-duty capacity. Certainly, it's affected some of the officers, I'm sure, on some of their budgeting and the ability to drive the cruiser. They probably had to go out and buy cars to be able to do that. So it's had some effects in terms of a game changer. we haven't seen that relationship with crime that we wondered about, as we showed in the table. Okay. And then the estimated savings was almost $200,000 a year. That's another one of the things. We tried to do something to set a constant with that. I think it was $220,000 in that one slide. And what we tried to do, since all these costs have changed so much, is we projected the cost, I think, for FY12, Roger, or the cost that we had for FY12 and applied that cost to the number of miles that we actually drove in this time period we're talking about. So the cost would be constant to be able to compare the two years. And so based on that, it looked like about a $220,000 savings. Yeah, and I can appreciate how difficult it is to measure this savings. I asked the question before we started the program when Director Barrow was here, how are you really going to measure it? because it is a very difficult thing to put your finger on exactly to tell us. I think we budget a savings of about $800,000 a year in our budget, and obviously we're going to come well short of that. So I think the council's decision or I think some thought could be put into how do we change the program, does it need to be changed, and to what degree do we allow it to go back to the old way, do we look at a hybrid of going back, having a choice to take it home but pay a small stipend like, say, Louisville does. So there's a lot of ways to go move forward. Do we continue like it is? It's working. It is saving some money, but maybe not to the impact we thought it was going to save. And obviously collective bargaining plays a big role into that and how that contract has to be amended to accomplish whatever we decide up here as a council. And Chair, too, I think there's some people in the audience that may want to speak, public comment on this issue before we finish. But, Chief, thank you for presenting today. I think as I close, I've got 30 seconds. There's one big thing, and you alluded to it, the 5,000 calls that off-duty officers responded to that we can't measure. No matter how much we debated up here, we can't measure the one life that we could save if we have an officer nearby or the presence we have with having an extra officer at a public park while watching a kid's baseball game. We can't measure the time it could save someone two or three hours waiting for someone to stop and help them and offer the officer be there in their crews and they flag them down. So we can't measure those things, and that's the thing we're missing here is having that availability in our community, having that presence in our neighborhoods worth $200,000 a year. And I think we need to determine that, and I think it is. I think it's worth having that opportunity and that flexibility to have our officers who want to drive them off duty. Obviously, some don't, and I understand that. But I think it's not that we are having a good discussion today on it and should continue to reconsider. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. I agree. With Council Member Stenet, I've always been a big fan of this program. And when you look at the savings of $200,000 and what does it cost to have 5,000 calls answered by off-duty police, that's a lot of calls answered by off-duty police. and also just the presence of, I know when there was a police officer that lived at the end of my street and a police car was there, there weren't any cars broken in. So I do think it does show more presence. And, you know, I've witnessed off-duty police officers pull over, and they're on their own time, and they do it, you know. My big question is, since this was part of the contract negotiation, And what I'd want to hear from law or whoever is, would this mean we'd have to renegotiate the entire contract, or could we just renegotiate this part of it? But I do think it's had, from what I understand, and talking to police officers, et cetera, it has created a burden for a lot of them, and it has impacted morale. To answer your question about whether the entire contract would have to be renegotiated, I don't think the answer to that is yes. We would have to approach the union and basically ask them if they would like to go back to the table. Assuming that was agreeable, we would sit down and discuss this issue. As Council Member Stenet indicated, it's not necessarily a simple answer in terms of what we would want to put in the contract if we amended it. So we would need direction. Assuming we were going to go back to the table, which I wouldn't necessarily recommend that, But assuming we were, we would certainly need direction about what would be agreeable. I mean, certainly the cost savings hasn't been as much, and the maintenance, because the fleet is so old, isn't because of, you know, it's because we have old cars that are breaking down and we're getting new ones. But there was negotiations with all our unions and concessions made to help us during tight times. We're not saving nearly the money we thought we were going to. And we have a surplus. And I think that that good faith negotiation that they, our unions, were kind enough to, you know, put good faith efforts to save the city money. And we're all in this together. And the savings is pretty insignificant given the impact, in my opinion. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Chair. I think at the end of the day, when you look at $200,000 and you look at 5,000 off-duty calls, you're looking at $40 a call, which is very minimal considering the service that you're getting. I'm a big supporter of the home fleet plan, always have been, and I think some people consider it or have described it as a perk. Well, to park a cruiser in your home residence where your family lives with you and that you may be subject to vandalism, calls, threats, break-ins yourself. That's a lot on the line for yourself personally, not only with your job, but you and your family. So I would hope at some point that we may be able to look at this again because I really do believe, and I've heard from my neighborhoods, that they miss the police presence in the neighborhoods. They miss those cruisers being parked in the neighborhoods at the parks, as you mentioned, and just the visibility. So I would hope that we could at least look at this a little bit sooner than four years or two years from now. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. And I wanted to comment that I don't see the cost savings as being worth the cost, I guess, of not having the home fleet plan. because I know I was talking to Commander Kurtzinger with traffic enforcement, and it's like how many, if you have an officer driving around New Circle Road, how many accidents could you possibly prevent? Because if that officer in that cruiser is off-duty driving around New Circle Road, how many people are doing 75 miles an hour? When I'm in my personal vehicle going around New Circle Road, I guarantee you they're doing, I mean, I won't sit here in front of the chief and say how fast I'm going, but I know they're passing me like I'm sitting still. So I see, and that is definitely an unmeasurable benefit to having it, in addition to other, you know, safety in our neighborhoods. But I wanted to ask the administration, if anyone from the administration, if Commissioner Mason maybe wanted to speak as far as... Commissioner O'Mara has some comments about some of the calculations on the cost figures. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Just as a different perspective, I went back and looked at what Director Barron computed and followed his logic. and I wanted to just walk through that so you could see what those assumptions were for that 800,000 and then compare that to where we are today. And I guess the one thing I would say is that it was all built on an assumption that there would be about 15% less miles driven if the home fleet program was stopped. And that would be total miles driven on those vehicles that are assigned to those officers. If you look at the data that the actual miles driven before those extra assignments were going on, which causes the apple-to-apple comparison to get off kilter, that was running at about 12.5%. So there was an assumption done that we would save about 15% of the miles driven. And it looked like we were going, you started at 15, 12.3, 3.6. So it looked like it was going to average about 12.5. So if you take the assumption that whatever miles we're driving now, we would drive an additional 12.5%, that is a way to look at what would it cost if we added it back. And those are hard costs. Now, you can use whatever gasoline mileage rate you wish, but he used 3.28. I'm not sure that that was a bad assumption when he was forecasting that. And he also used the assumption that repairs would move at about the same proportion that the additional miles would drive. So he was looking at a three-year base of repairs and said 15% of those repairs would be diminished. The fleet is aging regardless of whether those additional miles are being driven or not. So if you hold steady with the assumption that if you add another 12.5% miles, you would have another 12.5% maintenance cost, then the numbers for what I'm calling hard cost, he came up with the original assumption of a 15% savings of hard cost, maintenance, miles driven, cost of all that, a $444,000. If you shift that and make that at 12.5%, that would be a $370,000 savings that would have had to have been spent if those miles and those repairs had continued to go on. Then he went to what I call soft costs. That's not his term. I'm using that. And he was looking at depreciation and insurance. the more miles you put on a car, the quicker that car needs to be replaced. So he's saying those additional miles accelerate the depreciation and so that you are going to have to replace that vehicle 15% sooner than if those miles are not driven. Again, if you just take that assumption and shift it to 12.5, then that's an additional 223,000, whereas his original assumption was $268,000. Then he looked at total insurance, made an assumption of 10% of it was related to the police endeavor and estimated that to be $119,000. If you just throw that out completely and just say, you know, we have $3,000 of at-fault, you would have an 831,000 original assumption versus 593,800. So that's just another way of looking at it. I'm trying to keep something constant and let the one variable change so that we can get a variable analysis. It's very, very hard to put a dollar amount when the driving mileage changed, the gas mileage changed, the age of the fleet changed. you have too many moving parts, the analysis that's presented is correct. Those are the actual differences year over year for those months. I'm not denying that at all. It's a matter of how you approach trying to value what it would cost if you went back to the home fleet. Different points of view, different way of doing the analysis. I wanted to share that with you. Council Member Lane. Good afternoon, Mr. O'Meara. Good afternoon. One other way to look at this would be the rate per mile that the IRS estimates it costs to run a car. Do you have an approximate idea what that number is per mile? No. Okay. Well, I'd like to. So you may know better than I. Well, I'm not sure what the exact number is, but somewhere between 50 and 58 cents a mile. I was thinking 54, but that's a wild guess. Airs, maintenance, depreciation, tires, gas, that kind of stuff. I think it would be interesting if, as a third way we evaluate, is we figure the mileage that each officer would drive approximately when they use it as a home fleet vehicle and see how many miles that is and see what that number looks like. That would be a third way to evaluate it. You know, there are definitely pluses for the home fleet. You know, I mean, I can see a lot of pluses for that. And I have, you know, strongly supported the home fleet in the past, but when we, you know, restructured our compensation plan and changed a lot of things and I think brought the police and fire up to a really good pay rate. I think at one time there was justification for the lower pay rate for police, but it's the fact they did have the use of the car. And I think when we restructured that, the car got recently knocked out of the equation. So I guess I would say we need to reevaluate it from the cost per mile aspect of it. And then I guess my follow-up question would be to the Chief of Staff, Mr. Emmons, what is the policy of the Mayor's office? Are you all supporting changing the plan, or do you want to leave it as it is? I think I should start off with one clarification. Today the take-home fleet policy does not exclude folks from driving their vehicles home. They are in the neighborhoods. They're just not driving them off duty. And there's a pay-for service, pay-for use of your vehicle out of county if you live out of county as well. It's our position that this is much bigger than just about the take-home fleet policy. It's about labor relations and respecting collective bargaining. The savings may not be exactly what we calculated them to be or predicted them to be, but they're real. and we know that it will cost more if we go back and change the policy. So today our position is we would leave the policy as is, and if it's a priority in the future collective bargaining conversations, we can address it at that time. Does that more or less mean you're set up for status quo now to keep evaluating it? When the contract comes up for renegotiation, then you maybe evaluate it further at that time? Is that what you're saying? That's correct. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Chair. I have one last question. Chief Bastin, if you wouldn't mind coming to the podium. Thank you. I guess one thing that I did not see in the packet was response time. There was nothing about response time slower, because I know on a real busy night, if all your beat police officers are busy and you don't have someone that has an off-duty vehicle, where does response times fit in in all this? You know, we'd have to look at that. My gut would say that it wouldn't drastically affect response times. There would be some occasions where maybe an off-duty officer could respond and would help, but overall with the numbers of calls that we respond to, I don't think you'd see a statistically significant amount of difference. Okay, that was my concern. Thank you. Thank you. I do have one person signed up to speak, and that is Mike Sweeney. I have to do counsel. I'm Mike Sweeney. I'm the president of the Turn Order of Police. Y'all took some of the wind out of my sails up here. I had this thing planned out, but I do want to answer some points here. To your point, Councilman Lane, I don't think you can say that you need to take one away because our pay raise went up. For years and years, the take-home cars was part of the packet. It was a great recruiting tool. It still is a recruiting tool. Our pay raise, our pay increases over the last eight years, finally have brought us up to where this department should be. I think you're comparing apples with oranges. Back in March, I emailed the council after you all, rightfully so, gave a million and a half dollars for the remainder of the fiscal year to the fire department to eliminate the brownouts. I applaud you for doing that. There's something need to be done. I also emailed you several weeks ago when you found out what the surplus was in the city's budget and suggested taking some of the surplus and putting it back towards these cruisers, which obviously we know now does not come near the $800,000 savings that you thought you had. I realize that this was an issue that the members voted on, but they did so along with other things that they gave up to try to produce a savings for the city. To take all fiscal issues aside, the home plate plan was designed to add omnipresence to officers and community. And again, as the Chief pointed out, we answered about 5,000 calls last year from all-duty officers. Nobody was paid to answer these calls. These are calls that they took, $4,000 to $5,000 a year. Last year, 12 months, 76 calls answered by off-duty officers. And I would guess to say most of those were probably on their way to and from or on their way to work. Adams Lane, as you all recall, 10 years ago, some of the first officers who responded to that were off-duty officers. and if one life can be saved because of an off-duty officer being out there, it's worth it. And believe me, over the last few years, there's been a lot more than one or two lives saved by off-duty officers who have stopped and given aid, given CPR. You don't know how many burglaries, how many robberies or thefts have been prevented by the sight of a police car out on the street. As he pointed out earlier, as you pointed out earlier, speeding. To me, that's a lesser example, but you don't know that somebody's not getting ready to go into a quick mart and do a robbery when he sees an off-duty police officer pull up. These are just some of the things that I can allude to. And as I said, and as you pointed out, these men and women agreed to this. We ratified this by 80%, but not because they wanted to because we were told if we didn't ratify this contract, we were going to get the last, best, and final office that the city gave us. So that's why we agreed to this and ratified this. I'll make one last comment of a fiscal nature. These men and women of the police department have made a lot of financial sacrifices. They gave up a week's paid vacation. They forwent the raises and step increases for the last two years. They gave up a considerable amount of their uniform allowance. They gave up their annual fiscal fitness pay. And they did this because they knew the sacrifices had to be made to help this city. But now you find yourselves in a surplus this year. The exact figures have been folded a little bit, somewhere between $3 and $12 or $5 and $12 million, I'm not sure. but obviously as has been pointed out here today the savings on this plan isn't what the city thought it was going to be. This former gave some figures. You can calculate the what-ifs on this but the true savings you've got in front of you I'm guessing somewhere around $80,000. About 10% of what you thought it was going to save. This home fleet plan was designed back in the 70s for omnipresence. Mr. Sweeney, I'm sorry, but your time is up. Okay. Well, let me say one more thing. This takes nothing more than a letter agreement between the Attorney General Police and the city. I've done three contracts. I've done several letter agreements. That's all it takes between the city and the FOP. Thank you. I have a couple of other council members that would like to speak. Council Member Stenner. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Sweeney, before you run off, can you? Am I getting another winner, sir? You might. We'll see how long it takes. I'm just a messenger. Just a quick question. On your last, walking off from the podium, you mentioned a letter. Have you asked the administration to go back to the table formally to discuss this change? Not with this particular issue. We have not. I was waiting to see how this meeting turned out. But I have in the past signed letter agreements with the chief or with the city on other issues. Is that what you're prepared to do after today, to go back and discuss this? Yes, I am. And your membership, is your membership, have you polled your membership to see if a change is warranted or requested? I've not polled them, but that certainly can be done. I can't imagine why they would not want to take the cruisers back. You're obviously a member of the state FOP and other people around. Do any other cities in Kentucky do a home fleet policy still? The majority of them do. Okay. And what about Louisville? What do they do? Louisville has a home fleet plan. And do officers, is it free or do they pay? The officers that pay in Louisville, the officers that use their cruisers in an off-duty job, in other employment, they pay a fee, a monthly fee. The officers that don't use it in an off-duty employment, they pay nothing. Okay. So you're prepared to go back to the administration after today and ask to renegotiate this issue in the contract? Yes, I am. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Lane. Thank you. Mr. Sweeney, you don't need to come back up, but I just wanted to say that the police department, the officers there, are fortunate to have you. I think you're one of the best advocates for anything I've ever met. You do a really good job on that. And so I congratulate you again for a good presentation today. I would like just to say, though, that our budget is tight, and we've been in a recession. Our income for the last four or five years has been fairly static. It's actually declined several years during that period of time. And in all candor, we did not have a surplus this year. The reason we had money left over is we borrowed $30 million in general obligation bonds, which went into our general fund, and we only spent $14 million of it. We had about $16 million left over. So it's not like we have money from tax revenues coming in. and we're paying all the expenses, and we have money left over. So I guess I'm a little bit of a fiscal hawk, but I think we need to be careful about everything that we spend right now because we're still not out of the woods yet. And anyway, I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from. I think some of the other council members. I think we have a fabulous police department. and I tell Chief Bassin that every time I see him, you all do a great job. I am so proud of our police department. I mean, everything about it, the caliber of the people, the integrity, the way they handle themselves in public, I can't. There may have been a few exceptions over my term here on the council, but you can't have a perfect situation. But we're almost as good to perfect as can be, and I congratulate our police department. And, you know, if we had the money and, you know, I'd say pay more, give everybody a free car, I mean, you know, whatever we could do to take care of you because you earn it and I appreciate it. But at the same time, we have to be fiscally responsible to, you know, stay within our budget. Thank you very much. That's all I have to say. Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. As somebody who likes to consider themselves fiscally responsible, I agree in a lot of things Mr. Lane said. But in this one situation, I support the home fleet system, and I think the indirect costs that come from it probably outweigh the savings, and it doesn't appear that there's great savings in not allowing it. And I guess I'd like to ask maybe Mr. Sweeney, he probably might have the best answer for this, is just can you explain just what's happened in the year, what they could and couldn't do, so everybody understands, because I think there's some disagreement with what could happen. And also, I guess one of the issues, how is somebody can't use their car before? Who paid for the gas and how all that issues? Do you get a card? All those kind of questions are circulating. I guess I'd like to know what happened prior when you could use a home fleet. What can't you do now? And just try to see what has changed. Well, right now the cars are strictly to be used to and from work, and that's it. The officers pay a price to use the car in an off-duty employment. and that is to drive their cars back and forth to their off-duty employment job. Other than that, we pay $50 a month to drive the car to and from our off-duty employment. Now, what happened prior to that? How did that work? Prior to that, the officers, there was no limitations except driving inside the county. And what about paying for gas then? The officers didn't pay for their gas. Okay, and how does that? So what happens now is if an officer, they take the car to their house, they have to leave it there. And what happens if an officer would by chance use it on a non-off-duty situation? What happens to the officer? Well, they can't use it other than going to an off-duty job or driving back and forth to work. But I guess my question, what happens if they did do that? Well, you're basically in its honor system, and there have been no issues in the last 12 months. I guess if it were discovered that somebody was taking advantage of the situation or was abusing it, then there would probably be remedies from the chief's office on that. But there had been nothing like that. What about responsibility before when they're off duty and they're driving, they see a situation that they need to respond to? What's their responsibility as a police officer to? The officer is responsible when he's in that cruiser to be armed with his radio on. And that's, as I said earlier, as the Chief pointed out, that we took an average of 5,000 calls a year by off-duty police officers. Now, what happens now if they don't have that opportunity and they're off-duty? Do they have any responsibility at that point if they see something happening to respond? Or do they have a radio then? Or is it there just now no longer we have that option? Well, the option is if an officer is out there on his way back and forth to an off-duty job and he takes some action, at that point the officer can put in for overtime. And that's a discussion we've had that the officer, if he finds himself out on an injury accident and spends 30, 45 minutes on that injury accident, the officer is actually encouraged by the FOP. And the chief and I have had this discussion that the officer deserves the overtime. Have we had, I guess I'm going to ask budget and finance, have we had any of those situations where we've had overtime? I can personally tell you that on probably, in the last year, on probably six or seven occasions, I've taken action to or from an off-the-day job, and I've never put in for any overtime for it. And I guess that goes back to my initial premise that by supporting this home flat, I think we actually have a lot of indirect savings on costs that we aren't claiming that we think we're going to by not allowing it. And what is the process? Because I don't think we can do anything as it stands presently. I think it has to be between the administration now and the bargaining team is my understanding. What did you say about an agreement and a letter, and is there anything that we can do? It's simple. I would presume that if the committee voted to send it on to Council and full Council voted to re-implement the Home Fleet Plan as was originally designed and prior to August of last year, it would simply be a letter agreement between the FOP and the City re-altering that section or that article of the contract. So, and I guess, Mr. Emmons, I guess, listening from you, could you give your stand on what you think that is right now with the administration? Because I guess you would ask us to just give them the opportunity to go and do a letter of agreement. Is that what you're saying? I'm asking for the letter agreement, yes. And I don't know if it comes from the council to the mayor or if that's your part of the policy. Well, at this point, I don't think we've done any negotiating with public safety on behalf of public safety, so I don't know how the council would be a part of this. I guess I'd ask Mr. No, this is the first conversation we've had, public or private, about home fleet policy. So we can continue to have conversations with the FOP after this meeting, but I think our position is clear for right now. And how long is the contract for? Four more years. For two more years? The fire is July, June 30th to 16th. Thank you. I think my time's up. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. I guess, Jamie, Mr. Emmons, if my concern or I guess the initial question is, If we were to renegotiate any kind of collective bargaining agreement in the middle of that agreement, what kind of precedence or what would then happen with our firefighters and our corrections officers if they want to change some part of their collective bargaining agreement? Well, I can't predict the future, but I would say that they would certainly be able to come to us and ask for revisions. what they would ask for I would venture to guess but that was part of what I was talking about respecting the process that we went through to try to come to these agreements is important because we all did it in good faith in all three groups police, fire, and corrections have we ever done something like this before renegotiated or revised an agreement after there have been minor amendments is my understanding but this Hopefully policy was approximately 60% of the savings in the collective bargaining agreement with the FOP, and that's significant. Okay. I think he's got you. Just to address your question, there have been what Mr. Sweeney referred to as letter agreements or letters of agreement, never on something that is, in my recollection, maybe Mike will contradict me, but never on anything with this kind of financial impact. Even though it may not be the financial impact that was estimated, there's clearly a financial impact here. And it was part and parcel of, and I was trying to figure it out, but I believe the negotiations took like 18 months or something. So it's not like we lightly entered into this agreement. I remember. And then I also wanted to ask Mr. O'Mara a question, unless they have additional comments. so Bill I've tried to follow what you were saying and logically I understood it but I was wondering if you have anything in print or anything you can put on the screen or if you could provide us because your numbers I think directly I mean not contradicted but were a different way of looking at the savings it's a different approach so I would like to see that tangibly to compare against what we were provided here. I'd be glad to distribute that to you. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Just briefly, I think that public safety is the number one primary service that our government is obligated to provide. And it's a different, to me, the home fleet situation clearly has shown benefits with answering 5,000 calls in a year. And keeping Council Member Henson from speeding, And it's not like a pay raise or a uniform or this or that. To me, this is a very tangible benefit to our citizens in keeping the public safe. And I wonder if this, I mean, we, if I remember correctly, we did have to vote to accept the bargaining agreement after it was all put together. so I'm wondering if we as a body can make a motion to reinstate the home fleet, and maybe we'll have to wait until next meeting to find that out. So thank you. I wanted to say one more thing. The statute is very clear in that it's the administration's responsibility to negotiate the collective bargaining agreement. It is true that the contract after it was negotiated was presented to the council and was accepted by the council, but the primary responsibility remains with the administration. So, as I said earlier, when I was up here before, if we are going to consider something like a letter of agreement or anything over that or less than that, we certainly need specifics as to what would go into that. And it would require a minimum, as Jamie said, a continuation of what started today, discussions between the union, and figuring out how that should read. We've never, as I said earlier too, we've never changed something. Generally, the letters of agreement have been where it wasn't exactly clear what something meant and parties meant one thing, but it looked like it read some other way, not basically changing completely a section of the contract. Council members, there's a couple more of you signed up to speak, And we do have a lengthy agenda, and I was wanting to move on to the next item, but I suggest that based on the discussion here, that maybe if nothing more than a letter of encouragement to the administration, I feel like we have made a mistake by taking this out of the benefits from the police department. And Council Member Massadi did. Well, could we not make a resolution that we could forward to the administration saying that we want to reinstate the home fleet policy? Would that not be appropriate, Mr. Gardner? I didn't think there were any questions I hadn't had before, to be honest with you. It's always the first time, right? Right. I suppose, obviously, the council speaks to its records. You could do a resolution. The representative administration is standing right here. I know that the administration tries to work with the council, at least that's my understanding. But to answer your question, yes, I guess you could. I don't ever remember that happening, anything that formal in regard to necessarily directing the administration. But I think the true answer to your question is, yes, you could do that. Well, Chair, there seems like there's a strong feeling here. I guess I would say the majority of the council members feel like this is very important, and I'm not sure at this point how we would be able to work this out with the administration. I mean, I don't know, Mr. Emmons, is this going to be tabled for two years, or are you going to, based upon our input, take this into consideration and work with the FOP on this issue? I understand it's a difficult process. Well, on the other hand, the savings obviously haven't been fulfilled that we thought we were going to have, and there's a concern about the presence and safety and so forth. So it's an important issue. There is concern, and I would say that this conversation just started, so I haven't had a lot of time to think about it or put any plans in place yet. But our initial reaction was if there wasn't a strong correlation with a spike in crime and this home fleet policy and the savings were real, that it made sense to continue the policy. but again seems like there's some disagreement up here though I understand, that's fine I would promise that we will take a look at it and have a conversation with the FOP okay, can you get back with us or can Mr. Sweeney get back with us and let us know how those negotiations are proceeding he will thank you council member Stennett Thank you. I got skipped over, but I'm glad Council Member Sadi kind of hit home a couple of the points I was getting ready to make. So we have your word. You're going to go back and discuss this policy and move forward and either come back to this committee or come back with a change? Okay. That's good enough for me. Mr. Mayor, did you have a new calculation for us possibly on the mileage rate, which is 56.5 cents per mile driven that Council Member Lane was alluding to earlier, just so we can close some of those issues that he raised? Yes, if you use that approach, that third approach, it would be hard cost of $533,000 compared to looking at the three-year actual cost and projecting it out, that 12.5%, that came out to $593,000. So you're still the half a million to $600,000, and that includes the depreciation calculation as well as repairs and mileage. And I'll end on this, and I know we can't go into it today because we're cutting short on time, but in any of our union contracts, we anticipate savings. And when those savings are not realized, what are we doing in the budget? How are we projecting that and monitoring if we're saving those dollars? And how are we going to make up the savings difference in our budgets if we're not actually realizing those collective bargaining savings each budget year? Are we doing it on a year-to-year basis, or are we projecting it out? because this is a four-year agreement. The others are three, I believe. So if we're not realizing the savings we anticipate at the bargaining table, what are we doing to make up those differences? And you don't have to answer it today unless you want to give me a quick answer, but I think it's a real issue. I mean, even if we use the mileage rate, it's still $300,000 approximately short. We've got to make it up somewhere. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Lane. I was just going to say, I think the advice from the legal department to allow the representatives of the police department's FOP to negotiate with the mayor's office is the appropriate way to go. And I believe that Mr. Sweeney would agree with that, too, because previously he didn't want the council to really be that much involved in the negotiations on the contracts. So I think that's the best approach to go forward with, and I would encourage us to look at this very carefully and make a good decision on it. Thank you. Council Member Akers. I'll be really fast. Mr. Mason, in the surplus that we just recently negotiated or discussed, I guess, we allocated a little over a million dollars, I think, to the police department for new vehicles. Can you tell me how many vehicles that will buy approximately? What were the figures? Forty. Twenty-two? About forty. Forty. Will that decrease the maintenance costs that Chief Bastin was talking about in his presentation at all, or will that, I mean, is it just sort of neutral? Over time, a newer fleet is going to decrease maintenance costs some, but that's a general services question for the fleet folks. They've got some pretty technical calculations. I just wondered if it was replacing old fleet or if it is adding to the existing fleet, I guess, was the question to try to figure out that math problem. Replacing. This will be replacing the oldest in the fleet. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. And I think we'll move on to the next item on the agenda. and thank everyone for being here. And I certainly look forward to hearing future discussions on that item. But next on the agenda is fire stations and ISO ratings. Hello, sir. Thank you. Hello. Okay. We were asked some time ago, Many of you may remember that in October of last year, the Insurance Service Office came in and did an evaluation of the fire service here in Lexington. We got that report back, I think, in May. And then there's always been a conversation about fire stations and the growth of the fire department, so we'll talk a little bit about that today. I'll start out with this. This is the location of all of our fire stations in the city now with your council districts, so you'll know who serves your particular district. You'll notice there are multiple districts listed in a few of those locations, and that's because those stations actually sit on the street that divide your council districts. We currently have 23 fire stations open, 22 engine companies, 7 ladder companies, and ten emergency care units and a heavy rescue. Historically, since 1997, we've only put four fire stations, new fire stations, in service here in Fayette County. And you can see Arrowhead Drive, Maple Leaf, Clearwater Way, and then out at Bluegrass Station is the Briar Hill Road fire station. Prior to that, we had only opened four fire stations since 1984, between 1984 and 1997, of which three of those were located out in the rural areas, parts of the county. This kind of gives you a little bit of perspective of where we were in 1975. I found this information when we were doing research for our ISO evaluation. It shows us where we were in 1975 and kind of where we stand today. And to put that in perspective here, the Fayette County population grew almost 70% over that time frame. In the same time, the sworn staff in the fire department increased by only 40%. Our civilian staff actually decreased by 40%. Fire incidents have raised 157%, EMS almost 300%, yet our growth in engine companies has only gone up to 30%. We've kept pretty good track with our emergency medical care. and all the way back to the 1975 ISO report, they recommended that we put an eighth ladder company on duty. We're still at seven in 2013. So how do you decide where to put a fire station? There are several ways to look at this. One thing that we use in the fire service is the National Fire Protection Association pamphlet number 1710, which talks about response time and staffing. for NFPA 1710 90% of the time to meet the standard you get the first company to the scene of a fire incident and then the balance of your response there within 8 minutes for EMS incidents since we are a fire based EMS we get BLS on scene in 4 minutes and then if we do provide ALS which Lexington obviously does we have 8 minutes to get an ALS unit on the scene Currently, our EMS response times are a little over the four-minute, and the fire response times are also just a little in excess of the four-minute response time. Something that figures into our response time discussion came to light just recently. Underwriters Laboratory has just released a study. It deals mostly with tactics of ventilation as we're fighting fires, but there was a module in that that dealt with the differences between buildings and furnishings between the 1970s and current times. And I gave you a link to that study so you could look at it if you would. Let's pay special attention to Module 2, which talks about the differences in building constructions and the difference in fire loadings. Long and short of it is, things have changed tremendously since houses were built in the 1970s versus 2013. Many buildings that are single-family dwellings now are large enough to qualify as a commercial structure. They may be 3,500 square feet or greater. The way we build this, what attracts us to new houses now, the open floor plans, the large atriums and the entries, actually have a fairly significant effect on what happens if those buildings catch fire. Our fuels, our furnishings today, I would venture to say in 1970, Probably most of the furnishings in this room were natural products, wood, cotton, that kind of thing. Now they're synthetics. Synthetics are wonderful until they catch fire. Then they burn a lot quicker. If they burn hotter, the fire takes off a little bit quicker on us. The buildings and the construction materials and the building materials that are used today, the building materials are lighter, so they don't hold up quite as long when they catch fire. They do a good job as long as they're not burning. But once they catch fire, they cause the fire to grow quite a bit faster. So now, in modern construction, we have faster fire growth. The whole inside dynamics of a fire have changed tremendously for us. And by and large, it gives documents less time to escape, and it gives the buildings less time to survive the fire. A very interesting part in this UL experiment, they established two rooms. One was furnished with modern furnishings. The other was furnished with what they determined legacy furnishings, essentially telling you the difference between the 70s and the current time. A flashover occurred in the modern furnished room in just a little short of four minutes, where in the legacy room the flashover was almost a half hour before it developed. So when you think about the response time, how far away you are from areas, time does matter time matters greatly to us one of the things that the relationship that we've drawn just recently is you know we have fire stations in established areas of the city it's where the city is growing that we fall a little short on our fire stations those are also the places that have the modern construction the modern contents they burn quicker they get gone quicker so we are kind of behind not only in the fact that we haven't kept up with as the city group but we also are dealing with a different animal when it comes to our buildings and our contents. Another, if you will, criteria or measuring stick for determining where you put fire stations is provided by ISO. ISO stands for the Insurance Service Office. It's an organization that gathers data. They have a rating schedule. It's a very highly math-based statistical analysis of the fire department. And then they assign what they call a public protection class. Class 1, you're an exemplary program. Class 10 means you meet none of their criteria, and essentially you are unprotected or you have no fire protection. They base this classification on four different topics, the handling and receiving of alarms, the fire department itself, the water supply, and then they provide a statistical factor that kind of evens out the difference between your fire service, your fire department score, and your water supply. We are kind of an unusual situation when ISO came to see us, was that we provide both fire protection to an urban area and a rural area. So we have what's called a split class. We have a class two rating for areas. pretty much if you're in Fayette County, you're within five miles of a fire station, 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant, they give you a class 2, which is pretty good. If you're further than five miles, you're considered to be unprotected. If you have a fire hydrant within that 1,000-foot area, then you have a class 9, and that's in the rural areas. ISO also has a different standard for what they refer to built-up areas. And in your packet, you have a little paragraph there that explains how they determine what is a built-up area and it deals with concentration of fire hydrants in a one-and-a-half-mile area. They compare that to areas that are growing, and if you've got 50% of the fire hydrants in an area that does not protect it, then it needs protection. I'm not sure how they got up with that formula, but that's their use. So when we talk about fire protection in Fayette County, We have to think about both the urban areas where we are held to that one-and-a-half-mile travel distance for fire companies and then rural areas where we have a five-mile distance to travel. When our rating and our report came back in from the October 2012 survey, we maintained our class rating, but we maintained it by a margin of 1,100ths of a point. I said this is all a statistical analysis, but that's pretty close. And I was glad to see we didn't go backwards, but it concerns me that we are that close. When we talk about the ISO rating, when we get down to the ones, twos, threes, that seems to have a greater impact on insurance ratings or insurance premiums for a commercial or industrial-type setting. and residential does not see that big of a change when you drop down below the fours and the fives. So ISO made some recommendations. They're very careful not to tell you what to do. They just give you recommendations as to how you would get more points to move yourself up on the scale. And all of their recommendations are based upon bringing the department up to a Class I rating, which is a pretty tall order when you look at what they're going to recommend for us here in a minute. For engines, to achieve a Class I, they told us that we would need a total of nine engine companies. So you probably recognize this being a map of Fayette County. These little small pink dots that are spread out all over the place are a thousand foot radius around fire hydrants, so they don't really play in too much. But when you see the E prop, you'll see Lexington Fire Station 5, and then you'll see the E prop 1 through 9. The props are their proposed engine company locations, and there are nine of them. They are not ranked in any specific order. They're just saying that in order to achieve a class 1 rating, we would need to put nine more engine companies on duty, which that pretty much translates to nine more fire stations because you've got to have a place for the crews to live. Ladder companies, as I mentioned earlier, in 1975. I so recommended that we put an eighth ladder company on duty, and we still have not done that. But the proposed ladder company is there located. It's in the Tate's Creek. It looks to me like Man of War to New Circle Road area. So what is the fire department plan? What do we hope to do with this? Well, we have identified three areas that really have a high level of concern for us because we've had development outpace the fire service in these locations by quite a bit. The first one would be Masterson Station area, after that Polo Club area, and then the Hayes Boulevard area. When we talk about Masterson Station, we look in the SIDSIS data. There's about 13,000 people that live outside of New Circle Road, kind of between Old Frankfurt and Georgetown, kind of in that area. 13,000 people. That's a lot of people. Our closest fire station are located in Metathorpe and just off Georgetown Street there at Finney Drive. They are well outside of the four-minute response time that NFPA asks us to meet. This is a map. The shaded areas reflect a four-minute response time. GIS people have an application that figure in the type of street, the traffic load, and the speed limits to tell you about how far you can go. And the area, is this got a pointer in it? Well, the area in the white with all the streets there, that's Masterson Station. And as you can tell, even with the Georgetown Street Station and Metathorpe, they're well outside of our four-minute response time. and that subdivision I believe is getting close to that area's development there was about 20 years ago when that started so we've been behind the eight ball on that one for some time just to give you kind of a little bit of an example or a little bit of perspective with that the city of Versailles has a population of about 9,000 people they're covered with two fire stations we've got 13,000 people living in Madison Station and we're not even close Station 25, the next station, will be in the Polo Club area. We know that we have some commercial development and residential development happening out in that area. It's currently served by our Maple Leaf Drive station, the station on Oyster Road, and Station 2 on East New Circle Road. Now, we are in the process of moving Station 2 from New Circle Road over to East Linn-Murray Drive. We've had that piece of property for several years. We're doing the pre-construction phase of work with that right now. And that will help as you go out that corridor from Winchester Road out toward I-75. That will improve coverage in that area. But it does not really take away from the people around Station 2. Station 2 was a county fire station. Station 8, which is on North Broadway just outside of Newstoke Road, they were very close to each other. So we feel like we won't lose very much in that area when we move Station 2. As you can see in this map, once again, the area down the bottom right-hand part of the screen is Polo Club. Station 21, Station 2, and Station 9 are actually represented by the green dots. But a large portion of that area is well outside of our four-minute response time. And then the third station we would look at in an immediate fix to this would be in the Hayes Boulevard and Athens-Boonsboro Road area. There's a lot of residential property that is developed out there, and also we have a light industrial area on Blue Sky Parkway. That area, we understand, is going to be one of the few areas that will see a lot of development through other factors outside of our control. But that area is currently served by the Maple Leaf Fire Station, Richmond Road, just inside a new circle, and South Cleveland Road at Old Richmond Road. And as you can see in this map, just about all of Hayes Boulevard is outside of our four-minute response time. So for the immediate plan would be to build these three fire stations, 24, 25, and 26, so that we close those gaps where our response time is greater than the national standard of four minutes and to improve our scores with ISO as far as our distribution of fire companies. Another factor that figured into our ISO score is our training facility. We had to demolish our training tower a few years ago. It became unsafe. 25% of the credit we could have gotten for our training we lost because we don't have a four-story or greater tower. But how do we fix this in the future? One of the things that is, as we look into how did we fall behind, how did we not keep pace with development, is that as an area is developed, there are considerations given for parks. There are considerations given for schools. There's considerations given for libraries. The fire department has no seat at that table, and this is the result of that. We do not grow as the city has grown. So I guess I'm open to questions now. Thank you, sir. Council Member Lane. Thank you for your presentation. How many of the fire stations have we either closed or relocated that are currently operating in Fayette County or were operating there since the merger of the government, urban county government merger? everything that was operating in the merger to my knowledge is still opening is still open the county had three fire stations uh one on southland drive which we which is our now station 12 the one on metathorpe which is our station 13 and station 2 on new circle road all right well you know i've been a strong proponent of traps relocating some of those stations in addition to putting in new ones, the benefit would be improving response times everywhere by relocating to station. And the biggest cost of relocating to station is really just the building, because the equipment and the personnel, if you relocate, would just be moving to the new facility, so we're not adding a lot of additional operating costs. How much is the estimate to operate a fire station with full staffing, say, with an engine only and then with an engine and a ladder? Well, you have obviously the startup costs, building the building, providing apparatus, which if you're talking about moving, we would have that. Personnel cost-wise, just some base figures. An engine company, we're looking at about $650,000 a year in salaries. an ambulance we're figuring somewhere in the neighborhood of $450,000 a year in salaries and a ladder company around $685,000. Okay, and does that include all benefits, pension funds and everything? That's their pay scale numbers. So it's maybe a couple of million per station? Depends on how many companies you have in a station, obviously. Okay. All right. With regard, you know, I'm in support of this because two of those new fire stations are in my district. And, of course, the 12-36 has been where most of the growth has occurred over the last, you know, 10 years or so, and Masterson Station is another area that's been higher growth. So I do think we need to, you know, address those issues. But at the same time, I would like to see us try to improve the overall efficiency of all stations by perhaps moving some around strategically so that the response times would be better and, you know, the spacing between stations would be better also. Well, typically the stations that are close together have a very dense population, and population equals calls for service whenever you're in the emergency business, be it law enforcement, emergency medical, or fire. So as I said earlier with ISO, there are kind of two different levels of criteria. If you're in what their term is a built-up area, you have a mile and a half. If you're within a rural setting, you're looking at five road miles to be considered to be served by a fire station. So when we look at our most dense population, which is obviously the downtown area, we've got several thousand people living in the U.K. area. We have several thousand people. So while distance is not there, the demand for service and the number of people that we serve is pretty equal. Just one other item is in the ISO report, it said if we had one more ladder that it would improve our overall rating. Yes, sir. So that would be a top priority. When will the next ISO study be made? I don't know because it was about 20 years between the last one and the one we just went. Do we have to pay for that? No, sir. The only cost to us is obviously it requires a tremendous amount of information gathering to great detail. I would expect, my understanding is, that ISO is going to go back to their every 10-year visit. Historically, they made a point of hitting every fire department every 10 years, and then it kind of fell off, caught us by surprise, quite honestly, whenever they come in and say we'll be here in October of 2012 because no one in the staff could ever remember really dealing with them. My last question has to do with water supply and the flow rate and being able to get a certain amount of gallons per minute to fight fires. How are we looking? I know in some of the rural areas we don't have the flow rate we need, but what about everywhere in the county besides the rural area? There are areas where the large buildings, one of the examples it was giving in the report was Angliana Avenue. The large tobacco warehouse on Angliana Avenue would require, in their calculation, a 9,000-gallon-per-minute flow rate. The hydrant system there would provide in the 3,000s. Typically, we do well with our water supply. But then again, that's one of the things that's kind of outside our control. We buy water. We pay hydrant rentals. The water supply system is not ours. In the rural areas, while we do have hydrants spread through most highways, most roadways, there are still a significant number of address points that are half a mile or greater from a fire station. One thing that we have, as a staff, talked about is trying to implement and actually put a tanker company on duty, purchase a truck that is built to haul water safely in large amounts and have that staffed so that when we do go out in your district, we're doing a little better job than what we've done in the past. So you work with Kentucky American. When you find an area where the flow rate doesn't meet your standards, do they respond to that? We do. Our water control office does meet and has a good working relationship with Kentucky American. And as we identify areas, then they work together to try to remedy those. Thank you very much. My time has really run out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Council Member Clark. Thank you, Chair. Chief Hoskins, thanks for this report. This is really not new information in terms of our needs. It was very obvious that these things are going to have to happen sooner or later, it seems like to me. what's the possibility of you folks putting together a report based on three new fire stations, personnel, based on your recommendation for how each of those are equipped to actually put those in writing and distribute to the council so we can see some real figures. I think that would be helpful. we're going to have to do something about this. It just seems unlikely that we can continue to operate like this. So we're going to have to think in real terms here. And I think if we had the figures, it would be helpful and maybe the next step. Could we do that? Sure. That would be very helpful. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. So from the ISO study, does it cause homeowners' insurance rates to go up if they're outside of the four-minute response time or the mileage? ISO uses road miles. And I caution you in the packet, I noticed there was a couple of maps that had large circles that indicated that much of the county was within five miles. the advent of technology has given us the ability to look at road miles. So there has been an increased reliance upon road miles over the last couple of years. We've had people that live in some of the more rural areas of the county call and say, our insurance has gone up and it's the application of the road miles. Also, some insurance companies are now going to technology using GPS distances from hydrants. they're not using ISO as a service any longer and I believe well I don't want to call a name because I can't remember which which pretty large insurance company that covers a lot of people here in Fayette County in Kentucky is is using the GPS system to measure how far your house is from a hydrant so that's that's only helpful if the truck gets there though right I mean I can't hook up the hydrant and put my house out, right? Okay, so I think that my insurance actually gives me a discount because the hydrant's really close by, but again, I'm in Masterson in more than four to five minutes, so it kind of wouldn't matter. So tell me about the planning process, knowing that I've lived in Masterson going on 12 years. The population has obviously grown a lot in that time and even years prior. So my question is, how can we be more proactive and less reactive to population growth? And does that happen now, I guess, is the question. Were you all talking about this 10 years ago? Oh, yes. We have always known we were short, that as that area developed, there was no fire station. And we knew there was going to be population there. but we had no funding, and we had no ability to go out and say this is the piece of property that will best serve this area. That's my next question. Do you have property, and do you have an idea of where it would be located in the Masterson area? We have just had some preliminary discussions out there with the owner as Citation Boulevard is being extended through that area. that it's our understanding there will be somewhat of a commercial-type area that we would like to get, but we have had no formal discussions. It's hard to go do a lot of discussing when you don't know what you can pay for. Sure. And you mentioned the population of 13,000 people. What year was that based on? Pardon me? You mentioned the population was 13,000. Can you tell me what year that was from? I think that was 2012. The Census Bureau has a mapping function on their website where you can identify small blocks of census tracts, and I just added. Okay. And so once there is a fire station in that area, which I hope does happen, what would happen with the station in Metathorpe? Would that continue to operate and serve Townley and serve Metathorpe and serve the Highlands? Yes, it still has a district that it will need to serve. Okay. And so how many people or households are being served currently by the Meadowthorpe Station? Or do you have any idea? Because I guess it's shared between Finney and... Everything pretty much from the West Main Street Bioduct to the Scott County line. A lot. Out Leastown Road, yes. Yeah. Okay. So we have an idea of where we'd like to see a fire station, but we haven't really bought land or even begun that process. So if we were to say yes today, which obviously we're not, but let's say we are, how long would it take to see a fire station in operation? I think it would take at least a year. If you were starting with just an open piece of property to have, you know, to go from dirt to an operating fire station, I think you would look at a year. And that would be if everything was... That's much faster than I thought you would say. That's if everything falls together really well. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Chair. In reference to Council Member Clark's request, could you also put in there with these three new fire stations that are potential locations? I don't know if you can divulge that. Again, like Council Member Aker said, the timeline as far as acquisition to how long it's going to take to have this completed. I think if we have all that information with what Council Member Clark asked, that would be helpful. Thank you. There's no other Council Member signed up to speak. So thank you very much for your presentation. Next item on the agenda is emergency preparedness. This item was placed in committee from the Public Safety Link. Thank you, Pat, for being here. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I just wanted to share with you what we do in a non-emergency state, because that's how we operate mostly. And so I wanted to just give you some information about what it does, what it means to us in the Division of Emergency Management to be prepared. And we're probably a little unique in that, like some of the other public safety divisions, we feel like the responsibility is actually the whole community. We really reach out and touch every aspect of the community, residents, businesses, institution, nursing homes, hospitals. There's not a part of the community that's not involved or needed to be prepared. Okay, good. Go ahead. Basically, this is the cycle of emergency management, and I want to talk to you a little bit about each of these and how we go about implementing what needs to happen in these various phases. Planning, preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. As you can see, they're a circle. It's really never-ending. You start in one place and you make a circle, and you continue to go back around and improve the process in the system. Go ahead, Chris. In planning, it's a little bit more than you think, but that's one of the basis of being prepared is having all the planning documents. And it's more than just sitting down and writing up a document. In order for a plan to be effective and for it to be useful, you have to involve all the various stakeholders and all the various agencies and organizations that are going to be involved in actually implementing that plan. As an example, the emergency operations plan has 15 sections. Each of those require different sets of agencies, and I'll give you just one example, health and medical. It's trying to come up with a plan for all of the health and medical entities within Fayette County to be ready to respond to any type of incident that we have, and I'll talk a little bit more about that. So you're talking about all the nursing homes, all the hospitals, mental health, environmental health, the poison control center, the blood center. So there's numerous agencies that are involved. But some of the plans that we're required to have, a continuity of government plan, a plan for the urban county government, it's more than just how would we respond to the citizens, but how would we continue daily operations if there was a disaster that affected the community or the government directly? How do we recover? None of us thinks that that tornado is going to hit our location, but if you talk to West Liberty or Tuscaloosa or some of the other places, one of the issues that you have to look at is, do you have to change the way you do everyday business to rebuild that community? It's pretty much been a statistical fact that if a business does not have a recovery plan or a continuity of business plan, only about 25 to 45 percent of businesses will reopen after a disaster if they do not have those. So one of our jobs is to help businesses develop those, which is going back to our economic stability and being able to be a resilient community. Resiliency does not mean that you don't get hit by the disaster, but it means that you have things in place in order to be able to respond and then recover from those disasters and make yourself either as well as you were or maybe be able to look and be able to make things better. Debris management plan. Most of you, or some of you I know, were here for the 2003 ice storm, which was really a bigger hit for us than the 2009. Managing all that debris was a huge issue, organizationally as well as convenience to citizens. What do we do with all that? If we had a disaster and we had to give out medications or water or different types of things, having a plan in place to do that, You don't want to just all of a sudden say, oh, how am I going to distribute this to the community? Each and every agency that responds, that has a role in responding to a disaster, has to have implementing procedures and plans on how they carry those out. So individual agency plans is another part of the planning process. Go ahead, Chris. There's also lots of support plans. We're required by a law that now all the daycares across the state and in Fayette County have to come up with an emergency response plan, which has to be reviewed by their local emergency management agency. So looking at all the school plans and all the daycare plans, having knowledge of where all of our resources are, having a plan to deploy those if need be is another thing. having search and rescue, special needs, strategic national stockpile. There's lots of planning that is required. And like I said, it's not just sitting down and one person writing a document. It's many, many multiple meetings, lots of discussion, lots of negotiation to try to come up with, putting in your plan what you are truly capable and have the capability and the feasibility to do, not something that just sounds important. That's why we've expressed to the administration and to the council on previous times that it is really important that we have a planner position, because right now this is carried out by numerous members of the staff, and it could be more efficiently done if we had a person whose responsibility this was. Also, part of the planning, go ahead, Chris, is determining what are we at risk for and what kind of risk is that. Is it a small risk, a great risk? And then also, what is the probability? Obviously, we're at risk here in Fayette County for natural and man-made hazards. Sometimes they're predictable. Sometimes they're random. We also have the ability to have accidental or intentional acts happen, domestic or international. Go ahead, Chris. Threat. What is the likelihood of that occurrence? And then how vulnerable are our systems? How vulnerable are our bridges? How vulnerable is the I-75 Clay's Ferry Bridge to an earthquake or some other type of event? How vulnerable is the government center to withstanding a tornado? So we look at the threat but also the vulnerability of the assets and those things that we need to still be standing when we have that. Go ahead. We also look at critical systems, transportation, utilities, hospitals, other human support issues, And are there any single points of failure? We also look at the IT infrastructure. We all live so much these days with computers and Internet and other types of systems. So in any of these systems, are there single points of failure or are there multiple points? How do we go about in the planning process to try to retrofit and fix those? Some of our risks, obviously, are severe thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes, flooding, blizzards. ice storms, and we have actually experienced all of these except for earthquakes in my tenure. So these things do happen. We're not oblivious in Fayette County to these, and these are things that we try to plan and look for. The other thing that we don't think about too much are dam failures and the impact to flooding, to sinkhole and karst features, which we have a lot of. one of the other things that we don't think that we're very industrialized but we really have a lot of hazardous materials either within the community or flowing through the community either by pipeline rail truck or they're actually used here in manufacturing so when you look at new circle road man o' war the two interstates hazardous materials is really all around us And so planning and trying to prepare for those is something that we have to do. One of the other things that we have that is not luckily everywhere is we do have the stockpile of weapons in Richmond. And they are in an adjoining county, but it's still for two reasons. One, if Madison County were to evacuate their citizens, a majority of that population is to come here. And then also we have learned that if the right weather conditions and the wrong type of accident were to occur, the southern part of Fayette County could actually be impacted by a plume from a situation in Richmond. So that's another risk and hazard that we have to look at and plan for. Go ahead. We know we have lots of public events here, transportation corridors, lots of fuel and storage of hazmat. So those are other types of risks and vulnerabilities that we look at. Part of that is looking at the consequent. What negative effects can happen to the community if one of these threats or hazards were to happen? So we look at the effect of public health on safety, the economy, public confidence, the function of government to still operate, and look at different scenarios, whether it's just disrupted, damaged, or destroyed, and try to come up with varying operation plans and response plans to deal with all those varying consequences. Another part of planning is actually preparedness. And again, preparedness goes from the single individual and families and neighborhoods to the larger businesses and institutions, special needs populations. About a third of any population has some sort of disability. And that can take some different planning and different needs than it might be for persons who do not have some sort of disability. So we have that type of population. We also have to factor into the preparedness and the planning. Besides the general public, if you could go back just one second. Besides the general public, the other people that we're trying to prepare are all of the response agencies. Most of them do a great job, but we also have to train and respond together. So the training and the coordination and the collaboration of how we all work effectively as one unit and exercising those plans are part of the responsibility of emergency management. We're the umbrella, the big picture that kind of makes sure all the pieces fit. Each agency does a lot on their own, but it's up to us to kind of make sure that the puzzle fits together as one working piece. and then just generally outreach and notification, education and awareness of all bodies, civic groups, institutions, all of that is part of planning and preparedness and response and training go under that. Some of the things that we do to try to do the coordinators is we do have monthly meetings and trainings with all of those people that serve in the emergency operations center. And we go through scenarios or we'll have speakers or we'll talk to other communities that have had events and try to get lessons learned from them to see if we can learn lessons and then implement those ourselves. The other thing that we do is every time we have an exercise or we have a real event, we do what's called an after-action report, and we try to determine what worked well, what we can improve upon and literally put an action plan together on how we can improve. Some of those may be policy, some may be training, but some of it may be procurement of equipment or things like that. We're also continuously monitoring weather and threats, and we're tied into with the Weather Service and with the other institutions that do that, and also lots of coordination with other regionals and state agencies. Some of the folks that, and then we go into response. That's kind of the next phase. And one of our primary roles in the response is the management and coordination of the emergency operations center. And that can be activated fully or partially. And we can also, because of the new software that we have, we can also do that virtually if the situation is small enough. And one of the primary responsibilities of an emergency operations center is to develop and maintain situational awareness of whatever that event is so that we can provide that information to the mayor and to the council members and the administration so that they can help to produce what is our strategy, what do we want to try to do, and our priorities for responding to that event. Other than that, we're trying to allocate resources and personnel so that we don't duplicate services. We get things where they need to be on a priority basis. We try to determine all the damage that is done and how we need to prioritize assets and resources from that, and just basically coordinating all the actions that occur within that response. Some of the folks that work in the Emergency Operations Center are the command staff, is the emergency management director and their assistant. the manager and their assistant, staff coordinator, a safety officer, a planning chief, and the PIO. That's basically the command staff in the emergency operations center. It's just a picture of the current EOC. If you've not been out there, I'd certainly invite you to come out to 115 Cisco Road and see the new EOC is definitely much improved and larger than we had previously. So come on out and visit. I just want you to know there is some legal requirements on local emergency management programs to have an emergency operation plan. I'm not going to read this slide. You all can certainly do that. But just letting you know there are some laws and legalities that we have to comply with in having a plan and having an emergency operation center. The next several slides I'm not going to actually go through. I put them in the PowerPoint so that you would have them as a reference. But they list what each emergency service function is in the emergency operation plan, and that also correlates to the positions in the emergency operations center that are staffed. So we have 15 different support functions. They're described in the PowerPoint as who the lead agency is and some ideas of the agencies that they work with and coordinate to provide that function. Just quickly to talk about transportation, the way that the system works is we have a lead agency. Any type of transportation asset that is needed, they are the coordinating agency to go find it. They may not have the big dump truck or they may not have an airplane, but if it's a transportation resource that is needed, they're the agency that goes and finds it, coordinates with that group that owns it to utilize it to fulfill that need for the emergency disaster. And that's the way all of the emergency support functions work. So like I said, I'm not going to read each and every one of those. You all can certainly do that. I just wanted to provide you with the reference material and the examples on how that happened. Go through about six slides, I think, or 15, I think. Keep going. One more. There you are. Just so you know, like I said, there are lots of references into what we do into the state law and the federal law there is a specific definition of disaster and emergency response in that just wanted you to be aware of that and have that information the next slide the other things that we do as part of the response of the emergency operations center is we have numerous alert notification systems that we're responsible for we have 27 outdoor i want to say that again outdoor warning sirens that we operate and maintain. We have an emergency notification system. I think several of you probably get those phone calls occasionally that say that we're activated or there's a severe thunderstorm warning or something like that. If you weren't aware, we do have a radio station, AM1620. It broadcasts continuously with preparedness information. We can also go live and interrupt that during an emergency with any kind of messaging that we need to get to the public. It also is automatically activated when the National Weather Service issues a watch or a warning. It also goes over that 1620 radio. Alertist beacons, I think there's one right over here under the counter. We have those out different places where people can, a lot of the commercial places, I know they have them down at Rupp Arena and the Lexington Center. The YMCA has some of those so that if they're also in tune to getting some of those emergency information through those. And then we will utilize, if necessary, to put emergency information out through Twitter, Facebook, website, and then the normal press information. Okay, recovery is one of the other phases. The way FEMA determines recovery is short-term is zero to 60 days, and that's when you're trying to develop and take care of immediate needs, like getting the power back on, water restoration, making sure people have food or you get access to food back up on term, short-term shelter, and short-term continuity of people's lives, maybe trying to figure out how you're going to get them back into the school system. Long-term is anything greater than 60 days. And basically what you're trying to do in long-term recovery is you're trying to rebuild lives, trying to rebuild the community back to a whole, trying to reestablish the economy for the area, and try to redevelop and reduce social systems. Then the last section in the cycle is mitigation. And basically what mitigation is is the effort to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disaster. Some of the ways that we have used mitigation here is to do buyouts of homes in redundant flood-prone areas, tornado shelters. So it's, again, you look at the disaster and the hazard and the impact, and what can you do either as a community or as an individual to then make changes to lessen the impact of that disaster. Some of the ways that we participate in this is stormwater and flood management plan, greenway master plan. all hazards mitigation and prevention plan. And that's a very, very quick snapshot of what we do. We feel like we're pretty critical to the community, especially in the preparedness phase when that's when we're trying to get everyone ready, including all of you. And I know all of you have an emergency kit for home and one for your car and a plan. So any questions? I tried to not keep you late. Thank you, Pat. That was really great. I felt like it's a lot of information to share. We probably need a full-day conference to really get a good idea of what's going to happen in our city if we were to have a real emergency. And I think the 20 minutes didn't do you justice, but I appreciate you. Council Member Clark does have a question. Yes, sir. Pat, I just want to say we do appreciate it, but I have to add, we don't appreciate you until we need you. So keep that in mind. Yes, sir. Thank you. We really do appreciate you. Thank you. Thank you, Pat. Thank you. We're out of time, committee members. The only other thing is if anyone has any changes to our items in committee. If not, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Move, second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you