ALBEMARLE COUNTY FIRE/EMS BOARD FEMS BOARD MEETING COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING, MCINTIRE ROAD ROOM 241 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, HOURS

Transcription

1 ALBEMARLE COUNTY FIRE/EMS BOARD FEMS BOARD MEETING COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING, MCINTIRE ROAD ROOM 241 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, HOURS A meeting of the Albemarle County Fire/EMS Board was held on Wednesday, December 13, 2017, at 1800 hours in Room 241 of the County Office Building, Stagecoach Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The following members were in attendance: John Oprandy, Albemarle County Fire & Rescue Michael Boyle, Crozet Volunteer Fire Department Calvin Butler, East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company Chuck Pugh, North Garden Volunteer Fire Company Mike Grandstaff, Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department Brian Cropp, Scottsville Rescue Squad Brian Kester, Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department Greg Frazier, Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company Kostas Alibertis, Western Albemarle Rescue Squad Others in Attendance: Tom LaBelle, Albemarle County Fire & Rescue Howard Lagomarsino, Albemarle County Fire & Rescue David Puckett, Albemarle County Fire & Rescue George Stephens, North Garden Volunteer Fire Company Sami Varner, Albemarle County Fire & Rescue Melanie Welcher, Albemarle County Fire & Rescue I. Call to Order Chief Alibertis called the meeting to order at 1800 hrs. A. Moment of Silence Attendees observed a moment of silence. B. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda i. Update from Chiefs matters of importance from stations There were no updates provided. ii. Addition of Agenda Items There were no additional items. C. From the Public: Matters not Listed on the Agenda II. Approval of Consent Agenda

2 Minutes of the October and November FEMS Board meetings. Chief Butler moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Chief Frazier seconded the motion, which passed 7-0-1, with Chief Grandstaff abstaining. III. Committee Updates A. Executive Committee Chief Alibertis reported that the Executive Committee had discussed the tech rescue policy and special operations team membership, including requirements for joining and maintaining membership on the team. He stated that everyone should look at this closely because it involves ongoing training. Chief Alibertis said that the committee also discussed standards of coverage presentation that was made. He stated that he felt it was an in-depth presentation and merited some degree of explanation at the station level as to impacts. He asked if the item had gone anywhere. Chief Grandstaff stated that they were also supposed to have it distributed to people who could not attend, but that wasn t done either. Chief Puckett stated that he had just received the final presentation from Fitch & Associates from the FEMS night, and they could send it out but he wasn t sure how helpful it would be without some discussion. He said that he and Chief LaBelle had talked about trying to schedule some time with each station or several at a time to walk them through it to provide some explanation of the data. Chief Puckett noted that they could leave some information behind, but sending it out by itself probably wouldn t do it justice. Chief Butler said that he would like to see it ahead of time. Chief Grandstaff agreed. Chief Alibertis commented that it would be good to see it ahead of time because there was a lot of information and a lot of graphics such as heat maps that people may not be familiar with. He stated that he had some issues with how things were staffed, as they had staffed two ALS units instead of two BLS units with ALS support which is a huge, dynamic difference. Chief Puckett stated that he had followed up with them on that particular topic, and their intent wasn t that every ambulance had to be ALS, but every service area needed to have ALS available to it and every district needed to be able to provide some ALS. Chief Puckett said that he conveyed that one of the sticking points was in the baseline objections recommendation, which requires an EMT and a paramedic on each ambulance. He stated that Fitch had suggested changing it to one EMT and a paramedic or two EMTs and an ALS chase car, which would satisfy the concerns, but they didn t want to have a standard that the system wasn t planning on staffing that way. Chief Puckett said that the presentation would be the same thing as originally shown at the meeting, but the changes would be incorporated going forward.

3 Chief Alibertis emphasized that it was a big difference as to whether you staffed two ALS trucks or two ALS-capable trucks. Chief Puckett that he and Chief LaBelle would be working with the stations on that. Chief Alibertis commented that budget items would come first. Chief LaBelle responded that the budgets would be done within the next week and a half. B. Training Committee Chief Alibertis noted that Chief Lambert was not present, and Chief Pugh said that he was not involved with that committee any longer. Chief Oprandy stated that there was just a written report at this point. Chief Alibertis said they could just reference that. C. Operations Committee There was no report. D. Recruitment & Retention Committee Ms. Welcher reported that the committee has been having an ongoing discussion about the burden for getting members on-boarded and also getting uniforms, so they were looking into making some possible changes with how they do background checks whether it be fingerprinting or using national background checks. She said that the committee was also looking to streamline the process by using the [inaudible], which she was not familiar with but would be working with Ms. Davis on. Ms. Welcher stated that the committee would be doing holiday baskets for the stations on December 20, and would be meeting at Sam s Club. She Ms. Welcher said that the committee was looking at a spring release for the System Health & Welfare Report. Ms. Welcher stated that the committee would be looking into the length of service award program per the RFI and would have until December 19 for the company that would be providing feedback for that. She said there was information and the baseline questions in the report, and asked that the chiefs submit any additional questions. Ms. Welcher encouraged chiefs to get members to the committee meetings regularly, noting that the previous meeting had not been well attended. Chief Butler commented that it had been a very productive meeting for the two hours he was there.

4 Chief Alibertis asked if they were looking at putting together options or best practices for the onboarding. Ms. Welcher responded that they were looking at best practices and guidelines. Chief LaBelle clarified that the stations already had an adopted policy, but the committee was trying to structure the backend process of the policy. E. Quartermaster Committee There was no report. F. Apparatus Committee Chief Walker reported that they had met with Mr. Stokely of VAFIS regarding the accident reporting policy being established, who said that his company would be sold and would become a part of Crexton after January 1, Chief Walker said the only thing that would change would be Mr. Stokely s address. He asked for feedback from the stations regarding the fleet maintenance program. IV. Unfinished Business A. ACFR Volunteers Recruitment and Retention Plan update Chief LaBelle reported that the Recruitment and Retention Committee had been fairly successful with administrative volunteers, with one operational volunteer thus far. He stated that stations should have received a copy of FEMS guidebooks several months earlier and asked for input on things to be changed. B. FEMS Guidebooks C. Volunteer CIP Fund Chief LaBelle reviewed a PowerPoint summary of the volunteer capital improvement fund (CIP), stating that over the summer they held a work session on this pursuant to the Board of Supervisors direction regarding funding of capital items improvement and maintenance. He said that ACFR had been holding meetings with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Department of Facilities and Environmental Services (FES), and the County Executive s Office. Chief LaBelle stated that ACFR did not have a written policy regarding this, and he would be soliciting feedback as to whether this was the proper course of action. Chief LaBelle presented the concept of an annual facilities maintenance assessment, stating that two years ago they had done a full facilities assessment of each one of the stations which would now be an annual event instead of once every five years. He noted that this would consist of an engineer visiting individual stations and doing an assessment of large equipment items, structural needs, HVAC systems, and smaller items. Chief LaBelle stated that they had been discussing annual operating maintenance budgets with stations, and the facilities assessment would inform this. He

5 said that the capital maintenance approach is new and would consist of more significant items such as roofs, HVAC systems, and parking lots that comprise a building or the overall station complex. Chief LaBelle stated that the last piece was the capital building replacement, renovation, and expansion which stations already have access too, as Earlysville had done but the County did not spend a lot of money for buildings except for capital maintenance. He commented that it was easier to get funding for maintenance than for new facilities. Chief Oprandy commented that this was particularly the case since 2008 when the CIP was underfunded in the economic downturn, and they were still building out of that. Chief LaBelle stated that they were looking at it from the standpoint of having three pots of money: annual operating, maintenance, and expansion and improvement. He said that similarly to the five-year process, it would provide a projection for stations and for the County as a whole to inform how they would plan for the future. He said that for stations that had already provided their annual one-time costs, some of those would be included along with maintenance. Chief LaBelle stated that stations could opt out of any funding, but the committee was proposing not being able to opt out of the assessment. He explained that it was up to each station whether they took care of something like a roof, but realistically when the roof caved in they would come to the County. Chief LaBelle said that if stations didn t report on potential issues, it could create conflict with other community funding priorities. He noted that there is expectation of improvement from operational funding, and an assumption that stations would manage their priorities. Chief LaBelle commented that this was basically how it was done now, but there would be an annual report that allowed them to plan and validate what was being put in the budget request. Chief LaBelle emphasized that the new aspect to this was capital maintenance, with the idea that the assessments would help inform what to prepare for with the difference being that these are larger items for which FES would be involved. He stated that this was what was being done with Crozet, which they have just started, and the process would likely include someone from FES and a committee from the department. He said that it would follow the procurement process and rules, and stations would submit requests into the system in June or July. Chief Oprandy noted that it would follow the AFMA procedure. Chief LaBelle explained that the AFMA would come out prior to that and individual items could be written up for the CIP, with stations capital maintenance items submitted along with school and other requests. He stated that a committee would then go through what can and cannot be funded. Chief Oprandy asked if this would be submitted as one big project for all fire/rescue buildings.

6 Chief LaBelle responded that ACFR has gone back and forth with FES as to how this may play out, but they had not yet reached a conclusion. He stated that the requests would be submitted by ACFR and FES would have input on them, with funds for the projects placed in FES s budget as they would be responsible for managing the project and budget but would work with the stations. He added that he would also be involved, but this was outside of his scope of knowledge and work. Chief LaBelle stated that larger capital improvements and renovations, including expansion or new construction, would go beyond maintenance and could be applied for now as Earlysville did. He noted that funding held at the volunteer station level would be included in this consideration, and the proposal before the Board of Supervisors would include an evaluation of individual department assets. Chief LaBelle presented a list of questions that ACFR had developed, the first of which was what additional systems resources were needed to make the program work. He said another question was which items were specifically included in annual operating maintenance, and ACFR staff had learned that there was not a lot of clarity as to what goes where. Chief LaBelle stated that a goal of this process was to define that, so when the items go to OMB they are consistent with what the County agencies are forwarding. He said that another question was who contracts and manages the annual assessment ACFR or FES which neither entity seemed eager to undertake. Chief Alibertis asked how FES became interjected into this process. Chief LaBelle responded that the reason was because ACFR did not have the skill set, and he cited the example of the five-year engineering report, as the system did not have a full grasp on the technical aspects. Chief Alibertis agreed, but emphasized that he did not envision FES taking the lead for the work at individual stations. Chief LaBelle replied that for some things they already take the lead, which often goes unnoticed, and he gave Crozet as an example. He stated that if stations did not want that relationship, they did not have to put in for capital maintenance projects although the annual operating process did not change, only the large expenditure items. Chief Alibertis clarified that he did not mind FES being involved, but he did not like the idea of them taking over the management. Chief Oprandy provided an example of a station needing a roof and asked Chief Alibertis how he would envision that working. Chief Alibertis responded that his station would handle it as it did now, and they had someone who did that. Chief Oprandy stated that they would want the funding for the roof but would want to

7 retain project management. Chief Alibertis said that it seems that if FES overtook that, it would become their project, and he did not necessarily support that structure. Chief LaBelle pointed out that fire/rescue envisioned having a bit more engagement, but part of the dilemma was ensuring that the funding was appropriately assigned. Chief Alibertis commented that this was a different matter. Chief LaBelle stated that there were two ends to the spectrum, and what ACFR was saying that the best process was somewhere in the middle. Chief Alibertis said that it could be handled the way vehicles are, whereby the County allocates funding but stations provide the specifications for them. Chief Oprandy stated that what Crozet went through was pretty much how an FES project worked with FES managing the budget but decisions being made as a group. Chief Kester said that his station s project was very large, with a doubling of square footage and updating throughout, so with that level of project it seemed that there would be County oversight. He added that he would hope that a roof project would fall into a smaller project category that might afford more room for a department to retain some ownership in the project. Chief Boyle stated that he was not involved with the project when FES was involved, but his sense was that it went very well with the only objections being the value-engineering decisions that left them with low-bid doors and HVAC units. Chief Alibertis stated that this was what he was referring to, and some of that money was from station dollars. Chief LaBelle clarified that if there are station dollars, they can choose to upgrade amenities and pay the difference. He said that depending on the size of the project, FES wants to get involved in the engineering and make sure it s the right solution and ensure that the work was done properly. Chief Oprandy emphasized that they are talking about FES having full ownership of the project, with them hiring the contractor and going through the purchasing process with involvement from the volunteer side but not control. He said that the reason this item is being discussed is to gauge what stations are comfortable with, and normal maintenance projects would be funded by the County but would run through the typical procurement and management process. Chief Oprandy mentioned that the answer in their discussions has been that the stations would be involved, but FES would run the project. Chief LaBelle stated that related to his discussions with Chief Kester, they are

8 envisioning that the County would retain some responsibilities for capital projects. He said that FES was assuming that they would help support an HVAC system, for example, from the time it is installed and if they are going to have that level of responsibility over time, they needed to be involved more up front. Chief Alibertis asked if this was up for discussion. Chief LaBelle responded that it was, noting that these were conversations that had taken place but now needed input and parameters. Chief Oprandy pointed out that in order to meet the budget cycle for the next fiscal year, this needed to go to the Board of Supervisors by March, which requires an executive summary by the January/February timeframe. Chief LaBelle stressed that even after a proposal was put together and the executive summary was written, individual stations and the FEMS Board as a whole could continue to provide commentary to the Board of Supervisors. Chief Oprandy commented that it would be interesting to hear from other chiefs about this, as it seems that Chief Alibertis was advocating for station control over projects, with the County providing funding. Chief Alibertis clarified that he did not envision FES just taking projects over. Chief Kester mentioned that Seminole was thrilled with their building and FES had done a great job with the project, but he wondered if there was an opportunity for small and medium projects that FES would review and sign off on, with stations ultimately managing them. Chief Alibertis stated that they should discuss the management of larger projects also, including the construction of new buildings. Chief LaBelle said that FES had differentiated between annual system maintenance items and structural items, with their involvement coming with higher levels of complexity and expense. Chief Alibertis stated that this was where he did have a concern. Chief Butler said that they were not getting after-purchase support now, but had significant maintenance expense on those items. Chief Alibertis expressed concern about low-bid items that require maintenance on the backend. Chief Butler stated that it would alleviate his station s concerns if FES took responsibility for maintenance, which is part of the future vision but not the situation today.

9 Chief Alibertis said someone would have to keep fixing something that broke. Chief Butler said as long as it got fixed, that was acceptable. Chief Boyle stated that Crozet shared Chief Alibertis concerns, and when they first started discussing this process, they wanted to retain the right to pull the plug on it whether County funds were involved or not if it didn t meet their standards or if support was not adequate. He said that as long as there is that part in place or the option of upgrading so that a better product can be procured, his station would be satisfied with the process. Chief LaBelle said that he interpreted walk away as being walk away from FES and the County s funds. Chief Boyle confirmed that this was what he meant so either the station does everything or FES does it. Chief Grandstaff pointed out that if it is like other County procurement, they have to go low bid. Chief Boyle said that would be fine as long as individual stations can add their funds on top to allow for upgrading. Chief Grandstaff stated that he did not foresee that happening. Chief LaBelle clarified that the bid is on workmanship as opposed to material, and he was not sure how it played out to have specifics overlaid by the stations in terms of upgrades and specifications. Chief Oprandy mentioned that regarding procurement law, their hands are not tied at low bid because they can build criteria into the selection process. Chief LaBelle noted that they had done this with the insurance. Chief Grandstaff clarified that with RFPs, you don t have to go low bid, but for general contractor materials, you cannot upgrade those items. Chief LaBelle said that his understanding was that this would be specified up front, so that would go into the RFP defining the products and outcomes and the stations would pay the difference for upgrades. Chief Stephens asked who would mitigate the differences that might arise between the agency and FES, in situations whereby FES had project control. Chief LaBelle responded that this was a good question.

10 Chief LaBelle commented that it would be good to have arbitration process in writing. Chief Oprandy stated that with the small projects such as painting, there would be no FES involvement. Chief LaBelle added that FES has no desire or intention to be involved with things like HVAC maintenance, but they do see themselves involved in the purchase of a new system. Chief Alibertis said that this still needs some discussion and asked Chief LaBelle to forward this onto the FEMS Board. Chief LaBelle responded that he was reluctant to do so because this was all still conceptual, and he would be happy to talk to stations and representatives and he did not want to paint people into a corner or get ahead of the Board of Supervisors. Chief Alibertis stated that he felt this should go to individual boards and agencies since they had to have an executive summary by spring. Chief LaBelle suggested that the stations need to provide feedback, ACFR would write an executive summary, and the FEMS Board in turn would comment on it. He said that it may be a situation in which the Board of Supervisors has issues with specific aspects of the process, such as the arbitration piece. He emphasized that if he did not start writing this up by the time he returned from the holidays, another year would pass and another deadline would be missed. He said that he had to put something on paper, but that could be discarded in part or in entirety by the FEMS Board and/or the Board of Supervisors. Chief Alibertis suggested that this be included for discussion on the FEMS Board s January meeting agenda. Chief Oprandy asked what would be handled in January. Chief LaBelle stated that the FEMS Board met in the end of January and could hold a work session then based on the actual language developed, incorporating some of their direction. He said that the timeframe is for March 2018 to present this to the Board of Supervisors; in April and May, they would develop rollout documents and come out to stations; in June, the volunteer stations would begin the process and use the old facility assessment document; in summer 2018, they would put out the bid for the annual assessments; and in fall 2018, they would do assessments and proceed with the following year s process. Chief LaBelle asked FEMS Board members to contact him with questions and comments.

11 Chief Alibertis urged them not to wait until next January to make a big revision, but instead to provide feedback sooner. Chief LaBelle said he could collect commentary related to questions and concerns, and they could ask FES to come to a FEMS Board meeting after January. Chief Oprandy stated that it was unlikely that they would have every detail figured out for things like the arbitration process prior to the general concept being presented to the Board of Supervisors in March, but the premise could be adopted. Chief Alibertis said that they really only had one meeting because of the chiefs conference in February. Chief Oprandy noted that by then it would be at the County Executive s Office, at least as far as the executive summary was concerned. Chief Alibertis pointed out that this was input to steer it. Chief LaBelle agreed, stating that in theory they would have March and April, as the Board could provide direction to have it returned to them in June. Chief Oprandy asked if he envisioned the Supervisors adopting arbitration language. Chief LaBelle responded that he would not, but he could see them directing ACFR to get an endorsement from the FEMS Board. Chief Alibertis commented that they did not want to be in a position wherein the Board of Supervisors was unhappy with FEMS. Chief Oprandy agreed, but said that this may not get there because staff may disagree on particulars and in March, the FEMS Board opinion would be expressed and the Board of Supervisors would have to take that into consideration. Chief LaBelle stated that this represented a big philosophical change in process and policy, and he would imagine that they would have future changes. V. New Business A. Station GPS Antennae Equipment Chief Puckett reported that the station GPS antennae equipment was a small device that mounted on the outside of a building, with a coaxial that ran inside and went into a box that plugged into the wall. He said that if you use mobile, this allowed mobile to pick up a GPS signal while in the building to center it there. Chief Puckett stated that at the end of the last budget year they were having some issues so he purchased one for every station, but he did not have money for the install. He clarified that stations would handle these individually if they wanted them, but they did not have to use them. Chief

12 Puckett said that the cost to install them were about $ , and asked that stations express interest. Chief Butler stated that he had not received the , and there seemed to be an issue with him receiving s from ACFR. Chief Puckett asked staff to confirm the s in the FEMS group to ensure they were up to date, and said they would run some tests to make sure they were getting through. B. Station Alerting System CIP Chief Puckett reported that they had discussed including in the CIP process the upgrading or installation of station alerting systemwide, which was a fairly large project but as of now it was included as a maintenance item in the CIP. He noted that there was a high likelihood of funding because CIP projects were not even being ranked this year, and he would launch the RFP process in the near future so they could start in July. Chief Puckett asked stations to let him know if they did not wish to be included. C. Special Operations Team Membership Chief Puckett stated that this item had come through the Operations Committee and was moved forward by the Executive Committee the previous month with one or two minor changes. He explained that this outlined some of the specialty teams, including Technical Rescue, Hazmat, Water Rescue, and Rescue Task Force. He said that with each of them, there were upfront training requirements for membership as well as the required continuing education. Chief Puckett stated that there were two categories: regionally coordinated, which covered water rescue; and regionally directed, which covered other special operations. He said that there were more resources for water rescue, and those were also handled frequently by the first group that arrived versus a collaborative effort as units arrived. He noted that this was in line with CFD in an effort to put these programs in a regional capacity. Chief Puckett added that these were very technical things to be done on scene, so the need for training was high. He said that they did not have to take action tonight, and he was available to answer questions. Chief Alibertis stated that Chief Belgard had expressed concern with the minimum of two years service, and the Executive Committee had not taken action on that particular item but felt there should be time in service. Chief Puckett said that Chief Belgard s concern was that the rescue task force didn t require as much experience as the other focus areas because it wasn t quite as technical in nature. He stated that from a skill aspect, a responder was putting on tourniquets and those types of things but it was also a high-risk environment that had them operating in ways they were not accustomed to. Chief Alibertis commented that he did not know if it was necessary to have two years experience to do water rescue, and there was no reason not to participate if the training

13 was available. He also mentioned that you currently had to go out of the area to get some of the rescue task force training. Chief Puckett responded that this would not be the case for much longer, and asked if he was referring specifically to the TECC. Chief Alibertis clarified that he was also referring to training for confined space, etc. Chief Puckett said that this was very specialized training, and there wasn t capacity to deliver that locally. Chief Oprandy stated that those classes came through the regional school, but if people wanted them more quickly they would be traveling to them. Chief Alibertis mentioned that this also had a budget impact. Chief Puckett said that TECC could be delivered locally, but some of the other items were out of their range. D. Agenda Maintenance Chief LaBelle requested that the FEMS Board provide any recommendations for changes related to their meeting agendas. E FEMS Meeting Dates Chief LaBelle referenced the meeting date calendars included in their packets, with just one change from October 23 to October 24. Chief LaBelle stated that the Executive Committee would be going to a bimonthly meeting format, but could be called to meet upon request. He said that he had spoken to the County Attorney about calling for a special meeting, and if there was a policy to be reviewed, it would be distributed to the EC ahead of time then a meeting would be called if necessary. Chief LaBelle noted that this happened infrequently, so it was better to address it from the standpoint of it not being needed rather than the reverse. F. Miscellaneous Chief Alibertis asked about having a meet and greet with the new County Executive prior to a FEMS Board meeting, to give him an opportunity to share his vision. FEMS Board members endorsed the idea. VI. Adjournment MOTION: Chief Boyle moved to adjourn the meeting. Chief Grandstaff seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (8-0). The FEMS Board adjourned their meeting at 1905 hrs.

14

15 chief Todd Richardson (Earlysville): Chief Calvin Butler (Ea;t Rivanna): Clr.-cK?.n:\ Chief G.e.g.Jteph p s (North Garden): Chief Mike Grandstafl (Scottsville Fire): chief Brian Cropp (Sc )ttsville Rescue): Chief Brian Kester (S(1minole Trail): chief Greg Frazier (Sr ony Point): Chief Kostas Aliberti ;(Western Albemarle):

16 Gueit/other orgo n iz ot i o n /Ag e ncy/aff i I i dtion I J f'i -') 14 il.. v tra

17 ALBEMARLE COUNTY FIRE RESCUE EMERGENCY AND MEDICAL SERVICES BOARD ACTION RECORD AGENDA TITLE/ISSUE: AGENDA DATE: Consent Agenda Wednesday, December 13, 2017 MOTION: MOTION MADE BY: SECONDED BY: Approve Consent Agenda Chief Calvin Butler Chief Greg Frazier SUBSEQUENT MOTIONS/AMENDMENTS: 1. CALL OF THE QUESTION: Yes No Abstain Chief John Oprandy (Albemarle County) Chief Alex Belgard (CARS) Chief Mike Boyle (Crozet) Chief Todd Richardson (Earlysville) Chief Calvin Butler (East Rivanna) Chief Chuck Pugh (North Garden) Chief Mike Grandstaff (Scottsville Fire) Chief Brian Cropp (Scottsville Rescue) Chief Brian Kester (Seminole Trail) Chief Greg Frazier (Stony Point) Chief Kostas Alibertis (Western Albemarle) I hereby attest that the foregoing is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. Christina M. Davis December 13, 2017 Clerk Date - Building the Model Volunteer-Career Fire & EMS System -

18 ALBEMARLE COUNTY FIRE RESCUE EMERGENCY AND MEDICAL SERVICES BOARD ACTION RECORD AGENDA TITLE/ISSUE: AGENDA DATE: Adjournment Wednesday, December 13, 2017 MOTION: MOTION MADE BY: SECONDED BY: To adjourn ChiefMike Boyle Chief Michael Grandstaff SUBSEQUENT MOTIONS/AMENDMENTS: 1. CALL OF THE QUESTION: Yes No Abstain Chief John Oprandy (Albemarle County) Chief Alex Belgard (CARS) Chief Mike Boyle (Crozet) Chief Todd Richardson (Earlysville) Chief Calvin Butler (East Rivanna) Chief Chuck Pugh (North Garden) Chief Mike Grandstaff (Scottsville Fire) Chief Brian Cropp (Scottsville Rescue) Chief Brian Kester (Seminole Trail) Chief Greg Frazier (Stony Point) Chief Kostas Alibertis (Western Albemarle) I hereby attest that the foregoing is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. Christina M. Davis December 13, 2017 Clerk Date - Building the Model Volunteer-Career Fire & EMS System -