Albemarle County Fire and Emergency Medical Services Executive Committee Agenda. Monday, February 5, Hours ACFR Conference Room

Transcription

1 Albemarle County Fire and Emergency Medical Services Executive Committee Agenda Monday, February 5, Hours ACFR Conference Room Agenda Item I. Call to Order A. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda D. Eggleston II. Approval of Consent Agenda D. Eggleston III. Fire Rescue System Strategic Plan Update D. Eggleston IV. Unfinished Business A. Scottsville Rescue Update B. Driver Eligibility Policy C. Standard of Cover Name D. Eggleston D. Puckett D. Puckett V. New Business A. February FEMS Board Meeting T. LaBelle VI. Next Meeting A. Confirm Next Meeting Date T. LaBelle

2 ALBEMARLE COUNTY FIRE/EMS BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING STAGECOACH RD. FIRE RESCUE CONFERENCE ROOM MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, HOURS A meeting of the Executive Committee of the Albemarle County Fire/EMS Board was held on Monday, November 6, 2017 at 1630 hours in the Fire Rescue Conference Room of the County Office Building, Stagecoach Road, Charlottesville. The following members were in attendance: Kostas Alibertis, Western Albemarle Rescue Squad Alex Belgard, Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad Calvin Butler, East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department Mike Grandstaff, Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department David Puckett, Albemarle County Fire & Rescue Others in Attendance: None. 1. Call to Order Chief Puckett called the meeting to order at 1627 hours. A. From the Board: Agenda Additions Chief Puckett acknowledged that Chief Grandstaff had added two items. V. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda There were none presented. 2. Consent Agenda A. October 2017 meeting minutes MOTION: Chief Grandstaff moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the October meeting minutes as presented. Chief Belgard seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (4-0-1). Chief Butler abstained from the vote as he was not present at the October meeting. Chief Alibertis stated that HAPCO needed to be changed to APCO on the third page, sixth paragraph. 3. Fire Rescue System Strategic Plan - update Chief Puckett reported that there was no report on the strategic plan, and he noted that the plan s update was a goal right after the standards of cover was done.

3 4. Unfinished Business A. Scottsville Rescue update Chief Puckett stated that he had nothing new to report on Scottsville Rescue. B. Driver Release Policy Review Chief Puckett stated that he did not think that anything had emerged from the FEMS Board meeting, and they were amenable to holding on it and understood that it was a component they were asked to do. He said they were in a holding pattern until the driver eligibility policy from the operations committee worked through, then at that point FEMS would weigh in to determine whether that component needed to be added to the releasal policy. Chief Alibertis commented that the directive was to try to establish what the minimum is. 5. New Business A. Special Operations Policy Chief Puckett reported that the new special operations policy had been included in the committee packets, and noted that the purpose of this was to define some of the special operations teams and the minimum training qualifications to participate but initial and annual training. He said the majority of that was captured in the appendices so that it could be changed as necessary moving forward. Chief Puckett noted that it was broken down into regionally coordinated and regionally directed teams, and currently the only regionally coordinated team was the water rescue team. He said that while the minimums were set regionally, some of the training happens at the station through a station coordinator that handles that. He said that the regionally directed items were highly specialized things like technical rescue hazmat, and it usually takes a number of technicians to accomplish it so there needs to be more of a connection in terms of training with water rescue more decentralized in terms of equipment and training. Chief Grandstaff mentioned that one thing that was changed after the item left the Operations Committee was the addition of train the trainer qualifications. Chief Puckett responded that he was not sure if that applied or not, because TECC was what they were trying to do initially, but ongoing it may not necessarily be the full course so the goal was ensuring that the trainers had the right qualifications. Chief Grandstaff pointed out that the language for qualified train the trainer meets the minimum qualification for team membership, has a minimum of two years as an active member, and has been endorsed by the team agency lead but the language later states that the regional coordinator would stipulate who the train the trainer is. Chief Puckett stated that he recalled a conversation with Chief Lambert as to whether it needed to be in there or not. Chief Grandstaff said it wasn t when the Ops Committee set it up.

4 Chief Puckett stated that he was fine with striking it, as they defined qualified trainer so it precluded the need to have it in the regionally coordinated train the trainer qualifications. He noted that if they were doing a non-certification class like an AHJtype activity, then the train the trainer qualifications would have to be set globally that everyone was not a train the trainer, at least for the initial training. Chief Grandstaff said they covered that with the initial certifications language: Minimum certifications are required prior to being considered for a special team. Chief Puckett responded that typically they don t use the AHJ class but lean instead on certification-type classes, so there may not be any intent to go that direction. Chief Grandstaff stated that they were listed in the policy: VDFP, VARS, Rescue 3, and Spec Rescue. Chief Belgard commented that this would apply to a lot of people, but some CARS personnel were trained in technical rescue disciplines before there were state curriculums, or perhaps the person who wrote the state curriculum also taught locally with an agency. He emphasized that he would want to ensure some flexibility to at least grandfather in those people who from 2010 and prior got locally developed certifications would still be recognized and their skills current. Chief Alibertis stated that for confined space, concrete, etc., Western Albemarle had a company come in and do those classes. Chief Belgard responded that he was referring to the type of classes taught by John Burris: non-vdfp classes in-house at CARS, and he was the person who wrote the VDFP curriculum for at least some of them. He added that it s been long enough that there is probably only a handful of personnel that have the in-house, rather than taking the ABRS or EFP. Chief Puckett stated that he would try to do some research on this and talk to Chief Lambert, and if Station 10 personnel don t have training, they are sent to get certification. He said there have even been some folks who have come in with certification, but it was 15 years old without any refresher training, so there would need to be a deep dive into what the documentation looked like. Chief Alibertis suggested allowing kind of a refresher curriculum, adding that the one thing missing from this was structured collapse for additional recommended training and asked if it was now called emergency building suring. Chief Puckett replied that he would have to check to see if building collapse was in addition to that.

5 Chief Alibertis commented that vehicle into a structure was one of the more common occurrences, so it seems that would need to be addressed. Chief Puckett said that emergency building suring was just the new name for structural collapse, but it may not go as deep as a big concrete collapse. Chief Alibertis stated that they had done concrete and building, and it would be good to know what was covered. Chief Belgard noted that there was someone from CARS who had wanted to go to the week-long concrete class held in Virginia Beach, but to deal with that kind of incident you would need people. Chief Alibertis said there was also a lot of needed equipment that ACFR didn t have. Chief Belgard stated that it was more of a state-level kind of training. Chief Alibertis responded that doing rakers and some of the things needed for a building collapse were fairly basic. Chief Puckett stated that there was nothing in the policy that intended to restrict someone from going to training, and there was the initial training as well as some additional recommended policies that were high on the list but there could certainly be other things that play into this. He added that they would probably not send someone to the additional recommended training if they hadn t first done the initial training. Chief Grandstaff asked where training records were currently being reported, as he no longer had access to Fire RMS. Chief Puckett responded that it is currently in Fire RMS. Chief Grandstaff said that since Image Trend became live, he hadn t put a thing in CAD or RMS. Chief Puckett stated that Image Trend just released their training and certification module, and Chief Lambert had been working with that on the setup items, so ultimately it would be in Image Trend. Chief Grandstaff said that Scottsville Fire had just been keeping its records locally when they do dam, pump, and boat training. Chief Puckett said that he had not gotten feedback from Chief Lambert as to how the process was going, and he wasn t sure how much Station 10 was using Image Trend.

6 Chief Grandstaff asked who someone from his station would approach if they wanted to join a team, if they were a hazmat tech for example, as he already had techs who were interested in joining. Chief Puckett responded that the policy talks a lot about team lead, and he wondered if that needed to be established under a definition or somewhere else. He said that for technical rescue, the current personnel was Maniscoli, for hazmat it had been Robby Gilmer, who had left. Chief Puckett said they would not want to name anyone specific in the policy, so they would just need to send something to him to direct to the right person. He stated that they were setting up a continuing education schedule, particularly for hazmat and tech rescue, and they were moving to three sessions for the quarterly training a Tuesday, Wednesday, and Saturday as needed. Chief Alibertis pointed out that he had talked about expanding the active shooter training, and he was going to try to attend the one the following week. Chief Belgard stated that this was one area where he wondered if the two-year emergency service experience requirement was relevant, because unlike the other teams rescue task force was much more time sensitive. Chief Puckett said he wondered the same thing because it was less technical in nature, although it was high risk and required enough training to speak the same language as the police department but it wasn t the same as setting up a rope system, for example. Chief Alibertis stated that he felt there still needed to be time in service so that the newness was out of a responder s system, and a year of calls was really relative based on call volume for each station. Chief Puckett added that someone brand new even working on simulators could be traumatized, but the other question was how long it would take them to get the required training. He said that by the time a person gets EMT, TECC, movement and operators class, etc., it was at least a year before they could get through the training if they were coming in with nothing. Chief Grandstaff said that it was originally five years when they started, then they changed it. Chief Puckett responded that it was two years in the county system. Chief Alibertis mentioned that even some of the tactical combat stuff wasn t the best fit, and it would be nice if they developed a course. Chief Grandstaff said that the reason they changed the two years of emergency services was because someone running on Monticello Water Rescue, for example, would have to spend two years running on a new squad before they join the water rescue team.

7 Chief Alibertis agreed that this was not necessary, and he supported the change to two years of service. Chief Puckett said that the policy states other relevant experience, so a Coast Guard swimmer who retired in the area and decided he wanted to come do water rescue would not qualify. Chief Grandstaff stated that he would agree with removing the train the trainer reference and aligning personnel with the closest rescue team. Chief Alibertis noted that they would need to make sure there was availability. Chief Puckett responded that for initial certification, a lot of these things were not taught locally so personnel would have to go somewhere else but the annual training and quarterly training of up to three days per session could be offered locally. Chief Grandstaff asked if he took the hazardous materials course, such as the example for New Mexico. Chief Puckett replied that he would have to talk to hazmat personnel, as he was not sure, but there were three options: VDIM, emergency responder, or the IFF hazmat tech. Chief Alibertis asked if they were reviewing it this month and then deciding on it next month. Chief Puckett responded that it was up to EC members. Chief Alibertis noted that they will have had two EC meetings before the FEMS Board meeting, as that had been moved to December 13 so the question is whether there is any value for having another meeting, because in the past the EC has not held a December meeting. Chief Puckett said that if this item was tabled, it would go to FEMS in January or February and may not be approved until March, so if the EC was comfortable with making the changes as stated, they could get it onto the FEMS Board meeting in December, with approval by January. MOTION: Chief Grandstaff moved that the changes as stated be incorporated into the policy and forwarded to the FEMS Board at their December 13 meeting for a first read. Chief Grandstaff suggested including in the motion the mention of the EC not meeting in December.

8 Chief Alibertis stated that it was ultimately Chief Eggleston s decision for the EC to meet or not. Chief Puckett clarified that there was a motion to move the special operations policy to the December FEMS Board meeting for the first reading, with suggested changes of removing the train the trainer qualifications and adding who an interested member contacts. Chief Alibertis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (5-0). Chief Alibertis reiterated that it was up to Chief Eggleston to decide whether the EC would meet in December. B. Standards of Cover Chief Alibertis stated that he felt a lot of information had been presented, and he was not sure if it had all been absorbed or understood. He said there had been a lot of numbers and percentages and what it would take to provide services, and added that there was a lot to digest before it moved forward. Chief Alibertis stated that he personally took issue with the ALS-only designs because they were cost prohibitive. Chief Puckett said that he felt there had been a breakdown of communication on that, as he understood the consultant to say that if they wanted to get ALS to a patient within a specific timeframe knowing that the majority of them wouldn t necessarily need ALS, but you had to have it for the patients that did. He stated that the consultant was essentially saying that to meet a response level geographically, there must be an ALS provider in specific areas. Chief Puckett said that chase cars meet the intent, so with two BLS ambulances and a chase car, there s still ALS coverage in that area and two BLS ambulances that are providing coverage. He stated that the consultant went with a career footprint wherein stations like Hollymead, for example, could have three personnel hired for minimum staffing at all times if there was a BLS ambulance and a chase car. He added that it either way it ended up costing more people to provide the same coverage. Chief Alibertis stated that for Crozet, the consultant recommended two ALS-staffed ambulances not two BLS ambulances with an ALS chase car and that s a big difference. Chief Puckett said they may need a point of clarification, and his understanding was that the recommendation was to have ALS in the area plus at least two transport units to cover it. Chief Alibertis stated that if they base it on a BLS system with ALS capability, that s different from an ALS system because an ALS system means two ALS ambulances, whereas a BLS system means BLS ambulances with ALS support or ALS-capable people in the area.

9 Chief Puckett confirmed this. Chief Alibertis emphasized that they agree on the ALS, but may not have complete clarification on how that s delivered. Chief Puckett said that he would confirm what was intended. Chief Alibertis agreed, adding that the statistics across the country do not demonstrate a need for 100% ALS ambulances, so having an ALS-capable system would be sufficient, especially since all the engine companies have medics on them. Chief Grandstaff asked if they could get a copy of the presentation. Chief Butler said he thought it was going to be distributed. Chief Puckett said that the consultant had been out of town frequently, and he had agreed to send out the station profile information. Chief Alibertis stated that it would be helpful for someone to meet with each station so they understood what was meant for them, as there was a lot of complex data involved. Chief Belgard said the consultant had made a comment about CARS having a large spike, and for clarity it would be helpful to indicate that CARS was handling a huge volume of calls. Chief Puckett mentioned that the graph specifically included the City calls, so that through the figures off proportionately. Chief Alibertis noted that WARS had been combined with Crozet Fire. Chief Puckett clarified that that was from a risk assessment standpoint and the information covered the number of calls, the frequency of calls, the number of overlapping calls, and the building of risk factors. Chief Alibertis stated that WARS and Crozet unduly create risk for one another, with WARS having high concurrence and Crozet having high-risk buildings and somewhere it would be nice to have that defined. Chief Puckett responded that because these factors uniquely apply in some cases, it made it hard to compare things apples to apples across the County. Chief Alibertis added that it needed to be defined further than just the graph, and it needed some contextualization before it was presented.

10 Chief Puckett pointed out that from a geographical standpoint only, if they want to meet a designated time, the stations required are dictated by the computer to capture the most area and calls in that travel time. He said that Station 8 captured the most in the development area because it was very central and because that s where the call density was; and going down the hierarchy, the system captured the next station that could handle the most calls. Chief Puckett noted that it s not really saying they need all the stations they have but they may need more resources at the stations, particularly if there was a heavy career system that might be browned out during challenging economic times. Chief Alibertis said that it could also work such that they only needed certain resources at certain stations, and the data was good but every station needed to understand it better. Chief Puckett stated that a few of them could go out to each station and talk about the data. Chief Alibertis said they also needed to review the implications, and he did not like it as it was presented. Chief Butler stated that he and Chief Dustin Lang had discussed it after the meeting, and Chief Lang indicated that he had not understood it completely. Chief Belgard commented that it was very dense material, and the ALS/BLS issue is very important and shouldn t be underestimated. He said they could go one of two ways just a design assumption to guarantee that anyone needing ALS will get it, or a requirement in the standard for every unit to be ALS, and violation if a station is staffing it with BLS. He emphasized that his preference would be for the language to be explicitly clear as to ALS and BLS levels. Chief Alibertis said that one option would be for BLS foundation with ALS availability to staff 90% of the ambulances. Chief Puckett noted that this could be achieved in a number of ways. Chief Belgard stated that if they looked at more relaxed standard for BLS, such as what the City adopted which was 15 minutes for BLS calls and 10 minutes for ALS calls and changing dispatch so that they noted the presence of the BLS units in responding. Chief Alibertis asked about the County s current standards per the state. Chief Puckett confirmed that they were 12 and 24, which included everything such as travel time, turnout, call processing, etc. He said that in factoring all of that in, the City had about 10 minutes for total response time and even with that, they re getting on scene within 5 minutes.

11 6. Next Executive Committee Meeting A. TBD. 7. Adjournment MOTION: Chief Grandstaff moved to adjourn the Executive Committee adjourned their meeting at 1710 hrs. Chief Butler seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (5-0).

12

13 ALBEMARLE COUNTY FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTION RECORD AGENDA TITLE/ISSUE: AGENDA DATE: Minutes November 6, 2017 MOTION: MOTION MADE BY: SECONDED BY: Approve Minutes Mike Grandstaff Alex Belgard SUBSEQUENT MOTIONS/AMENDMENTS: 1. CALL OF THE QUESTION: Yes No Abstain Chief David Puckett (ACFR) Chief Alex Belgard (CARS) Chief Calvin Butler (East Rivanna) Chief Michael Grandstaff (Scottsville Fire) Chief Kostas Alibertis (Western Albemarle) I hereby attest that the foregoing is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. Chief David Puckett November 6, 2017 Clerk Date

14 ALBEMARLE COUNTY FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTION RECORD AGENDA TITLE/ISSUE: AGENDA DATE: OPS POlicy November 6, 2017 MOTION: MOTION MADE BY: SECONDED BY: Move to December 2017 FEMS Meeting to Suggested Changes-Remove Train the Trainer/Add Who to Contact and Interested SUBSEQUENT MOTIONS/AMENDMENTS: 1. Mike Grandstaff Kostas Alibertis CALL OF THE QUESTION: Yes No Abstain Chief David Puckett (ACFR) Chief Alex Belgard (CARS) Chief Calvin Butler (East Rivanna) Chief Michael Grandstaff (Scottsville Fire) Chief Kostas Alibertis (Western Albemarle) I hereby attest that the foregoing is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. Chief David Puckett November 6, 2017 Clerk Date

15 ALBEMARLE COUNTY FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTION RECORD AGENDA TITLE/ISSUE: AGENDA DATE: 11/6/2017 MOTION: MOTION MADE BY: SECONDED BY: To Adjourn Mike Grandstaff Calvin Butler SUBSEQUENT MOTIONS/AMENDMENTS: 1. CALL OF THE QUESTION: Yes No Abstain Chief David Puckett (ACFR) Chief Alex Belgard (CARS) Chief Calvin Butler (East Rivanna) Chief Michael Grandstaff (Scottsville Fire) Chief Kostas Alibertis (Western Albemarle) I hereby attest that the foregoing is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. David Puckett November 6, 2017 Clerk

16 S T A N D A R D A D M I N I S T R A T I V E P O L I C Y Subject: Driver Eligibility Reference Number: SAP-DEP-051 Effective Date: Date of Implementation Last Revision Date: N/A Signature of Approval: J. Dan Eggleston, Chief Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to provide clarification for driver eligibility based on years of experience and vehicle classification. Scope: This policy applies to the Albemarle County Fire and EMS System as defined by Ordinance Background: The safety of the citizens and personnel of the System are paramount importance. Ensuring that individuals driving all classifications of emergency vehicles have the appropriate experience, training and education help ensure that safety is maintained. A single standard of driving experience does not recognize the variety of apparatus and uses for our complex system. Virginia Motor Vehicle Code requires emergency vehicle drivers to have due regard for the safety of persons and property. The Virginia Office of EMS rules and Regulations requires EMS agencies to establish a written policy that establishes the monitoring of compliance with all driving criteria set forth in the adopted regulations. Additionally, the current insurance carrier suggests a policy outlining a driver eligibility be in place. Definitions: Class A Violationso Operating under the influence of drugs, alcohol or other impairment o Failure to stop following an accident, or "hit and run" o Homicide or manslaughter with a motor vehicle o Knowingly operating a vehicle while license under suspension o Participating in a speed contest or drag race o Fleeing or eluding a police officer o Driving to endanger o Use of a motor vehicle in the commission of a felony o Theft or use of motor vehicle w/out permission from the owner o Assault with a motor vehicle Class B Violations- Any moving violation or point carrying violation, not considered a Class A violation. Examples include, but are not limited to: o Speeding o Reckless driving (Counts as two Class B violations) o Unlawful lane change o Chargeable motor vehicle accidents Class 1 Vehicle- A GVW of 10,000lbs or less; usually cars, sport utility vehicles, vans, and pick-up trucks.

17 STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY Page 2 of 3 Class 2 Vehicle- A GVW of 10, 0001 to 26,000 lbs.; usually ambulances, utility vehicles, brush trucks. Class 3 Vehicle- A GVW of 26,001lbs or greater; engines, tankers, aerials and heavy squad trucks. Valid Driver s License- A driver s license issued or recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Policy: 1. Driver Eligibility- Any individual operating a vehicle, in any capacity, insured by the County of Albemarle must meet the following minimum criteria: a. Be a minimum of 18 years of age b. Possess a valid driver s license without restrictions c. Have a DMV record on file with their Agency i. New drivers must have a DMV record obtained within the last 3 months ii. A biannual review of all existing driver s DMV records will be conducted by the County or the Agency may conduct the review if they so choose. Documentation will be provided upon request. d. Possess a satisfactory driving record. A satisfactory driving record is one that has: i. No evidence of conviction for any Class A violation in the past 36 months ii. No more than three convictions for any Class B violations in the past 36 months iii. One Class B violation in a 36 month period may be removed from consideration if an approved DMV driver improvement course is taken after the infraction. e. Review County and Agency policies as it relates to vehicle operations f. Have permission of their Agency to operate the vehicle 2. Non-Emergent Driving- Any individual that meets the criteria in Section 1 can drive a Class 1 vehicle in a nonemergent capacity. The following additional criteria must be met to operate a Class 2 or Class 3 vehicle in a nonemergent capacity. a. Class 2 Vehicles i. Possessed a valid driver s license for a minimum of two years ii. Enrolled in EVOC and be supervised by a released operator or iii. Possess EVOC and be released to operate independently b. Class 3 Vehicles i. Possessed a valid driver s license for a minimum of three years ii. Enrolled in EVOC and be supervised by a released operator or iii. Possess EVOC and be released to operate independently 3. Emergent Driving- Any individual operating any vehicle, regardless of class, in an emergent capacity, must meet the following criteria in addition to the criteria in Section 1 and 2. a. Possess EVOC certification b. Be released to operate in an emergent capacity by their agency 4. All approved operators are to notify agency leadership within (10) days of any moving violation while operating a vehicle. Final court disposition shall also be reported within (10) days of the date of conviction.

18 STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY Page 3 of 3 5. Enforcement a. Any individual who has a combination of two (2) Class B moving violation convictions and/or chargeable accidents in a 36 month period will be issued a warning letter from the chief officer or administrative officer of the Agency. b. Any individual who has one (1) Class A or a combination of three (3) Class B moving violation convictions and/or chargeable accidents in a 36 month period will be suspended from driving department vehicles for a period of (12) months or until a satisfactory driving record is obtained as defined in Section 1, whichever is greater, by the chief officer or administrative office of the Agency. In addition, the individual would be required to be re-released by the Agency to operate emergency vehicles. c. Additional training may be conducted on an as needed basis for personnel who demonstrate a pattern of unacceptable driving performance, as determined by the Agency. d. Nothing in this policy shall reduce the authority of an Agency to provide greater disciplinary measures including the loss of driving privileges, suspension or termination.