1. Bridge Meeting Quincy, FL 4-28-09

2.  Meeting 1: Gadsden Emergency Management Personnel  3/27/09  Personnel from health department, EMS, city and county emergency management,  Meeting 2: Gadsden citizens  3/27/09  Expressing their opinions on past emergencies and sharing their experiences Both groups answered same list of questions

3.  Recent Experiences with Natural Disasters  How well community responded / preparation level  Least prepared for disasters  Assistance available  Existing Resources  Local organizations involved in helping community prepare  Other organizations who could be involved  Assessing the EPD Project  Are the steps reasonable / appropriate?  Value of “community coach”  Is the vulnerability assessment process useful?

4.  Session 1: Some Areas of Agreement  Session 2: Some Areas of Differences  Session 3: Opinions on the EPD Project Responses / comments from first two meetings will be shown, then break into discussion groups for more in-depth conversation

5. Issues / topics that were consistent in both meetings

6.  Tropical Storm (1985, 2008)  Fires (2006, 2007)  Hurricanes (1985, 2005)  Floods (2009)  Tornadoes

7.  Most Common  Loss of utilities  Wind damage  Roads washed out/damaged  Trees down  Snakes/wildlife displaced

8.  Elderly  Lack of planning  Lack of mobility  Living in rural areas  Poor communication  Handicapped/Disabled  Non-English speaking populations  Spanish  Migrant workers

9.  Mostly Yes  But, sources of information used were varied (TV, Weather Channel, EOC)  Acknowledged strength of community  Personal contacts  Need for improved outside communication noted

10.  Those who could help:  Churches  Local businesses  Fire dept auxiliaries  Local veterinarians, physicians, Park/Recs  Grocery Stores  Supervalue

11. Issues / topics where there were inconsistencies between groups

12.  Some thought the community responded quite well  Well-trained combination of entire community  People know their roles  Some felt the community did not respond well  Lack of a plans / communication/ equipment  Some were very aware of Emergency Operations Management (EOM) plans, others were not  Some knew immediately who to call / where to go, for others the information was not obvious

13.  Some were very aware of Emergency Operations Management (EOM) plans, others were not  Some saw the plan as a success for obtaining / staging resources, others knew little about the plan  Most agreed that educating the public about these plans is problematic

14.  Some saw very few local organizations that were involved  Sheriff’s Office  Red Cross  Fire Department  Police  Others saw a lot more  Churches  Health Dept  Department of Human Services  Schools  State Gov’t

15. Feedback on the steps involved and the community coach

16.  Most were fairly optimistic  Felt it represented a good starting point  Having an organized plan would help keep people from panicking  Very inclusive  Good to look at areas that are at risk  Useful for future planning  Involvement of new people is useful, but challenging  Will encourage participation from larger community groups

17.  But some had a few problems with it  Getting community involvement might be difficult  Having enough volunteers to develop and implement the plan would be challenging  Would require some technical expertise and assistance to implement  Potential conflict between citizens groups and official responders

18.  Most generally thought it was a good idea  Would be necessary to have this person  Good for motivation, and experience from other sites  Some thought it should be someone from outside the community; Others felt is should be someone from the community  But there were a few problems noted  Community coach can’t do it all  Difficult for the coach to relate to community  Trust is an issue  Can’t have an overbearing personality  How would they be funded?!