Order. Our first item is a briefing on the k9 policy, and mr. Davis is coming up to the
microphone to take it away. Hi. Good afternoon. I see. Okay again. Good afternoon. I'm
brandon davis. I have the privilege of leading our office of oversight and public accountability and our office of equity and engagement. And today I'll be giving the
benchmarking, analysis and review of k9 program policy. 6-8.1. Now, this is a
benchmarking analysis, and its report compares pd's program and policies to peer
organizations. And does that type of evaluation. This is not an evaluation of actual
processes or those types of things. We're looking at the actual language in the policy
and comparing that as a benchmarking analysis. So the way this will work today is we
have this agenda. Obviously we'll do the introduction. Then we'll talk about the three part
framework and benchmarking factors. We'll give a summary of that three part analysis. And then there are some recommendations that will come along with that. Then there'll
be time for questions as well. So the objective of this was in response to the city
commission's request, the city demand, the city manager directed opa to engage in this
benchmarking analysis of pure jurisdictions and national professional associations
related to pd's k9 policy. So what we did was we evaluated pd's written k9 policy and
identified areas. It could be clarified or strengthened to better align with pure city
practices and nationally recognized guidance. The review is based on pd's written policy,
and I keep stressing that as well as the k-9 handler manual, because that is what we were
directed to look at, and that was the scope of this. Now, we do note some practices that are
not reflected in a written policy, and we'll talk about that. But the core of the
evaluation was based on that written analysis. So when we talk about the scope, it's important that we state that this is not a legal analysis. The goal of this was not to
give a legal opinion. We don't conclude that k9 deployment or incidents were unreasonable or
unconstitutional or anything like that. That is not what this process was about. It was
a benchmarking analysis. This analysis did not evaluate individual incidents or cases
or anything like that. So after completing this written the review of the written policy,
we did have conversation with the police department. Interim chief trigg has been amazing to
work with throughout this process, and we had conversation with him and other leaders in the police department who were also helpful, and we were able to
identify practices that may not be encapsulated in the policy that are encapsulated in this
report. In some ways, it's important to note that that the information we have based on
that is based on what was provided to us by grpd. So we did not independently verify
practices. So in order to have a good understanding of this report, it's important that we
have some common language. So definitions. Let's start with canine apprehension. When we
talk about apprehension in this report we're talking about incident where a suspect
surrenders or is otherwise brought into custody at the as a result of a canine deployment.
right. So this may be because the canine was used as trained or because the suspect
surrendered after becoming aware of a canine being a part of it. Apprehension does not
necessarily mean that there was a bite or some type of force used by the dog in that way.
what it does mean, though, is what we've stated here. K-9 handler is a sworn law
enforcement officer, trained and certified to work with a police canine. And then we talk
about use of force. And the use of force is the application of physical tactics or tools by
law enforcement to gain compliance or control. So when we look at the benchmarking
factors, there's some important considerations that we have to have as we navigate this. The
first thing that's important for you to know is there is no single universally adopted
standard for governing police canine programs in the united states. So when you look at
different jurisdictions across the country, you will see different things. The way in
which they navigate, what their thresholds are, all of those types of things are different.
so what we have to do in this case, of course, is then look, of course, across several
factors and several different sources to try to determine what are those best practices, what are those nationally recommendations that we can look at in order to put
together a benchmarking analysis. And through that process, ten benchmarking
factors were used in this study. Again, they were not developed by opa. They were derived from
the recurring requirements and recommendations found across independent, nationally
recognized sources such as the international association for the chiefs of police, the
police executive research forum and the canine policy of peer agencies. And we'll talk more
about those peer agencies as we go forward. These factors also reflect operational categories
around which law enforcement agencies routinely structure their canine policies. So our
three part benchmarking framework included these things across policy analysis a best
practices from nationally recognized sources, and then selected peer city comparison.
so when we talk about that across policy analysis, I we'll talk about exactly what
policies we looked at. And we're talking about grpd policies. We'll also talk about the national recognized sources we got to. And then we'll give you some more information about
those peer cities that were selected and why they were selected. So from that review,
ten benchmarking factors rose to the top. The first is force classifications. When you look
at force classification, the question is does the policy classify canine bites or
apprehension as a use of force option. When we look at apprehension threshold the
question is is physical apprehension limited to serious violent felonies, armed
suspects or high risk situations? Number three looks at supervisor approval. The
question there is, does the policy require supervisory approval before bite risk
deployments or situations where a bite could happen? The next one looks at warning
requirements. What warnings must be given and is documentation required when
warnings are waived? The bite incident review the question there is who conducts the
primary review and is it independent of the canine unit? The next one is vulnerable
population protections. The question is are there restrictions for juveniles,
elderly persons and mental health crisis or impaired individuals? The next asked
about transparency and reporting. The question is, is public reporting of deployments,
bites, demographics or bite ratios required? The training methodology looks at whether
the policy, the policy, the policies specified, buy and hold, bark and hold, or another
approach. And we'll talk about this a little more. But bite and hold and bark and hold are the most common types of methodology methodologies used in these type of spaces with
bite and hold being the most common. Then there's demographic training. Tracking
is demographic data collected and analyzed for canine deployments. And lastly, we
have recall and control. It's the handler required to recall the canine. Once the suspect is
in the custody or the threat has ended. So those are the ten parts. And now we'll talk about
some of the sources we use to get to that place. So there's the grpd cross policy analysis.
so let's do an overview of grpd canine program policy for everyone. So there are we talk
about nine major spaces. So grpd authorizes canine use across a broad operational
range. It can be used for the following purposes tracking suspects and potential evidence
during or after criminal offenses. It can also be used for missing incidents where the
person may be in danger. It could be used for evidence searches for stolen or
abandoned property. Canines can be used for building searches where burglary or felony
suspects are believed to be hiding. It can also be used for narcotics searches, and that's
in a home or a vehicle or open area when legal requirements are met, of course. And then
there's physical apprehensions based on a totality of circumstances, area searches to
locate and apprehend hidden felony suspects. It can also be used for off lead apprehensions
after verbal warnings and a totality of the circumstances. Review and then tactical
deployments under srt supervisor direction. So the other policies we looked at in
consideration of this review was the de-escalation response policy. So that mop9 1.1
de-escalation response to resistance and use of force. We looked at the vehicle pursuit
policy, the youth interactions policy, the deaf and hard of hearing policy, the custody of
incapacitated persons policy and responding to persons with mental disorders as well. So
then we looked at best practices from nationally recognized sources. So we looked at that. We looked at the international association of chiefs of police. We also
looked at the police executive research forum. We looked at the the national association
for the civilian oversight of law enforcement and the washington state criminal
justice training commission model as well. So then for peer cities, we were fortunate to to
get some peer cities from grpd as well. So what we did was grpd selected a number of these
peer cities and selected others. So we looked at west covina in california, which many of you
may have heard, former city attorney hitchcock talk about being a model that should be looked at. We also looked at the city of detroit, madison, wisconsin, worchester,
massachusetts, fort collins. We looked at the king county sheriff's department, traverse city, salt lake city, utah, and spokane, washington. And we have populations here. So you
can see some of them were population based because of them being comparative to where we are, and some of them were based on other factors, recommendations from grpd or
ones that opa was aware of and selected. So as a result of that, we then have the summary
of this three part benchmarking analysis. So when we look at the summary of part one, that
is the grpd cross policy analysis, there are a few things that rose to the top
during that part of the benchmarking analysis. First is under the de-escalation
response resistance and use of force. So k9 apprehension is not expressly described as a
use of force option within the mop9 1.1. The force continuum covers compliance controls,
impact, weapons strikes, and more, but it does not include canine apprehension or bites.
and again, I want to specify we're talking about the written policy and what's written in
that policy directly. Later on, you'll hear that a lot of this is happening in practice. But
again, our analysis was about that written policy. We looked at youth interactions under
which is manual procedures 8-16. And we learned that these youth interaction policy contains
protections that are not currently expressly extended to canine encounters in the
written policy. So grpd requires supervisor notification when a child has
been handcuffed and restricts firearm display against youth. Yet the canine policy permits
physical apprehension without that age based restriction. When we look at the deaf and
hard of hearing policy, k9 warnings are entirely verbal. The deaf and hard of hearing
policy warns that failure to respond to commands may indicate hearing loss and not
defiance. That's not expressly written into the canine policy, although it is written
obviously in this other policy. We also looked at incapacitated persons and mental health.
these protective frameworks exist for intoxicated, incapacitated and persons with
mental illness, but they're not explicitly reflected in the canine operation despite these
being, you know, those type of situations where that would be pretty critical. So when we
look at the summary of part two, this is best practices from nationally recognized sources.
so we look at the benchmark. You'll see several columns. You see benchmarking factors. You
see best practices from nationally recognized sources. And then you'll see pd's
current status. And we'll go through these. When we look at force classification, the best
practice is to classify canine apprehensions bites as use of force. The use of force option
on that force continuum. And we have some sources here where that comes from. Again, in our
current status, canine is not classified as a use of force in the policy, although you'll see
later that it is treated that way in practice. When we look at apprehension threshold, the
best practice is to limit apprehension to serious violent felonies with enumerated
conditions and to require probable cause as a predicate. When we look at current status,
it does prohibit apprehension and non-serious offenses when no danger exists. So in some
ways it is reflected there. When we look at vulnerable population protections, the
best practices to restrict or prohibit canine deployment against known juveniles,
elderly persons and mental health crisis and hearing impaired persons. And but when
we look at current status, there are not these restrictions for juveniles or
elderly, mentally ill, deaf, intoxicated or pregnant persons during canine encounters. I
want to be clear, though these protections exist in other policies, but we're talking
about the written policy as it relates to canine policy, transparency and reporting. The
best practice is to is to publish annual canine data that would include deployments,
bites, bite ratios, injuries, demographics, and things of that nature in the handler
manual deployment reports there. It does require that every use monthly stats, quarterly review
training logs are reported, but there is not a public reporting portion that's required by
policy. Grpd does publish annual canine force count on this dashboard. So we look at
warning requirements. This is standardized warning language. Multiple announcements being
required, multilingual considerations being a part of that. And when that doesn't happen, there being some type of documented justification and grpd is current status of its
written policy. There are building search announcements required, and there's verbal
warnings for when a dog is off leash, but it is currently waivable without documentation.
we look at supervisor approval. The best practice is to require supervisor authorization before
any deployment where a bite is foreseeable. Jeopardy's current status we look at section d one
authorizes most functions without prior supervisory approval. A supervisor is
required for certain special circumstances. When we look at bite incident review, the best
practice is to route canine bites into the same review process as other use of force
incidents that either being internal affairs or external body that conducts that primary
review and current status is multi-layered. There is a use of force report and canine
supervisor review and copies to the chief service area commander and ia. So ia is a
part of all of those parts of that practice. That use of force component is a part of
what happens here. But that's a practice not written into the actual canine policy. The
training methodology, specifying the training methodology. That means bite
and hold versus bark and hold in the policy is what is the best practice in handler manual
section. The bite methodology is not named specifically in this current policy.
demographic tracking. The best practice is to require demographic data collection for all canine deployments and analyze that for patterns or disparities. There is no
tracking of race, age, or gender of canine subjects or individuals who have
interactions with canines. Under current policy, grpd does already track demographics for
other use of force categories via its internal affairs annual statistical analysis. We look
at recall and control the best practices to require immediate recall and restraint. Once a
suspect is in custody. Current status does require a handler to recall the dog once the
suspect is in custody, so that aligns directly with the language we see under the best
practice, which is a very positive thing. Okay, so I've talked a lot about some
practices that were not in the written policy. So again, I'm I am grateful to be able to
navigate well with interim chief trigg. And because we're able to do that, we're able to
have some of these conversations, which I think is helpful to grand rapids. And so I thank you to him for stepping up in this way. And through that conversation, we were able
to identify some practices that happened that are not a part of the written policy. That
includes under the force classification. So grpd does report that canine
apprehensions are treated at the use of force event in practice, and that a use of
force report is required for those apprehensions. So these are things we see in practice that we don't see in a written policy there. The apprehension threshold. Europe states that
it adheres there apprehension policy to the us supreme court case of graham v connor, which
sets the minimum standard for canine apprehension. So when we talk about, again, the
apprehension, there is a minimum standard in the law for the way things are supposed to work. Nothing in this report is suggesting that grpd is not complying with that minimum
standard. We're talking about national. Our recommendations are related to national practices of where we think there can be added growth warning requirements. Grpd has
stated that standardized warnings are taught through their training, and that any omission must be documented in a use of force report. You may have recalled that on earlier
slides, I talked about the fact that if there was an omission, it needed to be in writing
somewhere. That was the nationally best standard. And although we don't see that written in grpd policy, they have indicated that it is a part of their practice. A bike
review independence. Again, grpd has stated that the internal affairs department reviews all use of force reports, including those involving those canine
apprehensions that result in bias, vulnerable population protections. Grpd reports that
officers are trained to weigh a person's status as a vulnerable in a vulnerable population. As
part of that totality of the circumstances review in which they are involved. Training and
methodology grpd indicates that bite and hold is the default for any canine program, which
is why it is not documented in their policy. And then demographic tracking jeopardy
indicates the demographics are documented and use of force reports. However, they don't
analyze them for patterns and disparities. So here's that summary of part three. And this
is a comparison between other midsize peer cities. And what you see here is you see two
columns for grpd. You see a written policy column that looks just at what's written in
the canine policy. And then you see the practice column, which is the additional information
we were able to gain from grpd that add some more clarity to what's actually happening at
the police department that goes beyond what's in that written policy. And I won't go line by
line based on each of these cities, but you can see the comparison there, where grpd
stands as it relates to the other cities involved here. Okay, so that brings us to our
recommendations. And our recommendations essentially are to align with with the language
that you heard me talk through as we talked about best practices here. And I, because
I've already stated all of them, I won't go through each one of them and read them again, but I
will just highlight some of those spaces. One is to classify canine apprehension as a use of force. It's one of the strongest recommendations we're making. Again, that's in the
written policy. We recognize the practice says some other things. We recommend the narrowing of the canine apprehension threshold, establishing vulnerable
population protections, expanding transparency and reporting, and standardized warning language, all of that being standardized in the canine use of force policy. We
recognize that other policies exist and other spaces where that language may be included.
but it is our position that for the benefit of community and others who may be reading this
policy, when they go to a policy, they look at that policy and are looking for some
of that information. Same thing for when we have our other recommendations, which is to
require supervisor approval before deployment to mandate bite review reporting in ia,
and that being a part of the actual policy to clarify that training methodology and policy
and include demographic tracking and reporting align with each of these things, you
will see the source, right? So what peer cities we saw that had those things and also the
nationally recognized sources that recommended or supported that type of action. That
brings us to questions. But before we do that, I do want to recognize all the people who've
been involved in doing this work. This has been a laborious lift, and it's been some really
good work done by staff across the city. So I want to thank albert sasaki, who did a big
part of this lift. I believe he's in here today. I also want to thank nick drake, who was
very involved in this, and both harrison and nicholas were, you know, we we we say the twins
often. Right. But they were extremely involved in this space. They did a major lift.
and I just want to appreciate all of them for all of their work going into this. And with
that, I'll turn it over to the mayor before we get questions from the committee. I want to
thank mr. Davis for his work. But just to punctuate the process, so today is his
findings, and certainly he's available to answer any questions. We have several
command staff that might be able to answer some preliminary questions today, but I have
asked the chief to come back at a future meeting in more detail to respond to some of the
recommendations as to which they believe that they will be able to act on. Great. So, yeah,
and let me echo the sentiments. So thank you for this work. I think it's, you know, very good
methodology, certainly thought provoking. And I was really impressed to see, frankly, that
the strongest column when you did the comparative tick marks, obviously our practices. So
what what we're actually doing with our canines seems to be maybe the strongest category
there, even compared to pure cities. So that was great to see. I think that, you know,
we'll have to have a conversation in the commission will have to have a conversation about, you know, we are, as a city committed to transparency, and we also want
our citizens to be able to know, know what they can expect and what our and that our, you know,
our policies reflect our goals. So there's always a, you know, there's always that struggle in
government. If do you do things. If things happen by practice, then it's tough to have
accountability. If the answer is, oh, we always we always do that. But but it's not written
down. You know, if everyone in the city went 25 miles an hour on the highway, and then
somebody goes 40 and we don't have speed limits, we can't say, well, we always go 25. And
there's no accountability, accountability for going 40. So I think it's a great
conversation. I'm glad. I'm I'm certainly glad this is, as you said, city manager, the first
step here. And, you know, I'm glad that you did a really robust engagement with our
police department. And I'm looking forward to to the next step, which is conversations
about what are the what are, what makes sense and, and whether there are opportunities.
and I think it's clear to me from the presentation that our biggest opportunity is to
essentially document what we're already doing. And so that's, that's great to hear. So,
pastor, yes, thank you so much for, for the report. And thank you for the conversations that
were that were had. I mean, it's good to get all this information, but 62 minutes before our time here to receive it is a little bit unacceptable. However, we understand things
happen and we're looking forward to the review that will be taking place. Is there a
timeline associated based upon when we would actually be able to discuss these next, as a
result of we don't want any other incidences to occur because they've been happening,
you know, as of late. So just just curious. Well, I, I, I'm not exactly sure what you're
referring to with the 62 minutes part of it, but as it relates to the timeline, I will
defer to the manager. I think you're talking about the getting the copy of the
presentation correct an hour before the meeting. Right. The public safety committee, and I'm a quick read. And I did read and I did and I did study because I could I could tell
you about the ten benchmarks. I can tell you about the nine cities. I can tell you about
the seven practices and policies. Thank thank you doctor. So and that's the
reason why I again, I said we're not expecting to have the entire conversation today. So
this is an introduction to it. And we will continue it next month at the next public safety
committee. The chief will be up here next. So I hope to have him have some initial response
to it. But this will be an ongoing conversation. And in the interim, if you have any
questions, please feel free to reach out to director davis or the chief myself. Commissioner.
thank you, mayor and davis, for this presentation. I, I, I too, am excited to hear from interim
chief trigg on his initial response to these. It looks like we're leading in many
categories demographic tracking, for example, the comparable cities. That's not happening.
so I think I am hopeful to see all of these recommendations be adopted. I have had continued
conversations with constituents all over the third ward, from wealthy street all the way to
44th on this very topic. And a note for the city manager. And mr. Davis, I'm wondering, since
this took a good chunk of time, if we could consider also zooming out and looking at the
foot chase policy period. So this pursuit policies, in addition, is what my
constituents are communicating about. So of course, this is good. I'm happy to see this.
I'm hopeful that all of these are adopted. And then in addition, can we have this same
really comprehensive overview of foot chase itself? Thank you commissioner. We prioritize
this based on the urgency back in april, I believe, and really moved pretty fast. And we have
another component I think that we prioritize was a review of our policy that we. So we've
looked at the. Use of officer involved shootings. We said we would then analyze the canine
and pursue policy. Then cab. There's one other matter, I think that we had committed to
prior to this review, and that was the traffic study. So if we want to elevate that over the
traffic study, then certainly we can do that. But I think that's worth discussing. Wonderful. And city manager with that, can we maybe bring this back for the full
commission to see where that prioritization is? Yeah, certainly we can schedule a
more comprehensive briefing for the entire city commission on, on an update on some of the
reviews that are going on in opa and the police department. I think this was really
comprehensive. And I think this is a good part of it. But if you if you're following trends,
some of those challenges that we've seen within community have included a pursuit, a
chase itself. And so with speaking with hundreds of community members throughout my
tenure, as I go on my second year on commission, I think it's a call from community. And
as we did with canine, starting with this, I think it's imperative that we continue to
listen to community. So I'll raise that with my colleagues going further to see if that
will also be on the list of of reviews going further. And I really appreciate the work from
both the grpd and from opa on this. Thank you. And go right ahead. Thank you. I was going
to indicate that, as the manager indicated, we we do have a current order of prioritization. I want to be clear about. So one was our canine study. The manager
committed to us doing the cab analysis as well. While we're doing the analysis, we're also
at the same time working on a traffic stop study simultaneously as relates to a
foot pursuit based on current direction where we currently stand, that was to occur after
those things. If we if I receive obviously direction from manager to do something
different after he hears from you all, we will. But that's the current prioritization and how we're navigating. Gotcha. So it is in the prioritization. It is in the list of things to
for us to evaluate, but it is not next on the list to invite you. Thank you so much, mr.
davis. Thanks, thanks, commissioner. Sassy. Thank you. Mayor. Thank you, mr. Davis.
and thank you, everyone who is a part of this. I agree, this is very comprehensive. I'm this
is must have been a lot of work. I don't know how many hours. So even just knowing that and the
amount of resources, I don't think it's just, you know, it's this much and we'll do it or
not do it. But I think that's also the transparency piece in that as well. Mayor and
colleagues, just to know how much time this takes because you want to do it right, you
want to have it. Hopefully the relationships and those pieces that were discussed, because it's not just about the evaluation, but it's how do we collectively, you know,
recognize how do we, you know, change, change different practices? So I wanted to
highlight that. So thank you. I want to highlight one thing that you just said,
commissioner kilgore, and then I have a specific question for either now or as we have the
further conversation, you know, we're going to have, we just talked at committee of the
whole about the public public safety trust fund money, and we would be going through a a
grant process. The timeline is unsure as the money. We're not we're not sure when the money
will come in, but some of it will go internally to different. We said like programmatic
pieces, I think, you know, I can't speak for the entire safe task force, but in particular,
I think I'm very you know, if I were to prioritize the prioritization of what to focus
on, to me, it'd be like those in the vulnerable populations, particularly young people, and
how that is applied. And how do we, as you said, mayor, you know, really getting in and
writing that is where the accountability lies. So I wonder how we might be able to,
you know, do all the things we said we were going to do for public safety trust fund, but
also recognize the policy implications. And, you know, what are we doing in the future? So that's in the that's in the future. I would say these are all sort of tied. We talked
about the traffic stop study, foot pursuit. I would also say just surveillance overall
continues to be a big, you know, question that I get with a lot of my constituents. I
appreciate. The department, dc baker, for responding to individuals with not just a
paragraph, but a very long sentence, recognizing their concerns, talking to them about
how long, you know, we've been using things like license plate readers. But anyways, I digress.
my question is. And maybe manager tell me if this is for for for chief trigg. But what
happens when, like, say, the k-9 makes a mistake, say they don't follow the command or I
don't know if there is like a certain area where people where they are trained to do the bite
or the bite and hold, you know, some of this was from quite honestly, I know for me, seeing
a picture of somebody who had been in impacted by the use of force of a k9. So I'm just
wondering that question, what is that? What is that follow up look like? And are there
certain areas where they're not allowed to make contact with someone? That is a question. I
would defer to the police. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Well, do we want the chief to come in,
respond to that now or come forward, chief. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Excuse my voice. My my
voice is gone. A bad timing, right? But this is what you get for now. But yeah, obviously
our our dogs are trained to impact certain areas, you know, and if, if there's several
factors that could affect, you know, a dog missing its bite, I think you might be referring to
the one recently we had of where the gentleman got hit in the face. Obviously, I know
deputy chief baker was a former k-9 handler for for ten years, and he's our coordinator. He
supervises the program, but he could speak to another depth. But basically, you know, the
dogs can you know, they're they're animals. They can miss their spot. But it goes to just
hours and hours of training. You know, in that specific instance, I know the dog was,
was trying to target the arm due to the movement and where the gentleman was seated in the
car and the adjustment that it got to the face. But that's, that's not the target we can I
know we plan on doing a presentation in here with, for our canine program to show,
just like director davis explained during his presentation, which was very
good explanation, by the way, or presentation of all the times we use it and actually
coming here and actually dissect it, and maybe we can even show video that shows our
officers training with the canine and the work that they're doing in the bite suits where the face isn't covered because it's not a point of, of contact. So I don't know if
that answers it to a degree. Yeah, I think so. I mean, I think that is. You know, like
you said, commissioner, and I know, mayor, you've had conversations with constituents as well about, you know, the questions and concerns. And I think, what are those what are
those pieces and practices? And as you said, it's it's, you know, there's there's
consequences, say, you know, not following procedures and practices for all of us or, you
know, those that are in uniform. But what does that look like? Or just to understand the
psychology, I mean, I, I have I've been bitten by my own dog on the face back in the day.
and it was, it was a very shocking thing that happened. And it happened and it happens
really quickly. So there's a lot of different factors, but I appreciate it. And I don't know
if there's anything else. Yeah. You know, I mean, again, I know this is not the one
conversation. I think we've said this consistently. I think that's also what we're hearing is how do we regularly have conversations about, you know, these these use of forces? Yeah.
and our canine handlers trained monthly and they put hours and hours in. And that's something
we can definitely speak to more depth when we come back with, with our response, I think
would be appropriate and okay, because I know it's an important topic. Okay. So I
appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you both. I got some questions. Yeah. And actually,
before I could for both of you, you didn't actually review standards on training frequency.
so the chief just brought up an interesting question. Like what is best practices? Are we
training, you know, at the is there a standard? And I mean, I assume there is an answer to
that question. But if either one of you want to speak to that, like, is there the fact
that we train monthly, is that something we just decided to do to ourselves? Or is that a sort
of standardized, oh, there's a national standard that we follow. And we're always obviously trying to and we can go more than that too. We always want to exceed any type
of standard we can at grpd, at least through my my history, we're always trying to exceed
the standards. Mayor, let me follow up on that. So when calea reviews our accreditation is our canine program reviewed by calea. Obviously, I'm very proud that we've got cle
accreditation. I was trying to think back of how long we've had it now, I think 2018. But
that that puts us and not not every agency in michigan has it. There's there's not many.
michigan state police is one of them. But it puts us among the. As far as our policies on the
elite organizations, not in the country, but in the in the world. Right. So I think that's
something to, to highlight. We and calea comes in, it's it's like 21 members of it's
attorneys. It's, it's, it's lawyers, it's prosecutors. It's this full of smart individuals
that come through our policies with a fine tooth comb and tell us where we're, we're lacking
if we're lacking, we've had that certification, I think, since 2018, like I said. So I
feel very confident in our policies that they are strong. But that being said, there's
always an opportunity to get stronger, right? With anything in life. I think if you can
continue to build and no one wants to be stagnant, and with our policies, I don't want to
be stagnant either. And I know director davis highlighted a few recommendations that I know
deputy chief baker is very open to, and we're open to as an agency of improving. And I. I
appreciate his work on it. Thank you. Yeah. All right. I'll ask mr. Davis to come to
the podium. I really appreciate the thoroughness of the review. I'll just reiterate everyone
else here how you're very thoroughly comparing the best practices with what the
national organizations recommend and other similar departments, and also just
working so closely across different departments within the city. I think that focusing
more on evidence and being able to take insight from different stakeholders and how you've
been able to do that is, is really impressive. And even if things have been a little
rushed in getting out this recommendation to us here, I'm still very grateful that you
were able to do all this work. I think it was fantastic. That being said, I do have two
questions. First is, under the recommendations that you have and forgive me, I might not
understand, like how departments document things, but if there is a canine
apprehension where a suspect surrenders, but there's not a contact where a suspect is
actually contacted by that canine, would the grpd still classify that as a use of force?
tell me a little bit more about like, what we document when it comes to use of force? Our
recommendation is that that in the exact circumstances you describe, it should be
classified under a use of force space. Now that again, that's something that's in practice,
that's not in written policy. So as to what actually occurs, I'll have to defer to the chief
for now. But the recommendation is if a canine is used in the course of apprehension that it
should be, it should fall under the use of force continuum and therefore be documented. Okay.
yeah. So is that similar to, say, where an officer draws a weapon in a situation? Would
would that also be classified as a use of force? That's the way we would describe it. Okay.
interesting. And then second question is how you're considering exigent
circumstances in which the life of a bystander or suspect or an officer is, is at danger. How
would a officer kind of categorize that in terms of making a decision to deploy a
canine on a suspect? And is is there such an exception when it comes to, say, vulnerable
population protections, if there is a exigent circumstance? And what would be the criteria
for that determination? So exigent circumstances is a I'm not a lawyer for the city, but
I am a lawyer. Right. So without going too far, I'll say exigent circumstances is a very
specific has a very specific legal meaning, but I, I think I understand the question you're
asking, which is if something's going on and officers need to move fast, is there something
that would policy allow for nothing? We're recommending is saying if someone's life is in
danger, officers shouldn't take the action necessary to move forward. But we do believe that
all of those things should be in policy, right? So the point is to make sure that policy
clearly defines what those type of things look for. But there's always space, especially in
emergency situations where you might not have every word on the paper. And that's why when
you have good working relationships, like the one I truly believe we're developing
with the police department, we can have those type of conversations and work through those type of scenarios, but that only comes when you have leaders in both departments who
are willing to do it. And the good thing is, I will say, since interim chief trigg has
been in place, there has been a willingness to do that. And because I've said stuff previously, I want to say this now, if I can take a second of privilege to say, and I'm
grateful for the ability to navigate that space in a better way. Great. Thank you, thank
you. Mr. Fine. Thank you. I really appreciate the report and how you before you came to
us, it was really a lot of work done in analyzing organizations. Et-cetera. You know, just based
on some experiences earlier in life. You know, I've seen dogs go at each other pretty. It's
almost impossible to call them off once they've engaged the fight. And so I'd like to have
us give us the opportunity at least to go through and see some of the training and going
in a little more depth, because in some ways we have to be defenders of this policy. Once
it becomes, you know, public. And I think it's in the best interest of how do we tell the
story. And I think the public has a right to know how to act. I'm just referencing being a
witness to a situation. What do you do? How do you how do you respond? So I think there's
some depth in this issue, and I wouldn't want to sacrifice the effectiveness that dogs can
have in terms of apprehending people or following the tracks. So appreciate the work that's
been done. I think, you know, we can afford to do just a little more. So yeah, I don't
want to put the chief on the spot, but like, I know there's a standing offer for ride
alongs for anybody on this committee, but if you're training dogs monthly, presumably, and you offer this for use of force stuff and grappling things and all kinds
of things that people on this committee could come observe your your training protocol. So
deputy chief baker, let me know I messed up. It's actually train. We train weekly. Okay.
which I should know, obviously I was a watch commander and, you know, I would help prepare the lineup. And that's something that our men and women do do a lot of training.
and I'm definitely open to ride alongs. I want to see I want to see more because I want to
actually see boots on the ground and see what our men and women are doing, because I
think the narrative is quite different than the work that they're doing out there in the community that appreciates the work they're doing out there. So I'm well open to it. Okay,
great. And just say that wasn't a commitment. That was an openness, but logistically it should be possible. But just to clarify, is that an open ride along with a canine officer?
well, absolutely. It's it's it doesn't it's not just restricted to normal patrol,
but potential for canine handler. But if you're doing training, you probably a little
more exciting, like you could ride along with the canine all day and the canine never gets
deployed. So correct. That's why I think it's going to be beneficial to when we do that
presentation of our canine program and maybe some some videos to show some of the work
they do and maybe even organize a, you know, getting some community members to a training
and seeing the work that they do firsthand. And many of us have participated in those,
those endeavors. Also, how frequent is the canine training, though? I know the other
aspects of training is weekly. Weekly? Yes. Canine training is weekly. Yes. Okay. All right,
all right. Thank you so much. Great. Okay, chief trigg, you can stay. Stay up, mr. Davis.
you're you're cut loose. Thank you. We're going to talk about crime statistics. For your
first. There it is. Thank you sir. No problem. All right. And just to finish, you know, like
I said, appreciate director davis work that he's done with the canine press presentation.
I really do welcome the oversight. I think it's it's something that is going to help
break down some some trust barriers. I'm open to it. And my passion for this, for this
job, in this career. And I, I've said before, I know. Conversations mr. Davis and I
have had, I'd like to open up everything if I could and let you see what we do, why we do
it, and have those tough conversations to anything. That's whether it's criticism,
constructive criticism or not. So and I believe with our relationship that's formed,
that's something we're going to be able to do. So, all right, let's get started. Here's our
auto theft numbers. As you see, we're still trending down from 2025, which is a good thing.
and the next slide just shows the monthly comparisons as we move forward. And pretty
quickly here the robbery totals again trending down. Not a not a huge jump. But it's it's
going down. I think a lot of this is contributed attributed to our staffing numbers are
getting strong. Again, one of the things I think doesn't get the respect I think that it
deserves is officer presence is huge. Having men and women out there and from the community to
see that the the cars rolling around, the officers are getting out on bike again as we
staff up is important. It it has a sense of safety that comes with it. And for those
that are thinking about doing some things they shouldn't be doing, it also maybe gets them
to reconsider. So seeing the robbery numbers, they're down. Moving on to obviously the
person's shot. You see 11 in 2025. See our numbers there in 2026. Obviously with the amount
of guns you'll see, we'll go to to the next slide of a couple of slides from now. But men and
women are continuing to get guns off the street, which is important, trying to get the
the legally possessed guns out of the hands of those that have them. This is just showing
where our the person shot a newer slide that we've had for several months now. But to show,
you know, by ward by service area, kind of where these incidents are occurring.
homicides, obviously, we're sitting at nine right now. You see eight on the on the graph
here, just because we had one on june 1st. So that's not reflected in this slide here.
next slide. These are the names you know and and obviously we talk about nine homicides. And
we talk we show these names. These names just aren't a number. And it's just not a
name. Each one of them have a story. I know we have the, the triple homicide that we have
that we all remember from the violent domestic that we had. And when I look at this, these
names, knowing that seven out of the these nine incidents happened just on three days of
violence, which which is sad. You know, like I said, each one of these has a story. And we
have dedicated men and women that, you know, seek accountability and seek justice for the family of these victims. And I'm proud to say that, you know, with this next slide, as
far as our clearance rate, we always seem to be above 20%, above the national average. You
see that we have solved we've cleared seven of the nine homicides in 2026 have been
cleared by arrest. And that that eighth one is forthcoming. I'm pretty confident with that
one. And 6014 recorded overdoses year to date. And as I as I spoke to, 160 illegally
possessed guns recovered through may, this is a slide we. We recently added, obviously
showing our. Our crime is down 8.9% over the last ten years. That's a that's a good thing.
and I want to see that continue to go down. I want to continue to be the place that the best
of the best want to come. We continue to staff up and have men and women that are
committed to this job in this city. We have a beautiful city, wonderful police department.
and, you know, I'm looking forward to being able to provide a service to the the
community of one of the best police departments in the country that's willing to
accountability is key. And what's not on this slide is just kind of an update on the
amphitheater. Obviously, the amphitheater kind of took all the news last month and the
grand opening, and we've had seven events to date. I know we had talked previously about,
you know, the amount of officers that it was going to take, the staffing and how that
was going to draw from our patrol or from our, our, our, our, our staffing in general.
but we thought we would be able to once we got a little history with it, a little reps with it,
that we'd be able to scale it back. And we've already done that. So we started with 22
bodies, 22 officers that were working the the amphitheater now already down to 12. So
everything's working pretty smoothly. The ingress is a little bit better than the, you
know, post incident. But we've learned that unlike the van andel people clear out of the
amphitheater pretty quickly so that there's only so many people that could stand on the
sidewalk waiting to cross. But we've got great men and women at the department and they're, they're problem solving that. And that's a smaller problem to, to, to deal with. But so some
vehicle traffic that's maybe getting backed up a little bit, but something we're going to
continue to problem solve and make sure that when people come to visit the city and go to an
event at the amphitheater, that they have a enjoyable experience. So that's my
presentation, quick and simple, and I'll open it up for any questions. Thanks, chief. You
know, I'm always when I'm looking at this, I'm always sort of looking for ways to
maybe fine tune the data to tell a story a little better. So we, we, it was asked your
predecessor to start including shootings and homicides, which is, I think, great. One thing I
also think that maybe we could tell the story a little. Your success story a little better
on clearance, you know, and I know and probably a lot of people can figure out that
those numbers, those prior year numbers tick up and they tick up because of what we used to
call cold cases, which is you've got a, you've got a team looking at homicides that are
that have been unsolved. But I know we never give up on them because I remember back at what,
you know, I, I, there have been cases that are decades old that I was involved in, in my other
life that, you know, we're still trying to figure out who did what in 1995 on a, on a
corner or a drive by or whatever. So, so those numbers from 22, 23, 24, and 25 sort of
tick up. But unless you got a photographic memory, you don't see that progress in the way we
present it. Right. So I'm wondering if maybe in the future we could include like,
you know, older cases cleared this year to date. Like that'd be great because you may have
that number in your head. But of those, if we and I know they don't happen like every week or
every month, but like there's a non-zero number of older cases that we're clearing this year.
and so when I look at those 7 or 9 homicides, well, if you didn't clear that number eight
with an arrest until january 1st, it wouldn't it wouldn't show up quite we wouldn't quite
be able to see that. We're not we're not letting go of those 2025 on uncleared. We're not
letting go of the 2020 fours 2023. We're also not letting go of like 2001. So, so showing
that that work on this slide might be a way to like show that success a little better.
just a thought, not a mandate, just a thought. Right. And, and like I said, our men and women
take, take pride in the putting in the work for these cases and solving them. I know, you know,
a lot of people saw that the documentary and stuff. And that's a true example, true
display of how our men and women get invested in these cases because they build these
bonds with the victims families and want to bring some type of justice to them. They almost
take it personal. And it's, it's something. So yeah, any case, we I don't care if it's 50 years, right? You know, it's, it's, it's worth our time if we have people to investigate it.
so. Mayor, thank you chief. And I wanted to say this. If you go to the last slide, I
specifically asked the chief to include that because past few weeks there's been a narrative
around the safety of our community. And are we safe? And I would still argue we are, if
not the safest midsize city, one of the safest midsize cities in the country. And part
of that is the fact that we can still talk about unfortunate homicide victims by names, and
remember the names of those who, unfortunately, were lost. There are cities where they can't do
that. They are statistics. There are too many names to number, but we can always get
better. And what I wanted to do is commend our community because it's not just law
enforcement responses. All the things around prevention and design and engagement that I
think helps us with this narrative. The numbers do speak for themselves, and crime has
gone down by 9% over the past ten years. And since 2022, we've had a reduction, as you
can see in that chart. And I think this is a very, very telling. This is not anecdotal.
this is not a skewed narrative. It's the data. And so now we know we can always do better.
and I'm looking forward to to improving that. But I just wanted to, to share that. Yes.
and I think I just want to add, as you stated, city manager, a lot goes into it. It's just not
the police department. It's the accountability piece from, you know, community leaders, city
departments, you name it. It's a collective effort. It's a it's a message citywide that,
you know, if you commit a crime, especially a heinous crime, that you're going to get caught
because it's affects everyone in the community and you're going to have to be accountable
for that, that choice. So yeah, appreciate it. Commissioner kilgore and then commissioner
sassy and then. Mr. Fine. Yeah. Thank you. Mayor, I just want to thank you, interim chief.
the sentiment and the energy of this committee, to me has lightened and changed by you
being here. I think part of that is from you being very receptive and open to just
doing your part. And in saying that, we we aren't perfect. But I think striving for excellence
also means accepting some change. So to hear that from you was very inspiring. And
we'll be communicating that with community. I also think when we think of some of the
violence, I just want to lift up for community. Commissioner perdue and I set aside $250,000
for youth and violence prevention through the third world equity fund. That will
help with some of these challenges. And in addition, a new pilot that we don't have a
timeline for just yet, but it's $150,000 for psychological. So it's like a trauma emergency
response pilot. So commissioner perdue has been studying very hard on this topic, and I'm
excited to work with. I know that you are pd and just community partners on what this
could look like. When we have shootings or domestic violence challenges in our community,
how do we, as city hall respond even further? I know we offer resources currently, but I'm
looking forward to more of these innovative ways and leading on responding to some of the challenges that we've had. And then again, to to say to the public and to you, I am
hopeful to see that all of the recommendations that were given today are accepted. But I do
love to hear your sentiment of, you know, you can go forward, you can add more on to the good
work that you're already doing. So thank you so much. Thank you. And I just want to point out,
since I've got colleagues from the first ward and the second ward up here, the third ward
equity fund actually gets gets decided on by the whole commission. So it's not a it's
not something that one ward decides on. It's it's for focused work. But yes, thank
you for our colleagues. Yes. But commissioner sassy, thank you. Thanks for this overview.
yeah, I do appreciate yeah. Sharing the story because I think it's people can always
pull apart, you know, different narratives and pieces. And I'm glad that we talked quite a bit
about and I hate even saying cold cases because, you know, I, I have a family member that was
murdered here in the city of grand rapids in 2022. And I can tell you the amount of effort
that I know this department has spent in trying to resolve that case, had a lot of different
narratives, you know, was experiencing homelessness. Homelessness. We were unhoused,
but really not. And just kind of the the reality of what that looks like with somebody and I
would say past department officials and current ones knew his name, but it's so important
that those cases get solved. And so when that happens, it's a piece of closure. And so, you
know, my heart goes out to those that are also still waiting for closure on cases. But I, I'm glad that we highlighted it because my family has seen that, you know,
the calls, the connection points, you might not, you know, you're not hearing from them every day, but you know that those things are being worked on. And that's a really
important piece. And as you said, like something's going on every single day. So it doesn't
stop. You know, we don't can't put a little line in the sand and say, oh, we're just have
not been solved. But, you know, I'm glad that it's the the police department is that is
working to solve that case, at least for me and my family. So thank you very much. And I've
said before, I've lost a friend to gun violence in the city. So and I don't want anybody to
forget his name. So I can easily tap into, you know, relating to a family member
that wants either closure or doesn't want their family or whoever their loved one's name
forgotten. So, so that's, that's easy one for me, right? So and I, men and women are
have that same feeling. So it you get tremendous pride from from helping somebody just on
the basic call, let alone, you know, something as huge as, you know, a crime like that that is
forever impactful. Thank you. Mr. Fine. Well, I just want to make a quick comment. Thank you.
about a quick comment about mr. Washington bringing up the names, and we're just talking
about it here. I think that's profound because. You know, knowing some of those stories,
it informs what we should be doing in the future. And I think it's a way of honoring
the things that that happened. So without putting more words on it, I hope we come back to
that and see creative ways that we can have these stories told. Thank you, thank you. Earlier
this month, the mayor and commission issued a proclamation about gun violence
awareness month. We had several community collaborators. I know the safe task force has really
focused on the victims of violent crimes, and we'll have more to report in the future,
hopefully with safe task force help on how we can continue to remember those who were
unfortunately killed. And we look forward to the memorial as well. Okay. Thank you chief. I
see we've got some almost firefighters in the room. So, commissioner kilgore, thank you
for the cough drop. Appreciate it. Appreciate it. Chief brown. Well, good afternoon everyone.
I have with me today. Deputy chief borsen in charge of support services and five years
in the making, our first official lieutenant of training and recruitment, lieutenant
heartwell. So progress in city government is a slow march and we're always moving forward. We
recognized about five years ago, under the previous leadership of chief lehman and deputy
chief freeman, we needed to do a better job of getting the right firefighters into our
community. We are a statistical anomaly. We do not have problems recruiting
firefighters. What we have a problem with is recruiting the right firefighters. And what is
the right firefighter. That is someone that will care for this community like it's their own,
that has lived experiences that can relate in every part of of our district and take care of
our community. And that's who we look for. We recruit good people and train them to be
good firefighters. So five years in the making, we now have our first official full
time lieutenant. Of recruitment. Excited chief boersen to walk us through all the programs
that we've been doing. And maybe at the end, if we have time, you can meet our new fire
cadets. Keith. Good afternoon. So working with hr, the fire department engages the
community to share what public service and especially public safety, has to offer the
workforce of grand rapids. So we have three different pathways that we're going to
highlight today. Those pathways are, as chief brown mentioned, the way that we try to engage
the community, ultimately to find firefighters, but also, I guess just. Inform our
community of what we have to offer. Lieutenant heartwell. Good afternoon everybody. So
our summer youth academy is a summer camp environment, kind of to show our community's
youth the core of the fire service. And the whole point to this is an exposure to our
youth so that they don't just see us in responding to emergency scenes, but they can
come down to our training center and kind of get the atmosphere that we are a light
hearted group of individuals and allow them to see the teamwork, the self-efficacy,
and the excellence that it takes to kind of be a part of this department and the hard
work that goes into it, you know, and not just see us in the light of responding to
emergencies and understand that we're only there when things are going wrong. But we can also have a good time when things are just as is. Click here. And our fire cadet
program, as you currently see the individual sitting right here. It's a paid internship.
it's a 16 week program that allows kids that are 18 and older to get a real life
experience of what it's like to be in a fire academy. And as you can see here, we like to
have a community connection with grand rapids. And whether they were born here, still living here, that they have some type of connection to grand rapids. And so they hold
this place close to their heart and their fire service, curious, as if they're not necessarily
sure this is something that they want to do. They understand what the job is, and
they kind of want to take another step forward and toward the fire service and learn a
little more about it and be a part of the grand rapids fire department for 16 weeks. And
the refinement piece is about this is an individual that if they were to enter our hiring
process currently, they probably wouldn't have the best shot at getting hired. But it's
my job to bring them along and kind of introduce them to the hiring process, what it's going
to take to pass the written exam, what it's going to take to get through our physical
agility test, and then kind of practice on some oral interview things and let them know what
they will be expected to give to our interview panels. And what's the best things and
answers to say so to kind of help them along. So those are the programs that we offer. And
I'll get back to you for. And the third and final pathway is hiring firefighters. So when we
hire a firefighter, they become one of our recruits. The rapids fire department recruit recruit
academy is a six month long intensive program where we take great people and we train them
to become great firefighters. I upped the game a little bit. Chief. He referenced good
people. I'm striving for a higher bar even before each academy begins, though, there
is the hiring process that an applicant for a recruit firefighter has to go through.
that process starts in march, with the application opening march through may. Individuals
are able to apply for this firefighter position. During that time, we host open houses.
the goal of these open houses is to show the applicants what the process entails, the
details of that and the expectations of the process, and also of the grand rapids
fire department candidates. Once they. The application period is closed, candidates
take a written test. Then they take a physical agility test. Then they sit for a panel
interview. That panel interview involves community members. Doctor olson is well aware of
that, as he has been one many times. After the panel interview, they sit for a fire
chief interview, and only after passing through all of those steps and all of those lenses,
looking at them, they move on and we basically say, we would like to hire you. And now they
sit for a very intensive medical evaluation. That all happens before the class begins
in january. And as I mentioned at the beginning, the application period opens in
march, and then the next class will start this coming january. The minimum requirements to
become a grand rapids firefighter are pretty simple. You just have to have a high school diploma or a ged, be over 18 years of age and have a valid driver's license. Our
goal is to identify people with strong character, commitment to service, specifically the
citizens of grand rapids, and identify people that are willing to work hard. Again,
we're just looking for a great people and we will train them to become great firefighters.
that is all we have for you today. Any questions? I was a little worried that was going
to be an archive picture of my roof. When you showed them hacking through the roof wasn't
my house. So thanks for the presentation, city manager. If you could either chief brown or
chief morrison. We were talking last week and you were sharing the success of us hiring cadets
into firefighters. Do you remember that stat? I do. So this group here brings us to 41
people that have been hired as a cadet thus far. We have hired five who are currently working
as grand rapids firefighters. That number though. Keep in mind, this group here just
started. We have multiple others that I know of that are applied this year that are in
the process to be hired, so that number of the 41 will continue to increase. But put
it in context, I believe you said this year for, you know, 1314, how many of our
firefighters we were hiring? We have over 700 applicants, applicants thus far. Is that
accurate? Yes. 703 people have applied thus.
say thank you that we have a number. And I'm thinking about the water department and the, you know, programs that they have. And quite honestly, you know, we
know that people are retiring every single day. And, you know, people are deciding different things about how they want to work and live. And so just a reminder to us that, I mean, it
was great to highlight this. The interest I remember at the last, I think it was actually the at the neighborhood summit where there was somebody who was like, I'm here because I want to talk to the fire department about a career. But just a reminder that we're
really doing this across the entire city and other departments and just h police cr outstanding candidates who include our own interim chief. Trigg. And I would invite you to come to city hall at 545. You can interact and ask your questions directly to the
candidates at 545. Then at 7:00, we'll have a more formal, traditional conversation that will be facilitated by the third party consultant that will be streamed live. So 7:00
you can see it online on online at 545. You can interact in person. Great. Okay. Mr. Davis?
yeah. I just wanted to recognize my colleagues. Mr. Fine mentioned earlier that as
a member of this body, you know, to whatever appearances we feel like as citizen members, we are
defending the work of our public safety sector. And it's an honor to be seated here. You
heard pastor gholston mention that some of the content that we are going to see today came
to us in just minutes before this meeting. I know that there's a lot happening at city
hall, but I think I can speak for all of the citizen members that we're grateful to serve in
this capacity, but the more information we have in advance to be able to come to this
table with appropriate questions and feedback would be helpful. And so I just wanted
to reiterate that and lift up both of those comments that were made earlier. Thank you for that. And we'll mr. Cain is here, and I can assure you that the next meeting, he will get
it to you first thing in the morning when he sends the information out to all of the
city commission gets the packet that that day. Do you have anything to add? Just to say
that historically we didn't provide the presentations to the committee at all in advance.
we have done that today. They were out a little bit later. But as you know, as you might
not know, some of these presentations are tweaked to the very end. So I can't
guarantee that you're going to get it first thing at 8 a.m. We got some other people that need
to see it at the before it sent out, even to the city commission, but as soon as
possible, I'll send them out to you. And I know that there's complicated discussions that need to be had, but you'll get the materials as soon as we can release them. I appreciate you
responding to that. I know that we aren't elected officials. I am grateful for the ones who
are here, but our names are on the dais and people do come up to us and an unexpected amount
of time to ask questions about public safety. So the more information we have, the more we can prepare, the more that we can bring back, the better. And I do appreciate you as a
liaison, if you have any questions or some of the opportunities that might be afforded through the police department or the fire department as far as training
opportunities or ride alongs or whatever, just feel free and I can facilitate that when
possible. Thank you. Great. Yeah, let me, let me let me clarify on behalf of the staff,
we will ensure that whatever information we have that morning, you will get it. Now,
there may be some revisions and changes and things that are not available, but whatever we have,
you'll have it when we send it out. Right on. Okay. Thank you everyone. I'll