I think we have David Barbary here. Mr. Barbary, do you want to go ahead and start and talk about the ordinance that's been presented to us? We talked with the division police and county attorney. Sure. This is substantially similar to the initial draft that you all had reviewed previously. I think the most substantial change is after consulting with the county attorney's office and the police department, we actually increased the width of several of the items on here from three. I'm sorry, could you repeat that? We increased the width on several items from one quarter of an inch to three-eighths of an inch. So it would capture less of your normal magic marker type situations. I think the police department has some examples. The only thing other than what you all want to do moving forward that we might want some clarification on is we have left the criminalization of the sales to minors as an option for you all. If you all go ahead and vote to have that in, we would need to know whether you would want that to be effective along with the rest of it immediately or whether there would be some sort of time frame at which that would be put into place so that you could put the sellers on notice that we were doing this. Okay, thank you. I think Officer Gaines, you have presented us with some information here. Would you like to talk about it that's up here on the overhead? Sure. Basically, just kind of overviewing some of the stuff that have gone on over there and the reasons for the increase in the width that we've made in here from a quarter-inch to three-eighths, I checked with some of the major manufacturing companies of markers, like the ones that do Sharpies in particular, since they're the most common permanent marker, and spoke with the Standerford company, and the average or the standard marker, which is the bigger, the wider version of a Sharpie that they make is a quarter-inch. To get out of the standard size marker, we increased it to a three-eighths inch marker, so that was the reason behind the increase is to get out of that standard size. This is just some stop signs. These are all from Fayette County and doesn't show up real well on there, but I think you all have some pictures on them that were passed out that you can actually see better of what the markers look like and some of the paint sticks and the items that we're talking about on there. As we go through some of these other photos that are attached behind there, the items that we're looking at and referring to in the definitions are paint sticks, the spray paint, the nozzles, the nibs or tips, and those things are, there's some photos of them back there, if we could change over to a screen. These are what are commonly used in the graffiti community to do the graffiti. Most of it is kind of specialized equipment, if you would, that the graffiti is done with. These are some of the tips down there, if you see the caps, the OG caps, they come in an outline cap, a fat cap, which is how wide or narrow the spray is. They go everything from a wide spray to a very narrow or fine line spray to do their graffiti with it. The smash ink kits, those are like large ink markers and they're probably an inch or more on that. Some of the other photos back and through there, they sell this stuff in kits and everything else that you can imagine in here with the paint sticks. With the definitions that we have and what we're looking at, although it does cover a lot of some of the common items that are sold in stores, if you get down to that section on what we want to do with the sale of these items or prohibiting the sales to minors on our ordinance, it actually only covers about four things. One of them is the spray paint or the sale of spray paint to minors. That's already covered in our current ordinance on volatile substance. It actually is prohibited under our current ordinance to sell spray paint to minors. I spoke with, I guess, one of the largest retailers, which was Walmart, and that's already in their system. They have the ability to input items into their system such as spray paint, white out, butane. They actually even have the mature rated games. They pop up when they go through a checkout so that they're limiting their sales to minors on that also. The spray paint basically is already covered under our current ordinance. The etching acid or the etching materials, to me, that seems like that that shouldn't really be much of an issue because I wouldn't think that that's something that's a really common thing that somebody that would be under 18 should be purchasing anyway. The broad tip markers, once again, we increase the size of the markers as far as getting away from what would be a standard size marker, I believe, and getting up to the three-eighths of an inch. If you look at the difference on a ruler, three-eighths of an inch is a pretty good size marker. The nibs or tips, if you look at what we're discussing in that, that's not something that's really a common item either that I would think that people would be purchasing. If you look at your photos on that, I think there's some good ones on the very last page that show what we're discussing about on replacement nibs or the tips on there. Basically what those are, they actually look like a big sponge or some type of felt material that goes on the end of a, they're at the bottom down there, they actually go on the end of an ink tube and they make a fairly broad mark. Under the sale of it, we're not covering everything on the sale part of it that we are covering in the other part of the ordinance as far as possession. We've narrowed that down to just try to limit it to certain things. There are stores that supposedly sell these items here also in town. These are all off of internet sales, but there are stores here that sell these. The sale, when we're looking at the ordinance part of it, it is these limited items that we're talking about on here. It does not cover everything. The only thing that, once again, would be probably the most common thing that may be out there would be a broad tip marker and the sale of that to a miner. It wouldn't be, if it's a watercolor marker and it's one of those big ones that kids use, that doesn't, I don't think, meet the definition because it's not a permanent marker if you look at the definition under broad tip markers. Anything else? Also under the signage part down there, our current ordinance with the spray paint also requires that if somebody sells spray paint under our current ordinance on volatile substance that they have to require that there is signage required on that already also. It would just kind of follow along with that. Thank you. I think we have some questions now. Ms. Hinton? Thanks Keith for your hard work on this. Currently the graffiti tools, the only thing that we control as far as the law is the spray paint. Is that correct? That's just the sale of it. That's not the possession of it. Once it's sold, or just having the mere possession of it, it's not illegal under any of the things I could find under ordinance or laws. The sale of it is what's illegal or the transfer. Okay. So there are no laws right now for possession of graffiti tools? Not anything that I could find or anything that came close. Just the only thing I could find in there is the sale of it. That's where we go back. I think the last time I spoke, Mr. Blevins brought up the point that a couple of years ago we had a couple of juvenile subjects out in Bullfront Park and had them with the graffiti or the spray paint and they had admitted that they had been doing graffiti, possibly indicated that it was gang graffiti. We got all their information, but that was at that point, that was all we could do because we couldn't find where they had done anything to actually fall under the state law of criminal mischief, which is actually the application of it and destroying the property. Those same individuals were later arrested, I believe it was in Myrtle Beach area that went on a shooting crime spree and shot several people. Right. Okay, Louisville has an ordinance where the items need to be locked, right? Right. And you and I discussed that and we didn't really think that would be a good idea for the merchants. When I was researching all the laws and ordinances on graffiti, pretty much nationwide, most everybody that has a comprehensive graffiti ordinance covers not only the possession of graffiti implements, but the sale of it. When I was looking at it, there was a pretty good division between whether or not they required the establishments to put their items up somewhere, which would include the spray paint and lock them up to where it was only accessible by store employees to have somebody required to go get it when somebody was making a purchase, or the other one, it was against the law to actually sell it to a person. Looking into it, it seems like it would be less burdensome on stores to just make the requirement like it is currently on the spray paint or other substances that they now do, like the butane or the whiteout, those type of things, the way it is now, that you just make it that it's illegal to sell those, rather than put the burden on the stores to come up with a place to lock it up, have somebody to go get it. So I figured that was the least burdensome or kind of less restrictive to the stores that that happens. And also within that sale of it, that it is, you know, a defense in the stores that if they provide some type of false information or false ID to purchase it, that the store will not be held liable for that. Can you tell us about the abatement and rewards program? Abatement program is kind of, would come later on, I think, as a city we would need to decide what we want to do as an abatement program. Currently the Sheriff's Department handles a lot of the private property abatement. They also do the traffic boxes. A lot of the other cities that I research actually have an abatement program that somebody, whether it's contracted or some entity within the city, operates to have those graffiti removed. And it's done on several ways. A lot of it's done by a hotline system to where there's a number that somebody can call, and Lexcall could probably be used for this, and direct it to whoever would be responsible for removing the graffiti, which would, as we currently do it now for most areas, it would be the Sheriff's Department, with the exception of parks. Parks Department, they handle their own areas that they have there and do an excellent job with that. And so the abatement program would be something that would need to be developed, I think, in the future that we look at and have the proper equipment and means of removing graffiti fairly quickly, because that's the key to a lot of not having the recidivism of it. Right. And as far as the reports program, in the ordinance, on convictions on this part of the ordinance, there would be a $50 fee that would go into a program that would run a rewards program for information on somebody turning in or giving information on convictions of people who commit acts of graffiti. I think that that's something that Mr. Hancock and I have discussed, is the rewards program on that. And I think we've got it where it could be worked out through him. Just a couple more questions. And I'm not sure, Keith, if you could answer this or not, but I know you and I had talked about how would the businesses be notified of the ordinance and what would be a reasonable time before enforcement. I'm not sure who could answer that. I don't know. I've never had that situation. It's probably something that's come up in the past with certain items. I don't know if anybody has the experience on the notification or how it was done in the past on items probably such as BB guns or the spray paint that was done in the ordinance in the past. I would think that you could delay that part of it, the enforcement of the stores and try to get out some kind of campaign to notify the stores. The other thing I think that would be reasonable would be to work with the county attorney's office to have a first offense that there's no fine, that it would be more of a warning type situation. So that would be a positive way of saying that there is notification and if you didn't get the notification, there's not really going to be any penalty for that on a first offense. That's kind of a way of doing notification also. And according to this, it looks like they could also purchase the items online. Yes. The purchase of it, it's kind of hard because with an ordinance on a lot of the things that we already have, you can go across county lines and do that. The possession of it is where none of it is going to completely stop it. It's just another piece of the puzzle. Education. A lot of the other cities who do a comprehensive graffiti ordinance program, there's an education component to it that there's a lot of information out there on doing these education programs that's kind of done like a somewhat, not quite as comprehensive as a DARE program, but there are programs that they run in schools that discuss this and there's a whole comprehensive piece to it. Thank you so much. Thank you. Mr. Lane, or Mr. Blevins, I'm sorry, Mr. Blevins. Thank you, Chair. Again, I want to thank you for spearheading this and championing this. This is a great idea. I wanted to ask, I don't see anything here about confiscation of materials should you apprehend somebody that's in possession and with all the qualifications that apply. Do we need to put anything in here? Is that something you could just do as a part of the arrest process? I think we would, as part of the arrest process, like on most items that we do when we do site, we book it into evidence. Book it into evidence. Good. Thank you, Mr. Blevins. I wanted to just confirm that. Is it, and then, is it your professional opinion, being our community expert on graffiti, is it your professional opinion that we need to go ahead and implement the section that makes it a criminal act to sell to the miners? My professional opinion, yes. I think that that would be part of the step to continue with the abatement of graffiti. Okay. I wanted to make sure you were recommending it. In your research, have you discussed with other communities that have this in place sort of how it's working? Is it helping and all that, or are we just relying on the fact that it exists on their books to determine whether we're going to do it today? I think that from the research and looking, and actually I've had some email conversations with other places, that it's a small piece of it that gets things started. A lot of the ones that have the major programs do the comprehensive thing, they have the abatement, they have the education, and they actually have a very aggressive prosecution. They actually take a lot of the stuff to felony court and get 100, well, there's been quite a few that have been over $10,000 in restitution from the people doing the graffiti. Right. So this is a suite of tools that we need, and this would be one component of our tool set that we need to combat graffiti. Exactly. Last question is for you, Mr. Barbary. I'm looking at the proposed section 14-3.3, item number one, at the very end of that line. It says, and the item is to be used in a lawful manner. Are you comfortable with that phrasing? I'm envisioning that we're now in court and someone is saying, hey, how am I as a store owner supposed to determine whether someone's going to use this in a lawful manner? We specifically discussed that with the county attorney's office, who will be prosecuting it, and they were comfortable with that terminology. Okay. That's all I had, sir. Thank you. Mr. Lane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, being a strong supporter of the public safety area, I'm reluctant to oppose the recommendation of the police department. But just in reviewing this, there's some issues that concern me. One is I don't believe that the employees of retail stores are going to be adequately trained to enforce this ordinance, and that would mean that the retailers would have to do training and provide them a copy of the ordinance to explain what the ordinance is all about. I think that would be overburdensome on retailers and be an expense to them. I think overall this ordinance would be very difficult to enforce. I'd like to make a motion that we leave Section 14.3.3 unchanged and not make the modification as proposed, so moved. We have a motion and no second, so it dies for like a second. Second. Oh, we got a motion and a second. We have a motion that we take this ordinance without Section 14-3.3 as modified. Are there any discussion? Mr. Blevins. So just a point of clarification, you're making a motion to move this ordinance forward without the addition of this new Section 4? You're actually moving it forward? Yes, sir. That's my motion. So it will remain intact and you're now making the motion to do that without this addition? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion? Yes. Mr. Myers. I made the second because I want the motion to go through, but I do not want, I will not support removing Section 14.3.1 from the resolution or from the ordinance. And to speak to the issue of whether or not the retailers will be able to adequately train their staff to manage this process, I don't, I was actually checking with another Council member to see what the name of the training was that the bartenders and the servers have to go through because I forgot what it's called. But that's a similar situation where, you know, the private sector had to provide the training so that the folks know how to manage that process. And I don't think this is overburdensome on retail stores to train their staff on this and make this happen. So, I would not be in favor of the amendment, but I would be in favor of the ordinance. Any other discussion? Ms. Henson. I am in favor of the ordinance as is. I know it would be a little difficult to enforce the business section of the ordinance, but I just feel like that it's necessary to put as much help, well, give the police department as much help as we can to combat the graffiti. Maybe I would be in favor of a length of time for Section 14.3.3 to go into effect, maybe six months or something along that line. But I would not be in favor of removing it. Thank you. Mr. Blevins. I'm going to have to concur with Ms. Henson. I think Mr. Officer Gaines gave us a good idea of what really needs to be required here, and that is we already have ordinances on the books, as I understand it, for spray paint. I suspect we have similar situations for paint, flammable liquids and so forth, so that children can't huff paint. And I would see this as very similar and wouldn't require a whole lot of training or burden on our retailers. Further, I think that the county attorney will have a common sense approach to initial application of the ordinance. I don't even think there's a need for a delay. I think we have enough flexibility in the way we can operate here that we can get the community behind this without having undue burdens on anyone. So I'm going to support both the ordinance in its form plus the addition for the retail aspects. Any other discussion? All those in favor of Mr. Lane's motion, say aye. Aye. Actually, let's do a Mr. Lane's motion. You would be actually opposed to that, Mr. Myers. If you say you're for it, then that would be without criminalizing the section 14-3.3. Okay, what I'd like you to do is restate the motion. Let's actually do a raise of hands. Mr. Lane, would you restate the motion, please? My motion was to approve the ordinance using the original section 14-3.3 and not the revised one. It's highlighted in both places in the ordinance. So moved. So all those in favor of that, raise your hand. One, two, three. All those opposed? One, two, three, four, five, six. So that fails. So do we have a motion that would include the new section 14? Yes, Mr. DeCamp. I just want to ask a couple of questions. Keith, besides spray paint and markers, do we know of many outlets that sell pretty much this other specialized equipment that they use for graffiti that you've got taken I mean, I've never seen it in my local hardware store. I'm not looking for it, but I mean, I go to Chevy Chase Hardware, and they sell markers and spray paint. But are there any stores, I mean, that you know of that sell things like this? I don't know a hundred percent. I've been told that places that sell items to the skateboard type individuals, cosmic colors possibly, but that's, I don't have any hundred percent proof that it's sold there. A lot of it I think is sold maybe under counter or something of that nature. So we're really, it probably has very little effect on the retail market, because we already have in there about spray paint. And do we have something in there presently about markers of a certain size? No, there's nothing else in there, the markers. Like I say, I tried to get out of a standard size marker, which was about, which was the quarter inch size. We went up to three-eighths of an inch on that to get out of what the standard size, like the highlighters or Sharpies are. So we increased the size on that so we wouldn't conflict with a standard size marker. The etching acid, you know, I don't, there's probably not a specific law or ordinance against something like that to be sold to miners. I would think that would be a common sense type thing, but it would be good to have, you know, we're only looking at maybe four or five items in here that are going to be prohibited under the sale. Because there, you know, there are a lot of kids under 18 who are doing school projects that use markers that, you know, go into the, I mean, they're sold, the markers are sold every place, the standard markers. Right, that's why we went to the three-eighths inch to get out of a standard size. That is not a standard size? We went to, yes, we went to the three-eighths, and that's where I spoke with the company, the Stanford company, which manufactures the Sharpies, and like this, what you usually see like kids that color with is a quarter inch. So the three-eighths is larger by quite a bit if you look at it with a ruler when you hold it up there. I mean, it's a pretty good difference when you're looking at the size of a marker. Let me ask you another question. Of the people that you have apprehended for graffiti, are most of them 18 years or younger? Right now, I would say that it's, we've got both. A lot of the stuff that's going on in a lot of the parks, I would say, is younger because you have the different types of graffiti, whether or not it's possibly a gang-related graffiti or just the taggers, and the common age range is, statistically, is between 14 and about 27. So it covers a... Well, I don't, you know, I'll support the 14-3.3, although I don't think it's going to do much good. I think people who want to, really want to do graffiti, they'll buy it under the counter or they'll order it online, and I suspect that's what they're doing now, really. But if it does slow it down some to put this in for the retailers to put some restrictions on, at least it's a message, I think, out within the community that we are serious about trying to stop graffiti within the community, although I, quite personally, don't think the people who really want to do it will stop buying the equipment in other places. But I think it does send out a message that we are really, you know, sincerely want to stop this within the community. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Blues? Thank you. I don't know if this is a question for Officer Gaines or Mr. Barbary or both, but I'm wondering about the enforcement provisions here, whether $50 fines are really going to be adequate to the kind of offense we're dealing with and to the sort of behavior we're attempting to discourage. Part of the reason that when I was looking at ordinances around, came up with a $50 fine, it's got a range. So, if you look at somebody who may, you know, have done a small amount or something like that, although it's just as serious, you know, doing graffiti is doing graffiti, but I think that leaves the courts with some leeway of being somewhat lenient, but then they also have, you know, could go above the minimum, you know, that's, that would be left up to the courts on that, as well as, you know, that doesn't cover restitution. If you get into some large graffiti projects and start issuing the restitution, which is where it really starts to add up and put that in there, you get the, kind of the double effect. The fines, I was trying to do something that I thought the courts could have some leeway with and be reasonable if they needed to, but they could also go to the maximum, you know. For me, the more, the better, because I think it's more of a deterrent, but that's where I was looking at it from, was trying to look at it from a common-sense standpoint. Now, restitution is not a required component of the penalty here, as I understand it, is it? We discussed this issue with the county attorney's office, and my understanding is, if you get into the application, this would primarily be in the situation before they get caught red-handed. I think oftentimes, if they actually catch them applying it to the property, they prosecute them for criminal mischief, at which point in time, the restitution is going to kick in as part of that state statute. So partly in response to the $50 issue, too, I think the idea was, this is a mechanism to stop people with the implements before they ever get around to doing it. If they get caught doing it, although they could also be prosecuted with this, in all likelihood, they're going to get prosecuted for something much more serious. You mean that the graffiti spraying or whatever will be sort of a byproduct of what they're also doing? If you actually get caught defacing property, applying the graffiti, they're going to also charge you with the under the criminal trespass mischief statute. I see. Which is more severe than this. If you only get caught with the implements on your person, before you get around to doing that, this is a mechanism where they can charge you for that, seize the implements before you get around to doing the damage, and then you'd be able to assess them with a fine as well. Thank you. Mr. Lane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to just make a couple of quick points. This is probably every convenience store, Kroger, Walmart, convenience, CVS store, Walgreens, Ace, Meyers, and, you know, office supply companies, all of them sell these types of products. So, you know, I feel like this is going to be a very broad-reaching ordinance that we're passing. Secondly, the issue of whether somebody's been impaired in driving on the road, that's one issue where it's a public safety issue, and it was worth the expense, in my judgment, to have training for bartenders and servers in that regard. You know, this is not really a public safety, it's a graffiti issue, and, you know, I strongly feel if we're going to pass an ordinance that we ought to strongly enforce it. Just to put it on the, you know, as an ordinance, but not enforce it, I think we just enforce the current graffiti law that we would do a lot, you know, a lot more than adding this new amended section in there. Roberts. Thank you, Ms. Henson. Keith, I want you to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that graffiti, in a sense, could be a public safety, because it's the communication that gangs use to challenge each other and threaten. So I could see it being part of public safety. But I wanted to make a motion that we place the ordinance creating sections 14-3.1 through 14-3.3 on the docket. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. That passes. Mr. Myers, you had a question? We've already voted on the motion. But I will say that I agree with Ms. Henson that this is, not only can be, but is a public safety issue. When you talk to the people in my district that continue to send me emails about the tagging that's going along, one of the things it does is create an unsafe, a feeling of unsafe environment for the residents who live there, because they feel like the gangs have been given territorial province over an area, because they've been allowed to tag signs and say, this is our area. And so it is a public safety issue. I've got some of this going on in my district, increasing numbers. And so anything that we can do to strengthen this law, I'd be in favor of increasing the fines, you know, and maybe making the fines exponential to the amount of product that you have on you. You know, if you've got one marker, but if you've got a box of markers, then, you know, you're out to do some serious damage. So anything that we can do to help the police stop this and stop gang activity or things that lead up to gang activity is a good thing. Thank you. The only thing I think we need to probably clarify is the effective date. We talked about that, but we really don't have that part in here. If we're going to deal with the businesses and when... The current draft would be effective immediately upon passage. Right. You all would have the option if you wanted to stagger the effectiveness of the sales provision of creating a later effective date for that and letting the rest of it pass immediately or letting the entire thing pass and go effective at a later date after passage. Right. I think we all want it to be effective upon passage, except I think we're a little concerned about making sure that we talk to the shop owners and make sure that they fall within compliance of what the new rule is going to be. Is there... Do I have any input? Ms. Henson? I... Since I've never done this before and I don't have any experience in notifying the businesses, I don't have any idea how long it would take, but I would suggest 90 days, maybe, from the passage to start enforcing with the businesses. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Beard? Just one question, Chair. I probably should have said this before the vote, but if we're talking about the gang situation, this isn't going to stop a thing. If somebody's walking around with a MAC-10 in their car or a revolver or an automatic stuck in their belt, they aren't going to worry about getting caught with a magic marker or something of that sort, which they could go to Richmond and get or Nicholasville and get or Winchester and get. I mean, we just aren't going to stop that. Those folks are a lot more serious about what they're doing than some teenagers that are out joyriding. So, you know, that whole argument really means nothing to me whatsoever. Thank you. Thank you. Any other discussion? All those in favor? Ms. Crosby? I would like to see maybe a little more time for the businesses because, as Councilmember Lane mentioned, obviously there are a lot of businesses that are affected from your Walmarts to, you know, hardware stores. I think it's maybe 90 days is not that much time. Did you want to amend that then? No. Okay. Mr. Bromberg? I'm sitting. When you all decided what you wanted, do you want a date certain or do you just want it effective? Or from a practical standpoint, if you pick a date certain so that everybody knows what date it's going to go into effect? Yeah, you just pick a date instead of. Would you like to amend that then? Yeah. I can amend to make a motion to amend the ordinance for the sales portion, section 14-3.3, to take effect September 1st, 2008. That's less than 90 days. How about October 1st? Do you want? Okay. We have October 1st. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor of the amendment for taking effective on October 1st, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Now on the original motion that include this for October 1st, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That passes. Any other discussion for this? Seeing none, we'll move to the next item on the agenda, which is the employee auto usage and reimbursement. I think we have Commissioner Cole. Thank you, Officer Gaines, for all your hard work. Thank you. Appreciate it. Commissioner Cole, welcome. Good afternoon. Thank you. Glad to be here this afternoon to talk to you a little bit about the fleet study. Lexington has a major investment in fleets. It's one of our assets. It's valued at over $60 million, plus we have an annual operating budget of over $7.5 million. In addition to that, we have reoccurring capital expense each time we purchase new vehicles or replacement vehicles. And the size of the fleet keeps increasing each year. We had management partners when they were here. They did an analysis of our fleet to just look at what are our needs. How do we cost effectively accomplish our service objectives? And they spent about one month looking at data, interviewing users, talking to the directors, and analyzing just what our needs are. At the time of their evaluation, the fleet size was 2,162 vehicles. We're now over 2,200. As part of their study, they excluded most of the public safety vehicles, which left a remaining 811 vehicles that were part of the study. They then looked at the annual usage level, and they excluded all vehicles that used more than 6,000 miles per year, which really left 371 vehicles. These are passenger vehicles to be part of the study. Of that 371, they made a recommendation that we sell 97, or in essence, 4.4% of our entire fleet. The components that they looked at were the things you would expect. What's the mileage? How frequently do we use them? People did questionnaires on the vehicles themselves. They interviewed the directors and key department folks. Looked at the availability of other vehicles for folks to use and what alternatives were available. They came back with a recommendation to eliminate 107 vehicles, to sell off 97 of those, and to create two pools of vehicles with the other 10. They also recommended that we contract with a rental agency for trips that exceeded, where a daily trip would exceed a certain mileage threshold, that we have that as an alternative for our employees. And to make our policies more employee-friendly to use. The current CAO policies were quite cumbersome. I don't know how well you can see this, but it's in your packets. This actually shows you the number of assigned passenger vehicles per division, and the recommended surplus are the ones that we're recommending that we give up, and either they go to create a new pool or be sold, and then the remaining vehicles. And if you look through this, you can see that there's still many remaining vehicles in each division that can be used and within each commissioner's area of responsibility. Of the vehicles that are recommending being surplused, they used a total mileage in 2007 of about 214,000, which averages out to be 184 miles per month. That is very low usage for a government vehicle. Based upon that mileage, the approximate cost to LFUCG to maintain these vehicles, to have these vehicles, is about $2,820 per vehicle, or about $273,000 per year. What happens to these miles? Of the 200 and some-odd thousand miles, we hope that we increase the use of our remaining fleet vehicles. As the earlier slide showed, all the divisions still have many vehicles available to them. The lowest cost option for LFUCG is that they share vehicles within the divisions and that they use the remaining vehicles more to improve the efficiency of our fleet. That we use the rental car option for lengthy trips. The ordinance in front of you recommends 100 miles in it for daily usage, that it's really more economical for us to use a rental car than to maintain a vehicle for those type trips. The option the employee can use their own vehicles. I think we'll find that most employees would prefer if they're going to drive from here to go to a park or go to a meeting across town, just to use their own vehicle if our policies allow for easy reimbursement at a fair rate, which we believe is the IRS rate, is a federal standard that is used. Or carpool, how many times have you attended a meeting and there have been multiple vehicles that have arrived from the same location? Well, if they would carpool, there would be fewer vehicles and some of those miles would just go away. In your packet, this just shows some of the economics of the studies that management partners did. Now, the IRS rate showing on here is 48.5 cents. That was the IRS rate last fall when this study was completed. It now has been raised slightly because of the increased cost of gasoline. But this just shows kind of the break-even of a couple different scenarios, and I won't go into it unless you have specific questions on this analysis. This is more analysis showing pool vehicle versus personal car versus expected daily rental cost for a comparable vehicle. So why would we want to do this? Well, it generates about $100,000 per year in savings, and this would be an ongoing savings each and every year. By selling off the 97 vehicles, we get an influx into this upcoming year's budget of about $300,000 cash. Now, the management partner's recommendation actually showed that number greater, but we went back to the directors and said instead of eliminating the specific car that had a low usage, if that car is in better shape or truck is in better shape than some of your other vehicles, you can give up a different vehicle. So we used this as an opportunity to improve the quality of our fleet at the same time, so therefore the value of the cars we're selling off would be less. We avoid capital replacement cost of these 97 vehicles. We improve the overall utilization of our fleet. In addition, there's indirect savings. These fleet vehicles, if you look across at the transit center and the Phoenix garage or the courthouse garage, they're taking up parking spaces as well. We're paying for that. A key assumption, and the numbers are above, is that the savings are assuming that of these 97 vehicles, that employees would drive their own vehicle. Well, that's the worst-case scenario. That's the most expensive option. We would much prefer that they share vehicles within their division or share vehicles with other divisions and use our own vehicles more than to drive their personal, but for the cost estimates here, we did assume the most expensive option, and that is we pay the 48 1⁄2 cents or now it would be 50 1⁄2 cents per mile. So what do we need to do to make this happen? We need to revise the Code of Ordinances, and that is why we're here today. We need to change Sections 21, 32, Sections 1 and 2, to allow the rental car option and to put in place for employees to use their own vehicles. We then need to revise the CAO policy, Number 16 and Number 4. This will make it easier for employees to get reimbursement and will outline the guidelines of this policy. Establish a contract to rent vehicles. There is a state contract that Eastern Kentucky University has that we are planning on piggybacking. We actually do not expect to be a very large user of the rental vehicles. Should we be surprised and end up using this option more than we're anticipating, then we would establish our own contract, but with our expected usage levels, it would be more economical at this time to piggyback on Eastern's contract. Identify and collect the actual vehicles. We've identified what divisions they're coming out of, and that was in the earlier slides. The directors have helped, worked with Richard Murray in identifying which vehicles would they want to give up, but we haven't done anything to give them up yet because we wanted to get established new fleet pools. Management partner recommends that we do a loaner pool at fleets, and this would be used primarily for those folks who are having their vehicle serviced and have an easy right now our vehicle pools are not located at fleet, they're located here in the government center, but this would establish an easy way for people who are taking their car to be serviced to have another vehicle, so we found that there was time being wasted by having another employee follow them over and then bring them back and it was not very efficient. We'll actually be able to once we collect the vehicles and we implement the changes we'll actually surplus the vehicles and the money will go towards the general fund or the appropriate funds that the vehicles were where they were from. And a budget amendment to council. At the time that the proposed budget was put forward, we were still estimating what is the cost to this, what are the savings, what do we expect the cost to be. We'll be bringing forth a budget amendment early in the next budget year to take dollars from fleet operations and move them into the division, they're already in the division's budget, but move them into a category for reimbursement. The intent of the ordinance change is to establish the criteria for rentals to promote sharing of vehicles and to allow folks to just use their personal car for short trips where it's appropriate and to reduce the expense of the fleet to LFUCG. There's been numerous questions that have been asked by yourself, by employees, as we've gone through this process. What about my insurance? The employee's insurance and your insurance should not be impacted. LFUCG will be the primary insurance holder for if you are driving your personal vehicle on LFUCG business, you'll be covered by LFUCG. It's not any different than you driving an LFUCG vehicle for the same business purpose, you're covered by LFUCG. How is the change funded? As I said just a moment ago, there will be a budget amendment going from the maintenance accounts into a personal usage account. What if I don't want to drive my vehicle? Well, each division has numerous vehicles. You need to work out something amongst your co-workers and the division director to determine how vehicles are going to be available. Will there be additional vehicles identified? Maybe. As we go forward in trying to get the fleet the right size, I expect there will be places where we need more vehicles and places where we don't need more vehicles. One of the things that we'll be doing in the upcoming years is doing a better job of measuring what is the usage per vehicle, per division, and communicating that out so we can make better decisions moving forward about the size of our vehicles. Who's deciding which vehicles go away? Well, management partners have made recommendations. We're now working with the directors on which specific vehicle from the fleet are they giving up? Are there indirect savings? Yes, things like parking and having the more efficient use of our vehicles are going to be some indirect savings. Having a pool set up at fleets is going to be some additional savings for the ease of having vehicles available. How will we know when it's the right size? We'll just keep working at it. Our needs as a government keep changing and so we're always going to be changing the size of the fleet. Right now as we look at the additional needs in the sewage treatment area and storm water, we'll be looking at whether they need more vehicles while other divisions may need fewer vehicles. How will I get reimbursed for my mileage? It will be a simple form that will basically you will just be putting down what was the business purpose for the trip, what was the number of miles and you'll be reimbursed on a monthly basis or more frequently if need be. But we're working, that's part of one of the CAO policies that we'll be revising to make it that easier. We want to make this easy for everyone to use. The 100 mile threshold, what if the trip exceeds 100 miles but I didn't get a car? Well, you know, we're not going to be perfect at this. There's actually a tool that Enterprise has available where you can go in and plug in exactly where you're going, where's your starting point and it will estimate the number of miles. If you end up missing it by a little bit, well, you miss it. There's not going to be a penalty for that. Everybody put their best foot forward and try to do this correctly. If I rented a car and it was the less, the same thing. We're all going to be learning in this. What records? The IRS requires records to be kept on business trips and this will be the same. But it's basically where did I go? Why did I go? How far away was it? When will this happen? We've asked for an effective date on the ordinance of July 1st because we like to sell the vehicles as soon as possible so that we've got the cash flow into the budget and go ahead and get the vehicles identified and gathered up. Is the savings in the budget? Yes and no. We're currently down, I believe it's seven maintenance employees in the fleet department that are part of the positions that are not to be filled. So those savings are in the budget. The other savings that would be anticipated are not currently being reflected as a savings in the budget because as we make this change, there's one other outcome that we expect will occur and that is there's a good number of folks that are currently already driving their personal car but they're not getting mileage reimbursement for it. As we make the policy easier for that to occur we expect more folks will step up and say, hey, I'm driving my car, I would like to be reimbursed as well. I guess the last bullet is what other questions can I answer for y'all today? Thank you, Commissioner Cole. Mr. Beard. Several, Commissioner. I think the last time Mr. Starkweather had presented this to us we were talking about having cars delivered by Enterprise. How do you turn them in? I guess at the end of day let's say you go to Louisville on a trip and you come back and it's 7 o'clock in the evening or 8 o'clock in the evening. Are they open wherever they are and how do you get back to your personal vehicle? Enterprise has a couple different options they're very good with service delivery options. If you they have numerous locations throughout Central Kentucky. They will come pick you up at your home or at your business and take you to the nearest Enterprise to you and give you a vehicle. And then when you come back they'll take you back to wherever you need to go. That is one option that is available. You could drive to their place of business and leave your vehicle there. That's an option that's available. One of the benefits is we've got a lot of employees that don't live in Lexington. They live in Versailles or they live in Georgetown or Richmond. Well they won't have to come here in order to get a pool vehicle to make their business trip. So that will make it easier. Different locations have different operating hours and they've got guidelines. If you come back and it's past their operating time then you hold on to the car until the next morning. But those are all the details that will work out as we go forward. They've been doing this type of service operation for some time and have in past experience have found them to be very customer friendly in trying to figure out what works best for the customer. I'm sure that I use Enterprise myself and I have on many occasions but sometimes situations are such that they can't get the car delivered to you in time and you're standing out on the curb for 45 minutes. I used to have a location on Winchester Road and they also had one out of Nicholasville Road. I don't know whether the Nicholasville Road is there. Do you know where their locations are? I know they have numerous locations in central Kentucky but I don't know exactly. I think there's one right up here on Winchester Road. And there's one out on Winchester Road and then out of Bursales Road. At the airport? No, back this way. It's close to the government building out there. I don't know whether we got to this part. Forcing an employee to use their personal car. What right do we have to do that? We can require an employee to use their personal car but we're not trying to do that. We're trying to give them other options that are available if they choose not to. I mean I know it's common sometimes when you hire someone that that's part of the deal but especially with leased cars where you have a mileage penalty and to require them to use miles for business purposes the 48 cents or whatever it may be those numbers on a leased car for excess are like 25 cents a mile right off the top all in one lump sum. It just seems very unwieldy to me and I don't really like that part of the program at all as far as the individuals using their own personal cars. The rest of it makes a lot of sense obviously to inspect everything that you do as far as what you're doing. the fleet is concerned, and if you're over-utilizing or under-utilizing, you need to adjust to that. But I'd be interested to see how the auction goes. I've been involved in auctioning repossessed automobiles at one point or another, and sometimes your expectations aren't met very often, especially in the economy being what it is. We've got quite a bit of experience with auctioning the vehicles. We do an online auction with our replacement, when we replace vehicles and surplus them, we auction them now. So we've got some pretty good data on what we would expect the vehicles to bring. We at one time in the banking arena had enough repossessions where we held our own auction, and it was a three-ring circus to say the least. Thank you very much, Commissioner. You're welcome. Thank you. Dr. Blues? Thank you, Chair. Just getting back to the point that Councilmember Beard was asking about, about the possible requirement to use your own vehicle, but in the current ordinance, Section 2132A1, it does say that this is a voluntary matter. Any classified employee who would otherwise be required to use an urban county government vehicle on a regular and consistent basis may voluntarily choose to operate his own automobile, et cetera, et cetera. So I don't know all the ways of reading that, whether that means that somebody who's not required to use a vehicle on a regular and consistent basis can be required to use his or her own car, but it seems that there needs to be some clearer language in that regard unless the Commissioner of Law sees it otherwise. Well, I think what's being proposed, are you reading from the current ordinance or what's being proposed? I think you're reading from the current ordinance, aren't you? Because now you've got a voluntary, I think what Mr. Schonager put in your packet is the current ordinance, and what's being proposed is going to, I think, clarify that, Councilmember Blues. No, what's in the packet is proposed. I think you're looking at the ordinance itself, aren't you? Was there a --? Yeah. Are they both in there? Okay. Were you looking? I think what you were reading from was the current ordinance. On page 6 is the proposed language, and on page 7 is the current ordinance. Okay. Where were you? I'm sorry, Councilmember Blues. Where were you reading from? It sounded like you were reading from the current. Section 3132, or 21-32, Automobile and Maintenance Allowance. And that's on? A1, second line. Yeah. That's the current. That's the current ordinance. Mr. Schonager, page 6 has the proposed ordinance. Yes, sir. Page 7 has the current ordinance. Yes, sir. While you're looking at that, Councilmember Blues, I need to, Mr. Chairman, if I might mention one other item. We have enlisted the assistance of KLC, as you noted in the memo that I sent to you about insurance, and we've had some further conversation with them and also the Department of Insurance concerning the collision comprehensive coverage. And that may require just a little tweaking, but one of the things under our self-insured program, there's some concern that we don't need to be insuring vehicles for collision and comprehensive that we don't own, but that doesn't mean that we couldn't reimburse somebody for any deductible. You're not talking about liability. You're talking about if somebody was involved in an accident and their own car was damaged or if the car was vandalized or something like that. So we may be having to tweak that a little bit, but I know it was the mayor's opinion that to the extent that we could provide a benefit to the employee that we wanted to do that. The big one is the liability piece, making sure that we've got appropriate coverage, but that other coverage we will, I may need to modify that just a little bit on how the employee would be reimbursed so they're not really out of pocket. Did you have another question? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to digress there, Council Member Blues. That's fine, but I did want to pursue this point because there seems to be some ambiguity or some ambivalence. The intention is not to force employees to drive their own vehicles, and yet the draft ordinance does pretty much, you know, say that that's the case, shall use his or I presume her also personal vehicle of such use does not exceed 100 miles a day. And while the intent is not to get employees, as the commissioner just said, to, you know, into their own vehicles, but to utilize the reduced fleet vehicles more efficiently, I have some concerns there, and particularly with reference to some of the e-mails that I received, and I think probably all of us did. For example, those from employees who say there's a real degree of safety in having an LFUCG-identified vehicle. I think we received that from one of our female engineering staff. So it can be a security issue. There are other employees say that they don't want to have to carry equipment in their own personal vehicles, and I think we all would not want that. And we don't want a situation where an employee is being compelled to use a vehicle where a, you know, a fleet vehicle may indeed, because of equipment issues, because of security issues in particular, and for efficiency purposes, where it might be better to use the fleet vehicle. So that's a kind of concern that I have, although I do appreciate all, you know, I think that, you know, this is a laudable effort to reduce the fleet, to increase efficiency, to make government work more smoothly. Councilman Blues, if you look at the, a couple sentences right above section 21-32 on the proposal, this change requires the use of personal vehicles if an LFUCG vehicle is not available and sets a daily mileage reimbursement limit. If you look at the number of vehicles that are impacted by division, there should always be LFUCG vehicles available. At any given time, if you go look in our parking garages, the number of vehicles sitting there is quite numerous. It may require a little more sharing and collaboration and where folks don't say, that's my vehicle, nobody else can drive it. But there are vehicles available, and this is just trying to help us be more efficient in how we use them. Well, I understand and I appreciate that, and I would hope, too, that if this ordinance or some version of it is approved by council, that, you know, our directors and managers will be not simply encouraged but also instructed to make, you know, to make certain that, you know, that employees who really do need the fleet vehicle to perform their job safely and not to have their own car locked up with equipment won't have to undergo that. I agree. I mean, if you look at the specialty vehicles, people who are in a safety situation, people who have special requirements in their vehicles, those aren't the vehicles that are being surplused. Also if we do approve this, and I would recommend that we ask the commissioner to report back to us in six months, if that would be a reasonable time period, to let us know just how this is working, also to include an employee input in, you know, into the, you know, into the report. I think that would be a very helpful thing going forward. We'd be glad to report back. We're currently collecting a lot of data but we're not able to produce a lot of nice reports and that's going to be something we'll be working on the upcoming year so that we can use the data that's being collected to make better decisions moving on into the future. And as we are able to do that, we'll be sending out those type reports across government so that we can continue to try to make our fleet more effective. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Henson. Commissioner, I had a question about how do you define regular or consistent when it comes to the use of a vehicle? It says, if a person is a regular or consistent user, I guess, of a LFUCG vehicle, and I don't know. Yeah, it's in the current, I don't know that we've attempted to define that. That was in the current ordinance and it's in the new, so. Okay, because I guess my point is like 100 miles a day I think is a lot for someone to use their own vehicle. Oh, I agree. And, you know, because you're adding like 25,000 a year if they work, if they do that daily. Well, anybody who is using a vehicle above 6,000 miles per year is keeping their vehicle. We only looked at those low volume users. So they may use 100 miles in a day, but they may only do that once every two months. Okay. That's what I wanted to make sure. Yeah. Also, the fleet policy memo that's on page 32, well actually it's on page 34 where it says requirements for participation. This needs to be revised, I'm thinking, because it does say employees auto insurance policy is known as the primary source. This is the old policy and it will be completely revised to be very employee friendly. We're working on those revisions. They're in law currently. So they'll reflect the ordinance change and will make it very easy for an employee to get approval to use their vehicle and to get reimbursed to use their vehicle. But I honestly think this is a very reasonable ordinance and appreciate you did a lot of work on this. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple questions for you. The first one is, I think you stated that each division has vehicles. But there are divisions like the council that doesn't have a vehicle. So what would those divisions that do not have vehicles do for vehicles? Well, we can work out a sharing amongst vehicles that aren't being used. I mean, at the council, this is their primary location. There are numerous fleets that this is their primary location. Okay. How much money does each one of the divisions in government have in its current proposed budget by the mayor for reimbursement? I do not know the answer to that. There is some in reimbursement because people are already doing that. I think it's a total of maybe $40,000 across government. But this would be funded by doing a budget amendment after the new budget year, moving money from the fleet maintenance budget into accounts to be used for reimbursement. So will this ordinance state that if this were to pass, that the monies would be transferred from that budget into reimbursement so that there would not be a situation which sometime during the year, that fund runs out like other funds run out. And then from that point on, employees just don't get reimbursed because there's no money. Well, what we would do is based upon the number of miles that each of these divisions used in the vehicles that are being removed, we would do an estimated and do an allocation of how much would we expect their expenses to be. So what happens if that expectation runs over? Well, that is something that the division directors will need to manage and need to if they run over that, then they should be looking at how to better utilize the fleet vehicles that are assigned to their division so that they don't exceed that budget. Okay. Which actually really gets to my point, and I think this is more of a management issue that could be handled through better management of the vehicles now than trying to do what this ordinance is trying to do. But the next question I have is going back to what we've been trying to hash out, this section 2132. You said earlier that a couple of sentences above it says in your memo, this change requires the use of personnel vehicles if an LTCG vehicle is not available and sets a daily mileage reimbursement limit. But that's just the memo. But the ordinance down below, section 2132, is in conflict with that because that if clause is not in the actual legislation. So what you have in your memo is one thing. What we pass and put into law is another thing. Okay. What we intended, we're not trying to get everybody to go drive their personal vehicles. That we could not afford for that to occur. I'm not impugning that on you. I'm not saying that that's your end goal. I'm simply saying that if we pass an ordinance, then we've passed an ordinance. And the difference between what your memo says and what the ordinance change would be are two different things. So it would seem that we would need to amend section 2132 to add that if clause that's in your memo down below. If you just added in, added in after exceeded 100 miles per day or an LFUCG vehicle is not available. If you just added that clause right there, I think that would cover it. Okay. And then I have a question. So you'd be amenable to making that change? Yes. Okay. And then if I could have the commissioner ask you to come up for one question. A minute ago you talked about collision insurance. Right. And the mayor's desire to provide that benefit of reimbursing an employee for their out-of-pocket expense of their deductible? As an alternative, if we're not able to simply be the primary on the collision comprehensive, and that would be a Department of Insurance regulation that we're trying to work through right now with the Department of Insurance because we're self-insured. But, yes, that would be an option. Okay. That is for the — I mean, there could be some people that don't have collision insurance on their vehicle. I mean, I guess that's a possibility. But you — you know, if you have collision insurance or comprehensive and you're involved in an accident, you're going to have some sort of deductible on that. Right. And so that's what I was saying would be an option where the employee would not be out-of-pocket in a situation like that. Okay. Here's a couple of concerns I have about that. And one is, when I was with the State Department, I was asked a couple of questions because depending on what job you have here at LFUCG and depending on what your use of a vehicle is, if you work for social services, for example, and you had to go pick up — just say you had to go pick up a child and transport that child in your city vehicle, and now you're doing that in your personal vehicle, oftentimes insurance companies will require that employee or that individual insurance policyholder to have an addendum or a rider on their policy to cover transporting someone in that work setting. So that's a cost that may be incurred by city employees. So I'd like you to look into that. I'm not saying — I don't know if that would be an issue here or not. I know that's an issue with the state, depending on what division of government you're working in. And that is if they're carrying another passenger from a city business? Right. It's not — so say if you work for social services and you had to go remove a child — and we'll just give this example. I'm not sure if they actually do that or not. But they had a nongovernment employee in that vehicle with them. Now they're using their personal vehicle for something a little different than what that insurance company really insured them for. Because now it's really not personal use. And it might be, in the insurance company's eyes, one thing to use your company — your vehicle to drive somewhere at work and drive back. That's one issue. But if you start to transport people in that process, that's another issue. We can check on that for you. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Councilman Myers, about that specific situation that you just identified, we did not show surplusing the social service vehicles, even though they were low usage. And they were set aside for that very reason, because they're transporting some others. Okay. Can you still check into that? That's the one that comes to mind offhand, social services. But there may be other divisions of government that have that same possibility. Right. I do know — for instance, I know one of the questions that I saw, I think somebody commented on, would it cost an employee more money if they were using their own car on city business? And I know I talked to KLC about that, and they indicated that most coverages are going to include coverage for you in the event you are driving your car on city business. I've never checked mine, but I've never — when I was in private practice, I do it now. When I drive, I've been to Frankfurt a couple of times, and I always use my own car instead of using a fleet vehicle. We don't have a vehicle in the law department either, and everybody in the law department will typically use their own vehicle as opposed to checking out a fleet car. So — Here's one of the ways that you might get at that answer, and that is that in your individual insurance policy — I know when I signed up for insurance, they asked me how many miles I traveled to and from work. If I suddenly now have to use — and they also ask me my beginning mileage every year. So if I say I drive to work three miles a day, but suddenly at the end of the year I've put 20,000 miles on my car, that's out of the norm, because I think the norm is 12,000 to 15,000 miles. They may then go back and try to see, well, where am I driving all those miles? And if they find out that I'm driving them for work, that may create a problem for me. Okay. And to the extent there would be an additional cost, I guess we could look at it. The thing, though, is, Councilmember Myers, is that you could have that situation right now. I mean, if people are choosing to use their own vehicle — and I know Commissioner Cole has that information — I think we, of the miles that were reported, I think we estimate about 80,000 were turned in last year. Is that right on vehicles? And I know a lot of folks will not turn their mileage in, so it's probably who knows how much more. So you've got a fair bit of that going on now. And I'm not aware, if anybody's raised that question, whether it's cost them or an insurance. But I mean, we could certainly try to find that out, and if it looks like it's going to, you know, that may be another way that we might provide some benefit, possibly. Okay. And I have one final question for you, and that is, again, going back to the collision aspect of it, if I were to have an accident at work driving a pool car, then my insurance company doesn't come into play. My insurance policy doesn't come into play in that. That's correct. If I have an accident now in that same scenario, but I'm driving my vehicle, what it sounded like you're saying is my insurance company is going to have to pay for the damage caused in that accident if I'm at fault or partial fault. If you're at fault, yes. If you're at fault. Or partial fault. On your own vehicle, yes. And the only thing that the city would be looking at possibly reimbursing me for is my deductible. And I understand that one might say, well, you caused the accident, so it's your problem. But at the same time — I'm sorry. Go ahead. At the same time, that's a concern that I think that we're putting a possible burden on an employee, because accidents are accidents. They weren't — you know, some people look at an accident and say there's no such thing as an accident. You caused the accident. You caused the incident. But it's a whole different set of liability issues for the employees now if they use their own vehicle and they have an accident, and that's attributed to their insurance, because now their insurance is going to go up, and it's going to go up for the next number of years. It's deductible as a city, but their premiums are going to go up. And at that point in time, the insurance company may begin to ask questions about how often you use your vehicle for work, and it may put you into another increased category for insurance. Well, you got another issue there, too, and that is if we have — whether they're driving their own vehicle on city business or if they're driving a city vehicle on city business and they're in a fault accident, there's some disciplinary issues that need to be dealt with, too, which I addressed in the memo as well, because we have — currently we have some. And I would — and I would think that would be predicated on if the employee was speeding and caused an accident or ran a red light and caused an accident or just didn't see they're going to turn right and a bicycle comes across the street and they hit it. I mean, there's different degrees or types of accidents. That's right. And I'm sure that, yes, there would be disciplinary action if an employee runs a red light and causes an accident, but there's multiple situations where — Now, that — we're talking about two different things. If you're talking about the liability part of it, that's a different issue than damage to one's vehicle, the damage that is caused to their own vehicle, not a damage to somebody else or an accident they may cause. So you've got the liability aspect of it that is a potential claim that a third party would have back against the employee and us, and then you'd have the potential damage to an employee's vehicle. And if somebody else caused that damage, then the other side could ultimately be forced to pay that. So I understand your point. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Blevins. Thank you, Chair. I want to get back to the intent of what we're trying to do here. We're mired in legal details, and we can always come back and fix the legal details. It's my understanding what the Administration is trying to do is encourage shared use of fleet vehicles within division as well as shared use across divisions. Ultimately, that's what we're trying to get to. Yes. The way we're going to get there is to reduce the fleets a little by reducing the vehicles we think are not being used enough to justify our continued ownership as a government. So that's the first step. And then the second step, I think, is where we're getting into trouble, and that's that we're going to require — if I heard you correctly, we're going to require our employees, when a fleet vehicle is not available, to use their own personal automobile. Am I correct in that statement? That's correct. And in essence, that's what's happening today. How so? As Logan just said, the law department doesn't have any vehicles, and so they end up driving their own vehicle. But it's voluntary. They could, if they wanted to, do other things. But it's not required. We're about to take a big step here, and I want to make sure we all understand what we're doing. Do you agree? We would be requiring them, yes. It's a big change. But there aren't always fleet vehicles available today. And let me ask why you think we have to require our employees as opposed to making it a possible alternative. What's driving you to say, shall as opposed to may? You don't think we'll be able to achieve the sharing unless we force this? I mean, what's your reasoning? I don't. I think that if it is a shall, that we will have situations where employees say, well, I simply can't go attend that meeting because I don't have any way to get there. Okay. Commissioner Askew, I want to ask you about your memo with the insurance to make sure that we're all on the same page here. From a liability standpoint, are you prepared today to say that the urban county government will be the primary insurance provider for employees driving their own cars, period? Are you prepared to say that? Yes. And then from a collision point of view, for employees who are not at fault, the other insurance provider will be, I assume, would pick up the damages unless it's an uninsured motorist who hits us. Who pays in that regard? Well, it depends on how we, on the, this part of it dealing with collision, how we resolve that. If we determine that we're not able to insure a vehicle that we don't own, which is what the Department of Insurance has suggested. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that was a done deal, that the collision aspect had been settled. And it's, and I guess what I'm hearing is it's still up in the air. No, I'm saying on the liability part of it, I'm a lot more comfortable than I am with the collision part of it. That's done. So we still have T's to cross and I's to dot on the collision side? On the collision part of it, there's some issue there. And we're working with KLC, who's helping us through there, because they've got, you know, they've actually done some, helped us do some research on this issue. Okay. And this, we have a memo in our packet from Mr. Starkweather that has, I assume, the proposed language for Section 2132. This is the, this is what's being proposed? Or will there be further modification? I just want to understand what, which version we're supposed to be considering today. I'm on page 6. It's a memo. Page 6 is what the blue sheet was that went before you and then was sent to this committee. Okay. Then we have several issues that have been brought up by others, but I want to net them out again. One is that this section from the words Section 21-32 and below is what will go into our code of ordinances. The paragraph above is mere commentary and will cease to exist as soon as we pass this. The commentary is not included down below, and therefore, the words that Mr. Myers was talking about, for example, where we talk about, let's see, what was it? If an LFUCG vehicle is not available, that clause. Every single thing. I'm sorry, Lee. That's all right. I'm sorry. Catch back up. You're correct that the part that starts Section 21-32 is what's in the proposed language. From there down is the legal part. That's right. The paragraph above will, is just commentary. It has nothing to do with the law. So the phrase in there talking about if an LFUCG vehicle is not available is not currently in the proposed ordinance. So that's one change we would need to occur. Right. I think Commissioner Cole just said we can make that change. Yeah. Just add that one clause, I think, after 100 works. I'm really uncomfortable with requiring our employees to use their own vehicles under any circumstance except maybe an emergency situation. I don't know of a single parallel in private practice that I'm aware of in my career where people are required to use their personal vehicles by an employer, especially after the fact of having obtained employment. If it's a requirement up front, maybe I could go with that. But if I ever worked for an employer that required me to do that, I would have had serious conversations with them about, well, what are you doing to me, adding miles to my vehicle? I mean, there's a number of things that are just troublesome to me. And I'm not sure we're going to accomplish what we really hope to accomplish just by forcing employees to do it. I think reducing the fleet will do it naturally. And then if we add in may use their vehicle and we make the process as easy as you've described, I think people naturally will do it. But I'm very reluctant to do the required thing. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Beard. I'm going to have to second your motion there, Council Member Blevins. There is no way that I would vote for this if there is a stipulation that the employees be forced to use their own private cars. End of story. I would not vote for that. In fact, it seems like this is all premature if there's still some investigative work that needs to be done by law on the collision question on insurance and the other questions. There is also another situation as far as the employee's insurance, and that is that if he has an accident, while you may cover the deductible, he may be rated and his premiums could go up or he could be canceled. And I'm sure there's hardly any way possible if he's canceled to be able to help him in that situation. I just don't think this is ready, to tell you the truth. It's a salad that's been half-tossed is the way I look at it, and I'm not prepared to support it at all at this point, especially if the requirement that employees be forced to. You know, there's been a feeling or a sense by the employees of heavy-handedness in the last 18 months, and this just reinforces that. And I think we need to be a little bit more careful about our employees, to tell you the truth. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Ms. Henson? I would say there's some cases where an employee would rather use their own personal vehicle, maybe because it's more convenient, they don't drive very often, whatever. But I agree with Mr. Blevins about putting may rather than shell, just the wording. It would be an option, but encourage, you could say encourage. But I also wanted to ask about including an annual mileage cap. Like you have 100 miles per day as a cap, but put the annual, like you said earlier, the 6,000 miles. So if they couldn't put more than 6,000 miles a year on their personal vehicle? We could do that, but I think that that would be up to the division directors to manage, because they're going to be the ones managing that budget. So I think that will take care of itself, because they're not going to be able to afford to have a person drive a vehicle that much and be reimbursed. It's going to be much more cost effective for them to be driving a fleet vehicle. Okay. Because, you know, the way I just have a problem, I guess, with the way the wording is stated, because it kind of leaves it open to the directors, and if you have a person that has put 25,000 miles on their car, that's not good. I agree. So I don't know. I would just feel more comfortable if there was a mileage, annual mileage cap on there, and it was not required that they drive their own personal vehicle. Well, you know, and you could say, when there is not a LFUCG pool car available. Is that all, Ms. Hinson? Ms. Crosby? Yes. I guess I'm a little torn. I have a few different questions. First, I've been getting some conflicting information, and I don't know if anybody has called any insurance companies to see whether independently that we've checked to see whether or not for employees, whether or not they would have an increase in their insurance, because, you know, if they're going to be driving it for business purposes, would they have to be, you know, consider business riders? If they have other people in their cars, would they have to now take on additional types of policies? Because with their insurance, has anybody looked into that? It's my understanding that they may have to have some additional costs associated with their type of coverage, with their personal auto insurance, if they use these for business purposes. That's correct, partially correct, Councilman Crosby. It depends on the insurer and the insurer's policy, which varies, and it depends on how far you're going to drive. When we initiated the reimbursement policy, the same issue came up. And in some cases, if you're driving for business purposes, but you're not driving extensively, the insurance company will not require that you add an additional rider on there for business purposes. If, in fact, you're going to drive substantially in your business, which hopefully this policy would address anyway, that's a case where you would be required to add additional rider and would incur an additional expense. So I guess then the question goes back to what would be considered substantial, and then, I mean, we have so many employees, and I guess you said it varies from, you know, company to company. I mean, that sounds just so encompassing to know with the different employees. What we did with the reimbursement policy is we – Would they be able to get reimbursed for that, for the additional costs associated with their insurance? Well, of course, in that case, if you wanted to, like myself, I always will normally use my own car and be reimbursed for whatever mileage I may have. And I don't drive enough to require the rider on that policy. In some cases, like I say, where you are required to – and, again, it's my understanding that if you're required to drive a substantial amount, this would not be an issue. It's only in less – where you're driving just a minimal amount. But, again, the way that we dealt with that was had the employee go to their insurance agent and have them write a letter saying that they were not required to put the business policy. And that way the insurer could not come back against them and say, well, this was in a business, and so at least you had the documentation that said that they were approved to drive without the business rider. So, essentially, it made the employee go, talk to their insurance agent, to decide whether they did need it or they didn't need it. And I can't address the cost of it, and I can't address the mileage, because I'm sure it varies with different companies. Okay. Council Member Cosby, just to kind of put this back, shed a little light, the average monthly usage of these cars we're talking about surplusing is 184 miles per month. So we're not talking anybody using substantial business miles. We're talking minimal miles. That's kind of my next question, because this is where I get a little torn, too, because I think some of our problems are with the language of what's been presented to us today. Obviously, that's what I keep hearing is a lot of it's the language, but what I hear you all saying and what I'm reading are kind of two different things, because what I'm hearing is that there are still plenty of cars and that there's still the availability for the pool cars to be utilized. And so I guess maybe my next question would be, is there ever a situation where we don't have enough cars? Has there ever been where all the cars are gone and an employee simply cannot get a pool car when they need one? I don't know the answer to that. The pool that is operated by general services is slated to go away. Those vehicles will be sold. They're low usage. People aren't using them enough to keep them around. So what we're asking is then for voluntary pools within divisions. The vehicles today are assigned to divisions, but employees have taken individual ownership of them and feel as if they are their own vehicle to drive on business. That's what we've got to change as a culture, that those are the division's vehicles and they need to be shared amongst the division. Okay, so I guess my question would be, with the availability of those cars being shared with divisions, would there be enough availability? For example, law, if they needed a pool car, if they wanted to utilize a pool car, even though they say they don't necessarily need those, but there are other divisions that might need a car, would there be the availability in other divisions who supposedly have ownership of these cars to be able to utilize them because they're not being used? That was what management partners, part of their study is that they looked at what are the requirements in each of these divisions and what's the availability. So that was part of the data that they looked at in making these decisions. Now, if you look around the government in the parking lots, there are a lot of vehicles not being used. It's a matter of getting them into the correct hands of people that would want to use them. I mean, obviously we have a list in front of us. I'm trying to get you to say whether or not. Yes, I think there's plenty of vehicles. I mean, because that's what the holdup is with the language of this and whether or not, because I think what it boils down to is that people, the language that they will have to use their personal car, and what I think I'm hearing maybe the underlying tone is that that's probably not going to be the issue, that there's probably going to be enough cars and that they won't have to use a personal car. Yes, I expect that there are plenty of cars, and our director of fleet, Richard Murray, is on vacation and couldn't be here today, and he wanted me to share with you that actually he expected the recommendation to be to surplus a much higher number than the number of cars, that we do have many underutilized vehicles. So then I guess then going back to this wording, is there any flexibility in how this is worded to make it more palatable to everyone involved? I mean, to where, I mean, I think that's what the underlying issue is here, is that, I mean, you have to do this, where it sounds to me like it's just an issue in wording where there's probably enough cars available. It doesn't seem like much of a change. I mean, that there's going to be enough cars to use, and that this is just the option. If absolutely, worst case scenario, there is not a car, then, you know, and that's what the intent was. So I don't know, you know, I guess that's a, is there a different wording that says the same thing that everybody's happy with? I guess it depends on what wording you want in there. I'm not sure. I hear you all saying different things. I heard Councilman Beard saying he would never require an employee to drive their own car under any circumstance. If I, right, right. So if you had a situation where, by chance, there weren't enough fleet vehicles after some of these vehicles were sold, you'd have a situation where you'd have an employee that needed to do something in the scope of their employment and there wasn't a car to do it. So, yeah, I mean, I think we could go back and change it and just deal with that situation when it comes. I just, the language is just not very clear. You know what I mean? It just seems. Sure. I don't think we're, I clearly don't think this is anything that's going to probably get settled today. But it seems like there's. I don't think you've got to, I don't know how many, I think there's 107 cars, and I don't know how many we've got total. But if you look at the total number of employees we've got versus the number of cars that we have, even after you sell the ones recommended to be sold, we own a bunch of cars. So I just, you know, is there a chance that somebody might have to use their own vehicle? Sure. I mean, I guess if after this, but there's a chance that could happen now. But we can change the language however you think. There may be an instance where I would agree where it's, where, you know, you can't, I guess, require somebody to use their personal vehicle. If they're not going to use their personal vehicle and they won't go to a meeting, I don't know. I mean, you may not be able to require that person to do that. You may have to offer some kind of alternative. There may be somebody else in the department, or maybe the commissioner might have to drive them to that meeting in their car. Who knows? But, you know, I don't know if that's, I don't know how we can work on this wording a little bit. Well, I believe that you can. But if you want to, if we want to relax that wording somehow, we can certainly do that. Mr. Myers? I think, let me suggest this, Council Member Crosby. I think in order for this to go forward, getting some sense of what the committee is looking for would be helpful. Because I don't know that, as I sit here listening to this, I don't know that everybody is on the same page. I may be wrong, but it sounds like everybody is in favor of getting rid of some of these vehicles. I mean, we've got too many vehicles now. I think we would all agree with that. The question is, what do we do in a situation where we do not have a pool vehicle available for an employee? Mr. Myers? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I've got the solution here. If you look at the Management Partners Audit, which I haven't had a lot of faith in, in most instances, but if you look at H33, I don't know if you have that document with you. I don't have it with me. The recommendation H33 says monitor the utilization of the loaner pool for six months to determine the best type and number of units to meet the needs of customers. It sounds to me that what you've outlined here is really a management issue. You stated that we have division cars, but you've got individuals in those divisions that have kind of commandeered those cars and took ownership of them. That's a management issue. You talked about multiple people leaving an office in different pool vehicles or different division vehicles and driving to the same meeting rather than carpooling in one vehicle. That's a management issue. I think what would be best for us is if you guys came back with a policy on how to manage the vehicles, whether they're pool vehicles. And, actually, another point is that you've said there's not going to be any more general pool vehicles, right? I'm sorry? Did you say there's not going to be any longer a general pool? There will no longer be a pool operated by general services out of this building. Okay. There will be a loaner pool at Fleet designed for the servicing of vehicles. Okay. Actually, that brings up another point. In the other audit that we had on the building, whether or not we were going to keep this building or build a new building, one of the recommendations from those consultants was that we would set up sort of parking lots around the city, and I think they suggested Jackson Park, Master Station Park, maybe some other locations around the city, have employees drive there and then be shuttled in. And I don't know how serious we are as a government about taking that recommendation to heart, but if we were to do that, then that seems to create another situation where the employees' vehicles are now out on the outskirts of town, so they couldn't use them if they had to. So what I think we ought to do is come up with a policy to speak to the division vehicles being commandeered by employees and employees taking multiple vehicles from a location to another location and stop that, eliminate that from happening, and then take this recommendation, H33, monitor the utilization of the loaner pool for six months to determine the best type and number of units to meet the needs of the customers. After you've put the new policies in place, then monitor the vehicles for six months to see what number we can eliminate, and let's just eliminate the vehicles. And then we don't have to have any language in there about employees using their personal cars at all. So that would be my recommendation. I think I'd actually make that motion, is that we just have the administration come back with a new policy for maintaining, managing, and using city vehicles, and then we get that new policy implemented and then monitor the pool for six months to see what the use is and then come back with a recommendation to the full council on what vehicles to eliminate. Second. We have a motion to second. Any discussion on this? Mr. Lane. Yeah, I was in line to say something. I just wanted to comment that in our company we reimburse people with the IRS mileage, and about five or six years ago we bought a fleet vehicle to let anybody that was driving long distances use the car. We had virtually, you know, no usage of that vehicle. And I think the main reason is that even at today's price of $4 a gallon for gas, you know, if a typical car gets 20 or 25 miles to the gallon, that's somewhere between 18 and 20 cents per mile just for fuel. So the additional money that's compensated is for insurance, depreciation, tires, maintenance, oil, and things like that. So it ended up, because the usage was so low, we ended up just selling the car because nobody was using it. Now, having said that, in looking at Section 2132, Section A, to my way of thinking, I believe that you could make this a non-mandatory policy that an employee may use a car and be reimbursed at the IRS rate. Based on my experience in my small company, the employees prefer to drive their car than to ride in our company car, which is a brand-new vehicle, I might add. And I think if we put in the word may, I think everybody objected to the shall, meaning it sounded mandatory. That might resolve the whole issue that we have at hand here. Just a thought for your consideration. Any discussion? Mr. Blevins. I want to concur. That sets us right back. And I think if you're looking for guidance, here's what I would provide, that I agree completely with what Mr. Myers has just said. There are two steps here. The first one is, by all means, go sell off the excess vehicles. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. And that alone will start the pressures involved necessary to get people to start ridesharing. And, again, the rest of it seems like a management issue. I don't see any need for an ordinance change here. Our existing ordinance already says may voluntarily choose to operate. Unless there's some cleanup work we need to do to make it a little more simple and easier for employees to voluntarily use their vehicles, I think we're in good shape, and you guys can go ahead and sell the vehicles and let's just do it. But there's no need for the rest of this ordinance change, and that would take care of nearly every concern we've had up here. May I suggest that you consider item B, which is the rental car option, because if an employee chooses to drop their personal vehicle and it is a long trip, it becomes very costly for LFUCG. Here again, that's a policy issue. You can do that any time you want, right? CAO policy. Mr. Myers. I just see that as a management issue. Mr. Myers. Thank you, Chair. I go back to recommendation H33, because while I agree, and I think most of us agree, that we should go ahead and sell off some of the vehicles, I think it's too soon to sell off the vehicles, particularly the pool vehicles, until you monitor for six months after you have a new policy in place to determine which cars need to be sold so you don't sell off too many. The reason I say that is because Commissioner Law said that all the lawyers use their own vehicles. Well, if it's not cost effective to do that, it might be that instead of selling off all the pool vehicles, we keep one of those vehicles and assign it to law. So I think that you need to monitor the use, as this recommendation says, before you start to sell off vehicles. And the other thing is I think really you have to have that policy change in place before you get a different use to monitor. For example, you're saying that if an employee wants to use their car and they're driving over 100 miles, it's not cost effective. Well, then, again, it goes back to a policy issue. Why would you let them use the car then? Why not make them use a pool car if they're going to drive more than 100 miles? So that's why I think you need to look at a policy first. Once you put that policy in place, then look at the use that is incurred after that policy is in place and then determine which cars to sell off and then sell them off. So my motion still stands. Could you restate your motion, I guess, and clarify by your motion you would not want to sell off any cars at this point and wait six months before we did that? Would that be correct? I think that that's probably the way to go. I mean that's the recommendation here. And until you actually put the new policy in place and then monitor the use after that policy is in place, I don't know how you really have an informed decision on what to sell off. Okay, so reinstate your motion, please. Okay, the administration would come back to the full council with a new policy for vehicle use and then after that policy is adopted and in place, monitor the new use for six months, and at that point then come back with a recommendation on what vehicles to sell off. I know that has a budget impact because I know that you were wanting to sell off those vehicles before July 1 so that you could take advantage of that money, but I think that we would be ahead as a government to do it right and do it with the new policy first, monitor, and then make the recommendation on what to sell off. We have a motion to second. All those in favor of Mr. Meyer's motion, raise your hand and say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. Raise your hand. No. That fails. Mr. Blevins, do you have a motion that you wanted to raise? I wasn't intending, but I'll be glad to. I'd like to make the motion that we ask essentially Mr. Meyer's motion without the don't sell off the vehicles part, have the administration come back with a policy that affirms the needs that they have, which would be the rental car aspect and the let's pool when we can employees and all that kind of stuff, do it through policy. We'll defer action on the ordinance for now, but we'd like to see something through policy first. That's my motion. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? I just have one question to ask, and I didn't really have a problem with that, When you look at what cars you want to sell off now, is the whole pool included in that sell off? Yes. Can I ask a question? I think you had 14 now and you're getting rid of 11. What are the three that are still left in general services? Are those not part of the pool? I think that they went to the loaner pool at Fleets, but I'm not sure exactly. So there would be no pool vehicle that you could get? In this building. They're not used very often. And the ones that are used are used by the same people again and again. But I guess that could counteract the shall in the may if there are a vehicle where you don't have to use your personal vehicle. If there would be one still there, like Mr. Langston in his own business, there's one available. If somebody does need it, that we would still have that option. And we could do that. Okay. Mr. Myers? I have a point to that, and here's the problem with what you're saying. And here's the problem with the council or this committee just going ahead and voting to let you sell off the pool cars. The problem is once you do that, you have your new policy in place, and you monitor. If another division needs a vehicle, you've already sold it off, so it's gone. So those employees have no choice but to use their own vehicle. So it makes no sense to do it that way. You're selling off the vehicles before you determine the use and the need. Could I address that, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Blevins first, then. I was just going to say that we already have evidence that we have too many vehicles, and the evidence is the low usage. So we know that there's at least some amount of vehicles that could be sold with virtually no impact. That's virtue of the vehicle audit they've already conducted. And, in fact, if I understood the figures correctly, it looks like they've aimed pretty low, 4.4% of the total fleets being sold. It sounds reasonable to me. Mr. Lane? And I'd just like to add to that point is that we're not changing it where it's a mandatory that you have to drive your car because the current ordinance, as I understand it, isn't voluntary. So that would give us a chance to not only reduce the fleet and test it and to see what kind of voluntary participation you had in that, then when you come up with a report, we can make a decision if we need to do anything or if you've got it under management control. Okay. Mr. Myers? The problem with that is that the unintended consequence could be that when you sell off those vehicles, then you've already sold off too many vehicles to be able to do that. When you look at that 4.4% of the total pool, the problem with using that number for this instance is that many of those vehicles are public safety vehicles. They're fire trucks. They're police cars, things like that. So when you say it's only 4.4% of the vehicles, that's sort of irrelevant with this issue because most of those vehicles have a purpose that they'll never be sold off. But here's my concern is that if you sell off all the pool cars and, in fact, you don't want the employees to have to use their own vehicle because it sounds like to me that at the end of the day it may be less expensive rather than paying reimbursement to have employees use pool cars. If we go back to the division of law where they all use their own vehicles now, if you sell off all the pool vehicles, you don't have an opportunity to say, well, in our new policy change, after we've monitored, we understand what our usage and need is, we'd like to make a car available for the law department, but you've sold off the pool vehicles. So where are you going to get that vehicle from? Councilman Myers, what the data showed was that it's less expensive to pay them for personal mileage than having a dedicated vehicle sitting there waiting for them as a pool versus just using, compared to using the remaining vehicles in the pool. And I agree, and that's why this recommendation is to monitor. Because when you say that it's less expensive to pay them for mileage than to have a dedicated vehicle sitting there, that's correct. But the purpose of monitoring is that you don't have a dedicated vehicle sitting there. What you'd have to do is look at how much use there is for law and then determine if there's a need for a vehicle. Because the hope would be that if you don't have a situation where you've given law a vehicle but one person's commandeered it like you currently have in different divisions, instead you have a real pool vehicle for law, or you may just keep that vehicle in the pool, in the general pool, and then you've got all the employees from this building using those vehicles. Then it's a lot less likely that that vehicle is just sitting there all day. So I understand what you're saying. I agree with you 100%. But that's why I'm saying that we need to put the policy in place first and then monitor so that you understand the real need before you sell off the vehicles. Thank you, Mr. Myers. If you would, just restate your motion. My motion is to ask the administration to come back with a policy change to implement the recommendations they were originally doing in ordinance, such as the rental car and combined fleet usage within the various divisions, et cetera, as opposed to using an ordinance. And I believe Mr. Lane seconded that. And that would preclude them not ñ I mean, they could go ahead and sell surplus cars. Or not. I would leave that to the administration. For my part, I would encourage them to consider it. All those in favor say aye. I just have one question on that. Does your motion include that they would come back with a new policy for how vehicles are used that was in my original motion? For how they're used? Say that again. For how the vehicles are used. One of the points that they made was that we have vehicles that were given to a division, but an individual is coming. Yes. Now I know what you're talking about. Yes. So people would actually put two or three in a vehicle to go to a meeting as opposed to having one individual. Right. So is that going to be part of the policy they have to come back with? Sure. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? That passes. Motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. We are adjourned.