Public Safety Committee - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the June 9th Public Safety Committee meeting to order. I'd like to get everyone to introduce themselves. I'm Terry Goodwin, Public Safety Chair, Ward 4, Alderman.

Don Ward, Alderman, Ward 2.

Karen Dixon, Alderman, Ward 4.

Betty Robertson, Ward 6. Jeff Sasse, Citizen, Alderman, Ward 3. Jesse Eckenroth, Chief of Operations.

Casey Lamar, Communication Manager.

Jason Gallo, Administrative Services Director.

George Edwards, Fire Chief. Assistant Chief Morrison, Police Department. Mark Bergdorf, Ward 1.

Jana Garten, Vice Chair of Public Safety. And Ward 5, Alderman. Tamara Hendersall, Finance Director.

Alderman. Sure. Matthew Cole, Vice President here for Fire

starting citizen.

My name is Mark Skidmore and I'm the alderman from Ward 1 and also vice mayor.

Do I have a motion to accept the agenda? So moved.

I would like to add under other agenda items number four and possibly a discussion

After a few calls I've had about the fire break change and skipping promotion breaks Anybody else All in favor of accepting the agenda with that change My motion carries do we have the motion for the approval of the May 12th meeting? So all in favor Motion passes. We have two people signed up for citizen comments. The first one is Afton Skidmore.

I've been talking to a lot of neighbors lately, and I have two small issues that I'd like to bring up. One is that it has come to my attention that certain neighbors on Cumberland, Shores Drive, and adjacent streets would like to request traffic calming measures for the streets. I believe that there's an influx of traffic down the side streets in an effort to avoid the construction area for Walton Ferry alignment. So on behalf of those neighbors, please consider a study in this area or maybe even just perhaps a temporary calming measure like a portable speed radar with the kids at play sign or at least until the construction is finished. The second one is I would like to bring attention to that we have several trailer parks in Hendersonville. And whenever there is a threat of a tornado, some of these residents are terrified. I would like to propose finding a place in Hendersonville that can be designated a tornado shelter for our citizens that don't have a safe place to go.

Thank you. And next we have Matt Cole. Thank you.

Again, Matthew Cole. or impending changes in pay and grade for certain positions within the fire department. So our fire department and the police department both operate on a strict hierarchy rank structure. Everything flows down from the top to the bottom. both administratively and tactically on calls, simple and complex. Part of that rank structure is recognizing the risk, recognizing the education and talents and skills needed to fulfill those ranks and positions. What this change in paying grade is going to do is kind of downgrade 3 positions and our department effectively. Currently, the chief of training, the administrative fire chief, excuse me and the fire Marshall are all in line with our division chiefs and with this change in. paying grade, they're now going to be in line with the battalion chief who's currently below them in our organizational chart. And this change is now not recognizing what these men are doing in their positions for the department, for the city. So we would humbly ask that those three positions stay in line with an equitable pay grade and battalions moving to 22 we'd like to keep those three ranks in line with the division chief because that's where they are now that's where their responsibilities are aligned is with the division chiefs we appreciate that the city's moving the battalions and divisions up to be competitive in our market leaving those three positions

Thank you. That's it for citizens' comments. Next, we will move on to reading of Ordinance 2026-08, an ordinance amending personnel rules and regulation policy HR 42, Section 4, relative to public safety assistant chief's promotional pay, and to amend the proposed 2026-27 ordinance. budget ordinance to appropriate funding accordingly. Appropriate the funding accordingly. Do I have a motion? So moved. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Okay, now we can discuss that. Who would like to go first? I'll be glad to go first. So this most this ordinance came about due to promotions in police and fire to get their pay more equitable. So we were proposing to move assistance to Grade step five. Great and step it's. And that is sponsored by me, Alderman Skidmore and Alderman Garten. Anybody else like to say anything? I don't think anything. Yes, would you like to speak?

Yes, I did. Excuse me.

Yes. Good evening. Usually I didn't. I would have jumped. You all know me as Skidmore. I'm going to jump right in. No relation. But anyway, it's good to see everybody this evening. As the chairman has said, I'm one of the sponsors of this ordinance. And I know, and first of all, I do want to say this. It's very unfortunate, but not in a bad way, that we're even discussing this tonight, or even that it's come up, but it has. And so we as a of alderman have to take a look at this thing and see, and I know city staff, which I appreciate, has done a lot of the legwork for this, but there is a discrepancy, and I might have to ask Jesse, if you all have come to a resolution on this, I hate to put you right there in the fore photo of the ordinance of what I've got to speak about. Have you seen the ordinance on this? Yes, I have. Okay. And as it is written now, what's your opinion of it? I mean, in terms of the ordinance, the way that it's written now, is it substantially better than what we had Originally, it's different.

I don't know that it's better. It's different. So what we did this year and the personnel rules and regs is for department heads. We said for department heads, they run the entire department. They shouldn't. 17 step schedule doesn't seem appropriate for a department head. So let's turn that back to a 12 step schedule. And most of the department heads that were coming in were negotiating their salaries above the entry level set. So we just said to negate some of that when they're coming in and to recognize the responsibilities, let's start them at a step five. So that happened for department heads, no other positions though, just for the department heads. We did some other things with vacation and buybacks and things for department heads that were specific to department heads. We didn't move that down to any other position. So what this ordinance does is it takes the step five starting pay and it moves it down so that the assistant police and fire chiefs would also be eligible for it. But it doesn't do it for other department heads. So it's just police and fire is what this is proposing.

Okay. Thank you. To me, that sounds a good, fair thing to do. I'm just trying to see. This is not going to interfere with our budget for this year, right? Is that correct? It would, yes. Okay. Can I speak on that? Yeah, go ahead.

I've checked with both chiefs that they have money left over for plenty of unfilled positions. They have money in their budget to cover this.

Okay, do we know what the financial?

Yes, it's in the ordinance.

Okay, I don't have the ordinance.

$20,000. $250.

$20,000. $20,000, okay. All right, and that's to cover this. And then once this is covered, well, you all really have already passed this ordinance. tonight with a 3-0 vote. So I'm very appreciative of that. I know we're kind of putting the cart before the horse.

We just passed it for discussion. Oh, okay. For discussion purposes.

We haven't had it. Okay. It's different. And I apologize for that.

That's okay.

Usually we just have a motion in a second and then discussion. And you pass it or not, I don't know. But you're the chairman. So go right ahead. And a good one at that. But anyway, I just want to rise in support of this ordinance. I think that it was a, I don't want to say it was a mistake because it wasn't. I want to make perfectly clear that there's no fault from anybody, whether it be from the city or from the alderman or anybody involved. that there was a mistake here. It was one of these things that was just unfortunate that it kind of slipped by and we, you know, we didn't notice it until everything else was put into place and we thought everything was okay, but there's not with this ordinance. So this, so if they've got, let me ask you something, Ms. Chairman or Chairwoman, if they've got that in their budget, and they've got to cover it, then there won't be any substantial change at all to our budget this year.

Not from what I've talked to both chiefs. Okay. May I ask a question?

Oh, no. You're on the table. I'll tell you what I'm going to do. If it's okay, I'm going to defer to my colleagues that I serve with, and then if I have some other questions, I will. rise again. Thank you very much.

So my question is for the city staff, Jason and Jesse and both you gentlemen. How hard will this be to manage moving forward? Is there an issue with future disparities or what goals do you see?

I mean, if it's a policy, we just follow it. I don't know that there is necessarily going to be, like, it's not a difficult calculation to do as far as the calculation goes. That part is simple. It just changes the pay grade so that assistant chief starts higher on the pay grade.

Okay. Okay. Jason?

I mean, I agree with Jesse. As far as the calculation, that's very straightforward. Administration of that policy will be easy. Okay. I do think just from a broad perspective of all staff, this is specific to public safety, so that helps clear the lines. But you will have assistant directors who will feel like they're not getting the same treatment.

Right, right, right.

Okay.

Anybody else? Nothing there.

Thank you. I was going to ask, what kind of mechanism is going to be required? We noted that the money is already in the budget for this. What kind of mechanism will be required? Is there anything by this board or the board of mayor and aldermen that will require an action to make sure this is effective and we can do this?

We'll have to have the ordinance passed at Bowman.

What about budget? Will it affect this year's budget?

Yes.

And what mechanisms are going to be required to, I guess this is a general question.

Yeah, so we'll have to do a budget amendment to include the extra funds. If the budget amendment is to include the funds but not change the public safety budgets, then we'd have to account for additional vacancies in police and fire, which we haven't accounted for yet. So we would have to just make that change. So there's a $27,000 impact. I think we budgeted HPD at two vacancies and we did not budget fire at any vacancies. So, Traditionally, FIRE does have some vacancies, but they've also been over on their overtime budget. So we just have to know that we're going to budget for more vacancies or increase the budget.

Do you or Tamara know how much money PD and FIRE give back to the general fund every year?

I don't know off the top of my head. Do you have that amount? Not off the top of my head.

Okay.

But that's different than what we have to budget for to balance the budget. Yeah. Yeah.

So if FOMA made the decision, hey, we want to budget at three vacancies instead of two or something of that nature, then there could be a budget impact could be different. So we as staff would just have to know that.

So the two chiefs that are here, can you arrive at savings to pay for this policy change within your budgets? First of all, it looks like to me, based on the analysis that Jason did, that the fire assistant chief would need to be bumped up two grades. Is that right, Jason? Two steps, yes. And the assistant police chief would need to be bumped up three grades. And that's the $20,000 a year, those differentials. So my question is, Can the two chiefs come up with the savings to pay for this policy change within your budget?

I don't know this. So at the police department, all of our extra funds have come from open vacancies over the past several years, which we've given back quite a bit. The issue we're going to have moving forward is we're filling those vacancies.

Good.

And with the way the balance in the budget happened this year, with them already accounting for two, right? So we've had two open positions. Now we have three, I believe, currently. They're not filled. Pending, one guy actually just left. We'll have four positions available here pretty soon. Two have been open for quite some time. So I guess to answer everyone's question is that's how we've always accounted for the overages and under whatever it is with do the vacancies with the board.

And I don't, I don't, as an Alderman, I don't want to do anything that would encourage us to increase the vacancies.

Right. No, no, no, no.

First response.

I'm just being like, that's how in the past previously we've covered.

Okay. Whatever. But let's say approximately 10,000 apiece. It's not exactly that because it's a little different. The police assistant chief would receive more than to get it up to five. Could you look at your budget and come up with savings and give those to Jesse and Tamara that, hey, this is going to cost our department $10,000 a year. And here's where we project that savings could come from.

I can tell you historically it's been there for the last eight years. That'd be correct.

Yeah, the vacancies in PD are in a different position now than they've previously been. I think at one point two years ago we had 16 vacancies in the department. We've done some things to help improve that, but we just need to you know, whatever Obama decides, we'll just need to account for it. I think we either need to say, hey, because if we get the opportunity to fill those positions, then we just have to say, no, we're going to hold back for a minute, and we just need to know that, and we'll just bump the budget up.

So, Jesse, if a vacancy happened in either fire, assistant fire, or assistant police, and we looked outside the department, I'm glad we didn't, but In the future, if we look outside the department, is it possible that we would pay an outside candidate as an assistant fire or assistant police at level five to get the kind of caliber of individual that we need?

As an assistant chief, I mean, I think it would be tough to go from the outside to do it, number one. We've based whether we pay people at a higher starting rate on the availability of the resources. So if we're like the traffic engineer is a good one where that position was open for two years and we couldn't find someone. And when one person came by, we said, okay, we'll negotiate with you. Like we're open for negotiation because you're the first person in two years who's applied. You know, when there's an opening and 35 people apply, we're not really going to negotiate. We're going to start at the entry level. So that could fluctuate based on the kind of the market at the time, but it's possible.

Okay.

But it's dependent, I think, on the situation, but it's possible.

Thank you.

Anybody else have any?

Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you. Nancy, I have a question for you. So How do we determine? I'm looking at the email, the response that we received. I guess it was yesterday. Yes, yesterday. Regarding these positions. How was the step determined? As far as step five? Well, the previous step to the current step. What determined getting to step, in this case, two and three for these respective individuals?

It's based on the promotional policy. So the promotional policy says when you promote, you promote a certain percentage of increase. And so the closest step that's at that percentage or higher, like if there's not one exactly at that percentage, we go higher. So we just do the calculation and we say, okay, on the new grade, which step does that line end up?

So is that, and that's seven and a half percent, right? So the promotion is seven and a half percent. Now is that seven and a half percent calculated from the total pay or is it from just their base pay?

It's the base pay plus the e-pay. Every other supplement is pulled aside. Supplements are done just piece by piece. So you take the base pay, you add the e-pay, and that's what the promotional rate is done on. And then the supplemental pays are put back in. Okay. Thank you. That's very good. Is that right? The supplemental pays, yeah.

Yeah. Did you have something? Just one more thing. It sounds like from what the chiefs have said is that there are funds available in their budgets. Okay. I think we need to take a longer look at this and see if we can help these guys out.

Anybody else? I'm going to just make one comment. I probably should keep my mouth shut, but I can't. To answer your question, Jeff, it's normally 7.5% for promotion. I've been trying to fight this for a year. I've gotten hesitation, and that's fine. It's normally seven and a half percent. So my calculation, it should be for each promotion. We've had some unusual circumstances in police and fire lately. So I was trying to do something to avoid it. I think it's really a shame that we attach a salary to, are we going to cut employees and do that to them? The people are in the positions and we need to start standing up for the employees. So that's all I'm going to say, unless anybody has anything else and we'll be addressing this issue more in the future. So, anybody else? All in favor of approving Ordinance 2026-08? All in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Okay, other agenda items. Chief Edwards.

Mr. Chairman, I need to ask one question since we're being lenient tonight, which I appreciate.

But my question would be, and this is a procedural matter, do we waive the two-week rule with this ordinance for it to be placed or asked for it to be placed on the agenda this evening? And to see whether it will pass or not, or are you going to go through this the normal, you know, waiting the two weeks for it to be on the agenda, which I don't know.

I would like to waive the two-week rule because if we have the second reading of the budget tonight, this needs to be on there tonight. If not, it'll be mid-year before this is done. Okay.

Okay. Well, okay. what I'll let the committee know before the meeting I'll talk I'll ask the mayor that if we can waive the rule and then I'll make that motion at the board level at the time we accept the agenda to see if their votes are there to waive the two week rule we've normally done that for a lot of things that have come before us here recently, but I still would like to check with the mayor out of respect for the office that he holds and see what his thoughts are. I don't think he's here tonight, but I'll say something to him before the meeting. Okay. All right. Thank you, Ms. Chairman.

Let me back up. Do we want to pass that with a positive, negative, or?

A positive recommendation, and I think we missed a second on that, so I'll second that. That was a positive recommendation.

Positive is what I was looking at.

And yours was a first. Submission.

Submission. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Now we will get to you on your grants. Thank you. Yeah, so...

What we're wanting to do is to get approval to apply for an AFG. It's a 9010 grant. FEMA has deemed a priority for replacement of fire nozzles this year, which is a good thing for us because we have 36 of them that are over the age of 15 years of age. So they put a priority on that. I've got some handouts here that kind of show everything in red are nozzles that are well over the age of 15. There's some that are 39, even 40 years of age, if anybody wants to look at these. And then... We also wanted to put in or get approval for this grant. The number for this grant for the replacement of these nozzles would be 35,000. So it would be 10% of what the city would have to give on that if we were to get selected. We also want to apply for a, it's a training simulator. It's a $100,000 training simulator. that allows our firefighters to be able to do a forceful entry, ventilation, rescue techniques, even live burn scenarios. Like I said, it's $100,000 for that. So the city's portion would be $10,000. So totally, if we got both of them, the city would have about $13,500 for that. That sounds good. Do we need a motion for that?

that they used to go ahead and apply.

We need to make the motion that we approve or apply for the grant.

All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Chief Morrison, is there an update on a new law or anything with the e-bikes?

So like we talked about, I think it was the last public safety, we had talked about the e-bikes and we knew this new law was coming up. And really the only thing that's changing is On the Class 3 bike, which is a pedal assist only bike that can go up to 28 miles an hour, you said you could ride it if you were 14 years old. Now the law is going to change July 1st where you have to be 16 to be able to ride that class of bike. That's the only changes in the state law currently. I feel like with the direction that things are going in every city in Tennessee, that the state is going to have to address it at some point, because these bikes are still continued to be classified as just a regular bicycle. And so you have 13 year old kids on a electronic bike. They can go 20 miles an hour going through neighborhoods, not following the laws. And the issue that we have is that parents are allowing their children to take these motor vehicles and not follow the rules of the road. And that's going to get somebody, give somebody hurt. And that's the, I think there are party currently is trying to get out there and educate the kids. Like you have to follow the rules of the road. You can't ride five deep. You can't run, stop signs. You can't cut in front of cars. You can't pass them on the right. You can't go the wrong direction on the roadway. There's, there's reasons for that because drivers are used to looking at certain and you're not, you're not looking for a, a 30-mile-an-hour little seven-year-old on a bicycle.

You don't know how old they are.

And so I think it'll have to be addressed at some point, but currently that's the only law that's changing is just that age requirement, which is going from 14 to 16.

Have you considered doing some sort of workshops for parents? Because I'm telling you, if you read my email that I sent you guys, The deer complaints have stopped and now it's the e-scooters and the e-bikes. And it's constant in my neighborhood. Constant. And while I appreciate that, you know, the pressure's off the deer, the deer deer, but now it's on us because people are really upset with what they're seeing. young, young children on these electronic scooters and bikes, and we still have the issues with golf carts that are illegal as well. But like we talked about earlier today, parents are not teaching them the rules of the road, or it doesn't appear that they are, okay? It does not appear. Maybe they don't know what they are. I mean, they... is there anything that we can do, a workshop or, you know, I had even suggested some sort of communication in the newspaper or something.

Or maybe Casey can do something.

She has.

I was going to drag you there. Okay, I'm so sorry. We have something in the works. We do. Okay, good. So the mayor requested us to do some education, one for BOMA and for the public. So we're going to put together a little video presentation type thing.

Good. Yeah. Yeah, we put out something. I don't know if you guys remember. It's probably been a month ago. We created a webpage. We have all the new rules. I think there were some rules that were recently changed. And so we're going to get those updated to kind of reflect the most recent change on the classifications. But in talking with different folks, to me, it seems like the gap isn't so much making sure everybody understands the class of scooter or e-bike. It's more about just understanding the safety aspects of wearing a helmet, following the basic rules of the road. So our communications are not going to be focused on making people so confused in what class of bike or how fat it's more like, let's make sure that your kids are following the rules and make sure that the parents understand their role and teaching their children, the rules of the road and where they're responsibly is if they're not following the rules of the road and those kinds of things. So, yeah, we did talk about that and we're going to start working on that this week. We've got some plans that probably will be a couple of weeks before it's all done, but we do have several education pieces planned and, We've even talked about a flyer that we could maybe pass out to schools when school's back in session that they could maybe give to parents to say, you know, here's some resources and kind of continue working on that. So we've got several things in mind. Great. Thank you.

You know, Alderman Evans and I have received a lot of these complaints from the Durham Farms community. Lance, isn't it true that the legislation... gives not plenary authority, but some additional jurisdiction that, that's municipals and counties can enact to, to further regulate these issues, these, uh, box.

There, there was already, um, authority for local governments to, um, regulate them on, uh, Bicycle paths, trails, those kinds of things. Um, and it. There was some kind of, uh, change where only the stake could, uh, regulate them on state roads within the city jurisdiction. But. This changed it a little bit to where the city can still do that, even if it's a state road. If there's a, or a state, I should say, really a state trail or state bicycle path that wasn't owned by the municipality, but was in its jurisdiction, the city can still operate that part of it.

So, Chief, does the police department need BOMA to pass anything, any ordinance, resolution that would give the PD the authority to enforce this law?

Is there anything that we need to do? I guess my question is what law would you want to enforce, right? Because the state recognizes the e-bicycle the same as a bicycle, right? Like the same bicycle your dad gave you, like the state recognizes this bike that can go 20 miles an hour as the same, like a pedal bicycle. So I think it'd be difficult. Yes, there's legislation you can pass, but I think it'd be difficult with how the state categorizes those, because in doing that, you could possibly ban your people from riding bicycles in certain areas of the city, right? And I think that's going to be a difficult decision for Bowman to make. So I think the biggest thing we need to start with is educating the parents about teaching their kids responsibility and not riding out in front of cars and riding properly. We wouldn't be having this conversation if the kids were riding their bikes properly.

But there's nothing that we need to do to give you the authority to enforce state law.

Just like Lance talked about. Like, you could say, you know, I don't want a Class 1 or Class 2 bike on a greenway. I don't want it on the sidewalk. Like, you could pass that legislation as the city, right? But are you going to be restricting a regular bicycle in the same way, right? That's what would be my concern. Because I think until the state kind of separates these things, you're going to run into some legal issues as far as the classification of a bicycle versus an e-bike.

Yeah. So is it possible that, I know we have an intern, college intern that's helping. Is there any way that that intern could do a survey of best practices of what other municipals are doing to address this issue? to kind of look at the best practice. I know Franklin, I think...

I can tell you, what I've talked to them about, they're having the same conversations that we're having. What do we do? I mean, that's literally the conversations that they're having.

So there's no best practices yet.

Right, yes, sir. That's right. It's just, what can we do?

Well, I don't want to ban bicycles. And that's... Or Santa Claus.

It's classified under the same, you know, so... And, you know, it's... Let's just say you had an age limit, right? I mean, is that something we could even enact, right? You know, you have, I don't think it's so much the bicycle itself you're wanting to ban. It's the person that's not riding properly that you're wanting to educate.

What about class three? That's the fastest by, correct?

So that's already banned by the state on greenways and things like that, right? It goes up to 28 miles an hour. It's pedal assist only, no throttle.

Yeah, it's been 16 or over.

July 1st.

Do we get any complaints from the greenway? I don't.

No, the only complaints we get is from the neighborhoods. And it's not just a single kid that is out there riding his bike. It's a group of five or six that run the stop signs, that block the lanes. These kids will go five deep in a lane, and they'll block traffic up behind them. And it's at the end of a lot of these peninsulas. And we have cars down there, but a lot of it's complaint-based, right? And when these kids find out that, oh, there's a patrol car right there, I mean, they scoot, and them bikes can go in the yards and behind houses and 20 miles an hour. So they scattered pretty quick.

Thank you.

So what, so as I'm driving around town and I see three kids on two e-bikes and something else, like a mini bike. Yes. Right. They're riding on the sidewalk and.

They're riding on the sidewalk. That's already.

So what do we currently, if you have an officer driving down the road and he sees the same thing I saw, what would, what would be their action?

So, for one, you'd have to stop the group, right? But probably, me personally, I would probably stop the one that's on the little mini bike, because that's the one that would be illegal. Most illegal, yeah.

That's correct. And so, and then what do you do? I mean, so let's say you're talking to a 12-year-old that doesn't have an ID.

Well, you've got a couple options. First option is you can actually cite the 12-year-old to juvenile court. but I prefer to hold the parents responsible, right? Let's give the parents a call. Let's him come to the scene. Let's give them a talking to. Why don't you let your 12 year old child come out here with not the proper safety equipment? Why does he not have his helmet on? You cite the parents. You have the parents come in and talk to Judge Edwards and have him explain, or yeah, Judge Edwards, you want to explain why they're not doing the right thing.

Well, which I think is a good practice. I know that Well, I can speak for friends of mine, let me say it that way, that they did a lot of things at that age their parents didn't know about. And so I bet a lot of the parents don't know the minibikes up here on Gallatin Road. That's right. You know, riding on the sidewalks with the two friends with e-bikes.

E-bikes are not supposed to be on the sidewalk. Unless they're paddling. If they're paddling, they can be on the sidewalks, but not with the motor engaged.

What about you scooters?

Well, they're pedal-assisted, right? So the motor assists the pedals. It's not like an e-bike is a bicycle that's motor-assisted. So it's not like a kid's just sitting on a scooter and the pedals aren't moving. The kid's pedaling and the bike's assisting the kid. The faster you pedal, the more power the motor gives it, right?

Well, class two is... Throttle-assisted.

Throttle-assisted.

But the stay losses are not supposed to be on sidewalks with any type of motor engaged.

Could we step off our current? And I'm not trying to give kids tickets, but I'd like for their parents to know where they are and what they're doing. Because my guess is the parents don't know. They're probably at work based on when I see some of these kids.

It's not any different than, you know, your parents gave you a bike and said, go have fun. They're doing the same thing, except they're just... not thinking about this is my motor vehicle that can go 20 to 28 miles an hour. And we need to educate the children.

So if we were to step up to the enforcement of that, what would that look like?

Or what would, well, the biggest thing is right now is we're complaint based, right? Like we, we need to know exactly where the kids are at so we can get down there. Um, you know, a lot of, we have other calls going on. So then it's like, okay, we got a complaint. Let's run down there. Let's try to see if we can grab these kids, which I tell you, our biggest is down in the peninsula. The very end down there is where we have our... And that's the biggest golf cart complaint area. That's the biggest bike complaint area. That entire area right there. That surrounds the community center. All that.

And they're still supposed to abide by the rules of the road. If you're under 16, they're supposed to have helmets on. So, I mean, if they're riding six rats, I don't know, for my enforcement... side of it but that's not legal legal side any bicycle you're not supposed to ride more than two side by side on a roadway so i'd like to ask andy gilly andy on the green wave

On the Greenway, are we receiving complaints about e-bikes? Yeah.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. A lot. We allow bikes on the Greenway. Yes. If you go to Mosserite Park, they don't allow any bikes of any kind on their Greenway, and we're a city that doesn't really want to do that, I don't think, so... I think I heard him say earlier, these class one and twos are legal and treated like the bike that we got for Christmas at this point, but they go up to 20 miles an hour and can kill somebody. We've had people run over in the park, like around the quad areas of the parks, not just on the greenways. We get complaints from the greenway and then ours We tell them to call the police, but by the time they get there, the kids are slowed down or they're gone or what do you do? This is definitely an issue. We had a group of about 30 that got them for Christmas back in Indian Lake, and we're riding all over the baby farms. It was a fun week.

I think I would suggest that maybe this is a good topic for the Parks Board to take up and to see what some other places are doing and just to have a discussion. Plus, it'll get on the TV for public information, too.

Probably seeing what Franklin has done. They're currently discussing it. Brentwood put in a five mile an hour speed limit if a bike was in the vicinity of a person. Who did that? Brentwood. They just passed that. Wow. I don't think Franklin has officially acted yet. I mean, don't fact check me on that because that was a couple months ago. It is a problem, but it's probably as big a problem in the neighborhoods as it is on the park greenways. Sanders Ferry Greenway is where we see most of the problems and inside the actual parks. Which that's not, you can't do that. I don't care if it's class one, two, 22. You can't be on an e-bike amongst people watching softball games or riding up around the concession stand. But they come through there and it sounds like a motorcycle coming through there sometimes. With a helmet, without a helmet. I mean, they're not being safe. No matter what we say, the kids are not being safe about it. Some of the parents are doing a great job. Some are like, You know, we rode our bike all over Hendersonville, right? Growing up, played in the creek in the barefoot. This ain't the same place we grew up in. Thank you. Yes, sir. Can I go back in my mouth? Anybody else?

Well, yes, Ken. First, I apologize for bringing this discussion up so late. I kind of just learned that there was a little bit of concern about that grade and change within the fire department. And so I just wanted to open it up if we have any questions or just wanted a discussion, especially if you're hearing Matt speak about it. That might not be a problem.

I've had a lot of complaints about it as well with the rank structure. Received an email today regarding it. So I don't know. We probably need to bring that up again. Anybody else?

Sorry.

Go ahead.

Chief Edwards, have you had a lot of discussion? Yeah, absolutely. I've heard much about it.

Yeah. So moving the battalions and the division chiefs up one pay grade is fantastic. But I do have three positions who are currently administrative, but they're on the same pay level as that of a division chief. So by moving them up, you're going to be moving them actually past the an administrative chief, a fire marshal, and our training chief. So I guess the concern that I would have for that, I would like to see those positions all stay the same. I know that they didn't necessarily, when the pay study was going forward, they didn't really look at, like, which titles were in what pay grades. They just kind of did it title for title. And we're a little bit different on that as far as we have, you know, our fire marshal is on the same line as a division chief. Well, with this, those division chiefs will obviously go past them. And so I have those three positions. So it is a little concerning for me as far as in the future, if any of these positions do tend to open, it's going to make it more difficult for some of these other... You see what I'm saying? They're going to look at it and say, well, the financial... is not a benefit there. It would be, you know, do I just really want to do that job, or is it going to be a step going backwards? You know, am I going to be in a position where I'm going to have, you know, all this responsibility, and I'm still not going to be compensated for it like some other people are in other positions? So it really tends to focus around those three positions as far as staying in status with the division chiefs, 100%.

So when they did that, have they been given raises already for moving up a grade?

The people that went into those positions?

Yeah. The changes that were just made, changing the grades. So they made people up a grade without Jason shaking his head back there. They made people up without giving any more money.

So they go to the step that's closest to what they're currently making. So we don't go down, we'll go to the closest. It might be a 1% increase, a half a percent increase, might be a penny, but we're gonna get to the closest to where they're at. We're not gonna treat it like a promotion. Is that answering your question? Right now, that's part of the budget that's being approved for that division chief and the battalion chief to be moved up a grade. That's part of the budget process.

So if they're not getting financially compensated, what is the purpose of doing it when it's creating all the controversy?

So it's to align it with the market. This goes back to why we do the pay study. We're doing the pay study to make sure our positions are in alignment with the competitors that we identified. When we did that, the battalion chief was low. So the recommendation from the pay consultant was to move it up because it was in one of the categories that was over 10% below market. So by moving it up, then that moved it to the same pay scale as its supervisor. So then that's why we moved the division chief up.

So it's classified as a reclassification. So nobody is promoting from one position to another position. It's a reclassification of the pay grade. And what the policy states is that in reclassification, your pay is, it goes to the new grade at a step that's closest to but above your existing pay. So there's not new responsibilities that are added on to anyone. It's just that their pay grade now has the opportunity to go up to a higher range. And so all the pay grades get moved up one or two, but it's not a promotion in terms of they promoted a position or promoted responsibilities. It's a promotion of the pay grade in that sense. And so it's a reclassification, and that's how the policy that we adopted says that we process reclassifications.

You're reclassifying the position, not the person.

Yeah, there's no responsibility change in it. These, they're just a pay grade. It's just a pay grade reclassification. So the job description is the same. Yeah. So that's why, like on a promotion, you'll get your 7.5% on a reclassification. Reclassifications are done for the policy that you go to the new pay grade at the closest pay that you're currently at, but never go down, only to go up if there's not one that's equal.

So these three, is it three positions? Yes, sir. They were at the same level of the division chief. Mm-hmm. And because of the pace study and compression or whatever, we moved the division chief up one pace step. And now these three positions are wanting to move up to the same level that the division chief is. Is that right?

Yeah, 100%. The way they look at it is like, and just like Mr. Eckernall said, their responsibilities didn't change and they went up. These guys were on the same level. Their responsibilities didn't change, but now... they're being left behind. So, and this may make a little bit more sense. I've got it right here. So our chart, the way our staffing chart is, if I'm sorry, I do not have my glasses. So if you look at our staffing chart right here, you got division chiefs, you got training, you got fire marshal, you got administrative chief. Currently the way our thing is, they all line up. This will change. with the movement of the battalions and the division chiefs, which I think is a fantastic thing. But it does put these three positions that were now in line with them for the same financial growth opportunity will now not have it. And they have just as much responsibility. I mean, they have a tremendous amount of responsibility as well. just in the savings that we've gotten in our training division alone is astronomical. So it's just, you know, when you're looking at it, and I don't know where it stops. I don't know what the answer is. But it would be like with anything else. You have a line right here. You have people on this line. You're moving some up. You're not moving the others up. All the responsibilities for everybody has stayed the same. Some are moving forward and some are not. So it draws the question as to, well, why not me?

do you have any ideas of how to fix it yes sir me anyone in here because i know i've had received lots of phone calls it seems simple to me i don't want to speak out of line but

If we're raising the battalion and division up a grade and aligning their current salary with the closest step in that new grade, I don't know why we can't do the same for those three positions for the fire marshal, the administrative chief, and the training chief. Bring them up to FR 23 with the division chief where they previously were and match them to their that I'll go under.

Jason, do you know what the financial impact of that would be? I do not have that off the top of my head.

I've got a question for Jason. So in listening to Matthew, Jason, the reason we don't just automatically move those people up because it seems like a simple request other than the financial burden that it would create is that we want to follow the pay study that we paid seven, how much for? It'd be close to $40,000 by the time we're done. Okay. So we're kind of shooting our pay study in the foot by saying we did the PACE study, so now we're not gonna follow it?

So the PACE study showed that those positions were somewhere above market, somewhere just below, like 5% below. And that we treated that as an acceptable range. Anything greater than 10%, we identified as ones that needed to be increased, because those are the critical needs. The ones that were, say, from 9% to 0%, those are the ones that are on a watch list. And so year over year, we can look at those and adjust those. But if we start doing it, it does erode the pay study.

And we'll have another pay study in what, four years? Four years.

But one of you said they didn't take into consideration our structure. I don't know which one of you said that.

She could have said that they went title per title, not something else.

Yeah, we didn't do that for any department. So we did a market analysis where we said, hey, in the market, what do these positions make? And let's bench to that. And that's where we got the data on which positions we raise or lower. So we went out to the market and said, are the positions that are comparable making the same amount we are? If they are, then we said, okay, we're at market. If we're below, then let's move some positions up. If we're above, we just kept them above. And when we did that, we compared our step nine, which is our middle of our pay range. So if we were to take these three positions and we move them up, we would be moving them outside of what we're doing with all the other positions in the city. So if we wanted to do that for this department, I would also recommend that you look at all the departments and say, is there anything across departments where we don't care about the market as much as we care about making positions across the board equal and that's what the pay study said look at the market and do it it didn't take into account look at the market in some scenarios and not in other scenarios or let's not look at the market for all positions and let's look at the market for some and then bring everyone up who's in that structure the same so we just went to the market on it is there compression because of this compression

Because of this new...

It actually spreads those positions apart. So the three positions you're referring to would be on a grade 22. The battalion chief would move up to a grade 22 and the division chief to a grade 23.

So we have lower ranks on the same scale as some of the upper ranks.

If you're looking at battalion chief being a lower rank than an administrative chief or a training chief, I'm not one to weigh in. Chief Edwards is in the ranks better than I do.

They are.

Okay, I have an issue with that. Okay, anybody else?

Chief Edwards. Is there a, when we did the market analysis, did they, understood, maybe I misunderstood, did they take into account our structure, our HFD structure? Yes.

In the conversation I had with the lady, I don't recall that being part of the conversation. I honestly don't know the answer.

Does our structure mimic others in the area?

Yes, sir.

Okay, so it's not uncommon.

No, sir.

Okay. All right, thank you. I appreciate that.

Anybody else? Motion. Motion.

Motion to adjourn.