Hickman County TN

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

Health, Safety & Properties · Meeting · Jun 1, 2026

Mon, Jun 1, 2026

Advises on public health and safety initiatives, emergency preparedness, and the care and use of county-owned buildings and grounds.

Watch the recording on YouTube

Join the Substack

Outline

This outline was generated by an LLM from a transcript and may contain errors or inaccuracies. Prefer the original recording when available.

The committee’s substantive discussion centered almost entirely on the new EMS Station 3 building and why it still cannot operate as a 24-hour station. Members reviewed two paths: either add staffing for a 12-hour-only operation at major recurring cost, or install a sprinkler system so an existing crew could be housed there full-time. Discussion was frustrated and occasionally contentious, focusing on whether the State Fire Marshal’s office shifted requirements after earlier “no review” correspondence, whether the original plans clearly showed sleeping quarters, and how to avoid spending more money only to face new code objections later.

Other business was brief: the committee approved the agenda and prior minutes, accepted EMS’s monthly report showing 258 runs, $98,995.90 in collections, and $85,968.67 charged out, and heard a short update that work continues on generator-related paperwork and board items. Additional notable threads included who would own and maintain various generators, how FEMA-related reimbursements helped free EMS budget capacity, fencing and sheriff-use issues at the new station property, and the need for written clarification from the Fire Marshal before further spending.

Call to Order / Roll Call / Agenda / Minutes 1:30

  • 1:30 Chair opened without a printed agenda and called roll.
  • 2:05 Agenda approval moved and seconded; approved by voice vote.
  • 2:30 Public comment period opened; no substantive public comment captured.
  • 2:49 Minutes from the prior meeting were moved, seconded, and approved by voice vote.

Department / Official Reports 3:11

EMS monthly report 3:11

  • 3:18 EMS report was submitted electronically because the sheriff was not present and EMS staff indicated some members may not have received the emailed packet.
  • 3:26 EMS reported 258 runs, $98,995.90 in collections, and $85,968.67 charged out.
  • 3:33 Motion to approve the ambulance service financial statement was made and seconded.
  • 3:58 The EMS financial statement was approved by roll-call vote, with all present voting yes.

Generator / facilities update 4:24

  • 4:24 Brief update that the county is in the final stages of work related to the board/paperwork for generators at the middle school and related sites.
  • 4:51 A date of June 10 was mentioned for a public sign-up related to additional generator matters.
  • 5:04 Members asked how many generators the county would ultimately be responsible for.
  • 5:28 Response indicated the county would take over responsibility for tower-site generators, while the city would be responsible for one of those units.
  • 5:45 Clarification that EMS Station 1 would be separate from the tower-site responsibility; committee members were specifically asking who would handle ongoing maintenance.
  • 6:01 Answer given that the county would be responsible for station-related maintenance.

New Business / Agenda Items 6:31

EMS Station 3 occupancy, sprinkler requirement, and staffing cost 6:42

  • 6:42 The mayor said EMS Station 3 is currently open only 12 hours a day, with temporary staffing in place.
  • 7:01 He framed the committee’s two practical options:
    • keep the station at 12-hour operation by hiring personnel for that schedule, or
    • install a sprinkler system so an ambulance crew could be housed there 24 hours.
  • 7:34 The mayor said he had previously received a State Fire Marshal letter indicating “no review” on the building, but later an inspector raised occupancy issues; he said that history does not solve the current problem.
  • 8:38 Members asked what a sprinkler retrofit would cost.
  • 8:42 Initial estimate discussed was up to $70,000, described as a high-end figure with unresolved variables.
  • 9:08 Members asked whether any of that could be covered from money previously appropriated for the build.
  • 9:08 The building’s final cost was said to be essentially on budget at $1.2 million.
  • 9:19 About $21,000 and change remained from the original appropriation, leaving a likely shortfall of roughly $50,000 if the sprinkler cost reaches the upper estimate.
  • 10:14 Members also asked whether water pressure at the site was adequate for a sprinkler system.
  • 10:22 It was reported that Bon Aqua Utility had already checked pressure and flow and found capacity more than adequate, meaning no storage or pressure tank should be needed; that was cited as the reason the estimate ranged downward from the top-end figure.
  • 11:28 Members asked for the alternative cost of staffing a 12-hour crew rather than modifying the building.
  • 11:44 EMS leadership said the estimate to staff the station 7 days a week, 12 hours a day would require 4 additional staff.
  • 12:50 The annual staffing cost estimate given was $275,000, stated as a high-end number and without benefits.
  • 13:08 Members contrasted a one-time sprinkler cost around $70,000 with recurring personnel cost of $275,000 plus benefits.
  • 14:02 It was cautioned that, even if the committee pursued sprinklers, design, approval, and installation would not be completed before the temporary budget adjustments funding the current 12-hour arrangement are exhausted.
  • 14:20 A rough timeline of about three months was suggested before the building could realistically support 24-hour occupancy if sprinklers are pursued.

Dispute over planning, code review, and whether the goalposts moved 15:01

  • 15:01 A member asked whether the original plans submitted for “no review” clearly showed the county intended a 24-hour staffed station with sleeping quarters, noting that such use changes code requirements.
  • 15:26 The mayor said he had conveyed that intended use to the contractor.
  • 15:29 It was then noted that the plans as submitted apparently labeled the relevant rooms as personal workspace/office space rather than living quarters.
  • 15:37 The architect was identified as the party who placed that labeling on the plans and submitted them to the state office.
  • 15:49 The mayor said that once he received the “no review” letter, he understood that as authorization to proceed.
  • 16:14 A member asked who had overseen the renovation process; the mayor said he hired Eric Blazdell/Blasdell (uncertain spelling from transcript) as project manager, with Mr. Howe also doing work and oversight.
  • 18:38 Members expressed frustration that some had opposed spending “another dime” on the building, but also said the county has already spent too much to leave the building underused.
  • 19:33 One member argued that operating the site only 12 hours is inefficient enough that the county might as well keep both ambulances at the east station if full use cannot be achieved.

Direction to gather sprinkler bids, timeline, and written Fire Marshal assurance 17:05

  • 17:05 Members asked whether any sprinkler contractors had yet been contacted for estimates, engineering, and scheduling.
  • 17:16 The mayor said no; he wanted direction from the committee before moving forward.
  • 17:33 Committee members urged him to begin contacting companies immediately so the body would have real numbers and a timeline rather than speculation.
  • 18:08 One member said local sprinkler companies could likely inspect quickly and potentially have plans generated by the end of the week, allowing submission before the next budget discussions.
  • 20:08 Members discussed whether a formal motion was needed; the sense of the committee was to have the mayor gather information rather than sign a contract at this stage.
  • 20:23 The mayor agreed to obtain the information.
  • 20:36 Members noted that because any fix would require a budget amendment, having figures by the next budget committee meeting would allow action by the full commission later in the month.

Temporary 12-hour crew, budget source, and FEMA-related cushion 21:03

  • 21:03 A member asked whether the money currently paying for the temporary 12-hour crew was already in the current year’s budget.
  • 21:45 Response indicated that FEMA-related reimbursements and borrowed funds had replenished parts of the sheriff’s and ambulance budgets following earlier emergency expenditures, giving EMS room to absorb the temporary arrangement for now.
  • 22:11 Members then asked what happens after July 1 if the building still cannot house a 24-hour crew.
  • 22:24 It was confirmed that continuing the 12-hour setup into the new fiscal year would require committee and budget action, at a price of $275,000 annually plus benefits.
  • 22:46 Members emphasized the need to know sprinkler timing so they can judge whether short-term personnel spending is tolerable while waiting for the retrofit.

Morale and operational practicality 24:04

  • 24:04 A member said visits to the ambulance station showed crews effectively living out of go-bags while shifting between stations.
  • 24:20 He warned that forcing crews to work 12 hours at one station and 12 hours at another could further damage morale in an already strained operation.
  • 24:29 EMS leadership said they had promised staff and the public a 24-hour truck at the new building, and doubted employees would continue “buying” the arrangement if forced into prolonged station-hopping.
  • 24:53 Discussion described crews carrying uniforms and personal gear back and forth between locations, underscoring the inefficiency of the interim plan.

Remaining work at the building, fencing, and sheriff use of the site 25:41

  • 25:41 A member asked, apart from the sprinkler issue, what else the building still needs before it fully meets EMS needs.
  • 26:02 Response was that smaller remaining details had already been budgeted and, aside from fire-marshal approval, the building would meet EMS operational needs.
  • 26:19 Members revisited the roughly $21,000 left in the maintenance director’s item list.
  • 26:33 About $12,000 of that was said to be for fencing.
  • 26:56 That would leave only about $9,000 effectively available if the county intends to complete the planned fence.
  • 27:04 The proposed fencing would cover the full property line and include a gate.
  • 27:27 Members said the site is currently too accessible and suggested fencing is worthwhile for security.
  • 27:35 It was noted the sheriff’s department still uses the rear cubby/office area at the station property for paperwork and may eventually use the gas pump area.
  • 27:45 That section was described as having its own office and bathroom dedicated for sheriff’s use.
  • 28:03 A member said the gas pumps were not yet fully operational.
  • 28:15 The mayor said he had asked whether a sprinkler line could be run through the sheriff-use area, but due to utility layout and septic placement, that approach did not appear workable or cost-saving.
  • 28:53 Instead, the front office area was described as the likely point for sprinkler service connection and exterior fire-department access.

Request for a clear written answer from the State Fire Marshal 29:39

  • 29:39 Members asked the mayor, while seeking bid and schedule information, also to find out how quickly the Fire Marshal’s office would turn around sprinkler-plan review.
  • 30:25 A member said that when plans are submitted, the county needs written confirmation from the Fire Marshal that with the sprinkler system installed, the building will be approved for the intended use.
  • 30:50 The concern was that the inspector had implied there might be other deficiencies, and members did not want to spend on sprinklers only to have another issue raised later.
  • 31:55 Another member referenced public reporting and said his understanding was that some rumored issues had not actually been found, increasing the need for a formal written position.
  • 32:09 Specific rumored concerns mentioned included the cook stove/hood and the wall between the bay and living quarters.
  • 32:21 Members said those elements were built according to the plans already submitted, which deepened concern about inconsistent enforcement.
  • 34:47 A member pointed out that the written report discussed so far did not even mention a sprinkler system specifically, reinforcing fear of another “goalpost move.”
  • 35:28 Committee members agreed they need a firm commitment from the Fire Marshal’s office that the sprinkler system, if installed as designed, would resolve all occupancy issues.
  • 36:33 One member summarized the question to ask state officials: what exactly must be done to make the building operable 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and is anything besides the sprinkler system required?
  • 37:20 The mayor agreed to call the Fire Marshal’s office the next day and was urged to speak with the manager rather than only the inspector.

Fire Marshal documentation and whether the building was ever officially shut down 32:33

  • 32:33 Members asked whether there was a written inspection report listing all deficiencies.
  • 33:18 The mayor read from the report he had: a complaint alleged the county requested “no review” for renovation of an existing building, while plans submitted on April 16 identified rooms 102 and 103 as office spaces even though they were functioning as sleeping quarters.
  • 33:47 The report required plans and specifications to be submitted to the State Fire Marshal identifying all proposed sleeping quarters.
  • 34:20 It further stated that applicable code requirements depend on occupancy type, location, and whether the work meets the definition of construction.
  • 34:31 The mayor said that was the substance of the written report; there was nothing in it about stove/hood or other rumored items.
  • 38:55 A member asked for copies of the final report and related correspondence to be sent to all committee members.
  • 39:20 The mayor agreed to email what he had to the full committee the next morning.
  • 39:53 Members then clarified that the building had not technically been “shut down” by the Fire Marshal.
  • 40:28 It was stated that EMS leadership and the mayor decided on their own to move the crew out after the inspection encounter; the Fire Marshal did not formally close the building.
  • 40:57 That led to further frustration from members, who questioned whether the building had ever undergone a formal final inspection in the first place.
  • 43:37 The mayor recalled that in a later office meeting, after walking through the building, the manager indicated the building was otherwise well done and said, in substance, “sprinkle it,” which members took as further reason to seek that assurance in writing.

Adjournment 44:34

  • 44:34 Motion to adjourn was made by Matthew Barnhill and seconded by Ron Mayberry.
  • 44:44 Adjournment approved by voice vote.
  • 45:01 Next meeting reference was mentioned but not clearly captured in the transcript.

Key figures and statistics

Figure Type Context / topic Timestamp
258 Runs EMS monthly call volume 3:26
$98,995.90 Collections EMS monthly collections 3:26
$85,968.67 Charges EMS monthly amount charged out 3:26
June 10 Date Public sign-up related to generator matter 4:51
12 hours a day Operating schedule Current EMS Station 3 limited operation 6:42
24-hour Operating schedule Desired full-time ambulance station occupancy 7:01
$70,000 Estimate High-end sprinkler retrofit estimate 8:57
$1.2 million Project cost Final EMS Station 3 building price tag 9:08
$21,000 and change Remaining appropriation Money left from building appropriation 9:19
$50,000 Shortfall estimate Approximate gap if sprinklers cost near high estimate 9:29
7 days a week Service period Proposed staffing for 12-hour station coverage 11:44
4 Staff positions Additional employees needed for 12-hour staffing plan 11:44
$275,000 Annual personnel cost Estimated cost to staff station 12 hours daily, without benefits 12:50
three months Timeline Rough estimate for sprinkler design/approval/execution path 14:20
July 1 Date Start of new fiscal year / point when continued 12-hour staffing becomes a budget issue 22:11
$100,000 Benefits estimate Approximate additional cost on top of $275,000 if benefits are added 19:08
$12,000 Facility expense Planned fencing cost at station property 26:33
$9,000 Remaining available funds Effective leftover amount if fencing proceeds from the $21,000 balance 27:04
April 16 Date Date on plans submitted requesting “no review” 33:26
102 Room number Room labeled as office space on plans but functioning as sleeping quarters 33:36
103 Room number Room labeled as office space on plans but functioning as sleeping quarters 33:36