Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fleet Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Candidates say no-idle rules require equipment and operational changes before a blanket policy
Summary
When asked about a no-idle policy to improve fuel economy, finalists warned of battery and operational constraints for patrol vehicles and said the city should study equipment, hybrid options and operational practices before adopting a blanket ban.
Panelists warned that a strict no-idle policy for patrol vehicles would require equipment and operational changes before it could be safely implemented.
Warren Allen said he would look first to ensure effective patrol practices and supervise officers so cars are used for patrol rather than idling. “I would consider it, but I would not say no idle policy,” Allen said, adding he would focus on efficiency and SOP review.
Steven Thompson described experience in New Berlin, where battery and in-vehicle mapping systems made strict no-idle enforcement problematic without equipment changes. “It’s a major officer safety issue if you don’t have that mapping system up,” Thompson said, noting the need to test battery life before imposing a no-idle rule.
Jeremy Geiser suggested the department work with city mechanics and sustainability committees to reduce emissions, purchase hybrids for suitable roles and consider electric vehicles for non‑patrol assignments as technology allows. “We can start looking toward the electric vehicle,” Geiser said, while cautioning that some electric options may not yet be ready for patrol use.
Candidates agreed on the goal of reducing emissions but counseled that any formal no‑idle policy should follow a technical review and equipment upgrades to avoid compromising response capability or officer safety.
