Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 02.28.2017 MINUTES COUNCIL WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 28, 2017 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Council President Doug Poehls at 6:30 p.m. on February 28, 2017. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: _x Emelie Eaton _x_Doug Poehls x Bruce McGee _x_Richard Herr x Chuck Dickerson Scot Stokes x Tom Nelson Bill Mountsier OTHERS PRESENT: Heidi Jensen, CAO Noel Eaton, City Planner Brent Peters, Fire Chief Brad Shoemaker, Yellowstone County EMS Director Sue Taylor, Beartooth RC&D Public Input There was no public input. General items • Appointments: Laurel Fire Department Brent Peters introduced Jordan White and Josiah Laszloffy. Jordan is currently on the Ambulance Service and is crossing over to the fire department. Josiah is going through an EMT program. The third appointment is Jennifer Winchell, who was unable to attend tonight's meeting. The appointments will bring the number to 43 firemen. Executive Review • Resolution- Lease with Yellowstone County for Greeno Radio Site Heidi stated that the lease is for the control building at the new water intake and a radio that needs to transmit back to the water treatment plant. Since there are too many obstructions for a direct connection, the highest point in the County, which is the Greeno tower, needs to be used to bounce the information off and back to the water treatment plant. The Board of County Commissioners reviewed the lease at a discussion meeting and did not have a problem with it. The lease has also been reviewed by the city attorney. The city will pay its share of the electrical costs per year, which is estimated to be under$1,000. • Discussion- Countywide EMS Program Brent explained that the Yellowstone County Fire Council has been working on a proposal for a countywide EMS service. Brad Shoemaker, the County DES coordinator, has been putting the plan together. Council Workshop Minutes of February 28,2017 Brad Shoemaker distributed two handouts, a letter and a map, to the council. He explained the proposal to go from the volunteer based EMS system that rural Yellowstone County has now to a paid full-time paramedic level ALS EMS system that the County would contract out. Letters will officially go out tomorrow, and the city should get two copies, one to the city clerk and one to the mayor. The proposal will be to implement and move forward with this at the county level. If it were to go forward, the City of Laurel is presumptively included in this right now. If the County were to go through the resolution process, there would be a special election. If it passed the special election, the County would collect an additional tax on the residents who voted on it and contract a paid EMS service. It could be contracted with a private entity, such as Eagle Ambulance or AMR, or with local fire departments, like Lockwood or Laurel Fire Department, if they are interested in bidding on it. Brad stated that the implementation would be one EMS station in Laurel and one EMS station between Shepherd and Worden in the Huntley area. The GIS Department did a drive time analysis, and it looks like there can be reasonable response times with 15 minutes or less to 70 percent of rural addresses within the County, which is a significant improvement. There have been bad response times with the increasing call volume because ambulances are not available, and it is not the best way to service the community. Brad stated his willingness to answer questions regarding the letter, the map, implementation and the timeline. Chuck asked if the employees would be full-time or part-time employees. Brad answered that the employment would be up to the contractor who won the bid. They would likely be mostly full-time employees with some part-time employees to fill in. Chuck asked what would happen to the current volunteer staff who have put in time to be certified to drive an ambulance and to provide medical service and support. He wonders if these individuals would have an opportunity to maintain a position or if winning contractor would bring its own people and let the current volunteers go. Brad stated that it would be dependent on who wins the contract. He explained that there is a serious shortage of EMTs and paramedics within Yellowstone County and Montana as a whole. Even the areas that run full-time paid EMS are hard up for employees, which means they would need to fill the positions with whoever was available. In order to fill the contract for two stations, they will need a number of ambulances and probably 25 to 30 employees, with half being EMTs and half being paramedics. While they would have the discretion in the contract to hire whoever, the qualified and certified folks are the ones that are already in the community. Chuck asked if there would be opportunity to know whether the current people would be added on the service prior to the inclusion or exclusion of this. Brad stated that anything, such as priority hiring, that the city wants included in the RFP or RFQ for the contract that the County will send out for bid needs to be submitted to him between March 1St and April 1St. Chuck asked that the item be placed on the next council workshop agenda. Doug asked if there should be a recommendation from the Emergency Services Committee, as the committee has discussed the issue for several months. 2 Council Workshop Minutes of February 28,2017 Chuck agreed that it would be good to get a recommendation from the Emergency Services Committee as soon as possible. Emelie mentioned that the council just saw the fire department enlisting two people who are already EMS trained. One is currently on the Ambulance Service and is switching to the fire department. She asked for an explanation regarding staffing the ambulance service at this point. Doug explained that the ambulance and fire department are actually one department. The appointee will be appointed to the fire department, but he is still an ambulance attendant. The fire and ambulance is a combined department and he has asked to be on both. Emelie asked if the city is still trying to staff the fire department with EMS trained people. Brent explained that several firefighters have become EMTs and also work on the ambulance. They run EMS calls and fire calls. There are some on the fire department that are not on the ambulance, but they backup to answer medical calls when needed. Emelie asked about the staffing on the ambulance, since there are 43 members on the fire department. Brent said that there are 21 ambulance attendants and he would like to have 30 attendants. The firefighters in Laurel all live inside the Laurel Fire Districts. Several EMTs live in Billings or the surrounding communities, so it is difficult for them to respond. As Brad stated, there is a shortage of EMTs. They solicit attendants at the EMS training classes in Billings. He stated that it is getting better,but question at what point we run out of"it's getting better". Brent stated that something needs to be done to better the community. Doug explained that the Emergency Services Committee has discussed what the Laurel Ambulance Service would look like when this happens. The County could be the first response and the city could be the second response. Or the city could provide service within the Laurel city limits and the County take care of everything else. Doug stated that is basically the recommendation that the committee has discussed. Chuck asked regarding the pay scale for the ambulance and fire for callouts and who decides on the flexibility and pay for someone that is called out as a fireman and then used as an EMT, Brent explained that it is his call and his signature goes on the payroll. There are three different systems. When an attendant signs up to be on star they are paid $3.50/hour to be on shift. Depending on if there is a transport or non-transport, they are paid additional on the EMS side. On the fire side, they are paid $8.50/hour per call to respond on the fire truck. If a firefighter EMT jumps on a fire truck to respond to the incident and Brent pulls them off to become an EMT, he is paid as a firefighter. The confusing part is when he has to pull a fire drive off. In the case of an accident where the fire department and EMS responded and they need a fire driver to drive the ambulance, there is a third pay scale. They get $15.00 to drive the ambulance to transport a patient. If a firefighter responds and jumps on to be a fire driver, he only gets the $15.00. There are three different pay scales, and Brent and his admin assistant determine who is paid for what with the tracking that is done. 3 Council Workshop Minutes of February 28, 2017 Tom stated that this has to go to a vote of countywide residents who are in the service, which would exclude the City of Billings as the only incorporated city. He asked regarding the timeline necessary to take this to a vote. Brad agreed that the City of Billings would be excluded, as well as the Billings Urban Fire Service Area, Lockwood Fire District No. 8 and the Crow Reservation area. The plan is to leave the currently working ALS services alone instead of incorporating them into the countywide area. If a service is volunteer based and struggling or there is no EMS service, it was included in the plan. Regarding the timeline, Brad stated that the letter would be sent to each political subdivision in the County this week to solicit comments. Comments are due back April 1St. On April 11th, the County will release a RFQ to solicit information from the potential bidders on this service. The City of Laurel could bid if interested in providing EMS coverage. The RFQ would be open until May 30th Depending on the numbers received from the RFQ, an initial resolution would be considered by the Yellowstone County Board of Commissioners at the June 13th meeting. The resolution process would be open for public comment and resolutions until August 8th. If it passed, the resolution would give notification to the Yellowstone County Elections Office to run a special election. State law dictates that it can only be done on one day a year, so the election would not happen until May of 2018. If the 2018 election passed, the County would start the RFP or RFQ process for the official contract, which would be open until August and then awarded. The selected contractor would have three months to hire employees, purchase ambulances, set up locations, and start running calls on January 1, 2019. Tom asked what would happen to the people who had the expense on their taxes if Laurel participated in the election and later decided to put the city's ambulance service out to bid and to a service such as AMR. Brad stated that it would get complicated. He explained that, if the decision were made within the resolution period before August 8, 2017, in theory the Board of County Commissioners could vote down the resolution and go back to step one to determine boundaries. Boundaries determine the number of homes, the number of services, the number of calls and how many ambulances are needed. After the resolution and prior to the election, the County Elections Office would have already been directed to hold the election, so it would likely go forward unless they amended the resolution in some way. It would be up to the voters to determine if they wanted in or to vote down the special district. If it was after the creation of the district, he would have to look at the process required to get out of a special district. It would create a major funding problem and contractual problem with Yellowstone County holding a contract with the contracted service. Tom thanked Brad for the explanation, as he thinks it is important for the council to consider what it does today, next year, and five to ten years in the future. Brad stated that it is much easier to opt in than to get out of a special district. Brent distributed a letter to the council and stated that there are pros and cons to the countywide EMS in Laurel. Pros include having 24/7 coverage, the Advanced Life Support service (Paramedics), and reduced spending out of the General Fund and additional revenues into the General Fund with the rental of the storage area. The cons include having only one ambulance covering the western half of the County. He questioned what happens when second and third calls are received and the ambulance 4 Council Workshop Minutes of February 28,2017 is in Broadview. He has challenged Brad in the past on what kind of mutual aid agreements there would be in a case like that. Brent supports the intent of the countywide EMS, but thinks there needs to be a guarantee that the city's residents will get an ambulance when they call for an ambulance. AMR is having its struggles right now. Lockwood lost six paramedics to the Billings Fire Department, and AMR loses paramedics all the time to the Billings Fire Department, to Portland or other places where the pay is better. There is a shortage of paramedics. Brent's concern is making sure that there is an ambulance in Laurel. One proposal is to continue the EMS service in the city limits of Laurel and work with mutual aid contracts with the County EMS to support each other, especially on the western half of the County. The other proposal, as Brad mentioned, is to bid to bring a full-time service into Laurel at the county taxpayers' expense, which would bring revenue into the General Fund and put a full-time service in Laurel. Doug asked how many first calls the Laurel Ambulance misses and another service has to be called out. Brent said it would average anywhere from 15 to 20 per month out of 80 calls. Doug questioned how many times there are calls for a second ambulance. Brent estimated it to be about 5 percent of the time each month. Doug said that would be 10 or 15 second calls per month. He questioned the financial status of the ambulance service. Brent said that the service is running positive, although an EMS service does not make money, thanks to Medicare and Medicaid. Heidi stated that the ambulance department is currently in the hole and there will be a discussion with the clerk/treasurer. Brent responded that he would talk to the clerk/treasurer, as this is the first he heard that it is running in the hole. Chuck asked regarding the availability of the ambulance service, as there was a period between 4:00 and 8:00 a.m. where there was no one available to respond to calls and AMR had to be called. Brent explained that it depends on the staffmg schedule, but he does not know about any certain time period. If no one is available to answer calls, it is because no one is available for staffing. Brad stressed that, if the process is going to go forward, the County needs an answer one way or the other by the end of March. It would be incredibly difficult to change midstream and to have to hit the reset button completely. Brad spoke to Chief Peter's idea of splitting EMS services. Theoretically, if Laurel had 100,000 people instead of 7,000 people, it could work. This program will not be cheap, but the more area that is not included will push the cost up for the rest of the County to provide the same number of ambulances. Brad stated that a mutual aid agreement to prop up EMS within the city limits of Laurel is not necessarily in the best interest of Yellowstone County because it is not apples 5 Council Workshop Minutes of February 28,2017 for apples. It would be a paid full-time service with fully trained folks to a volunteer service that would be available sometimes, so the mutual aid would be going one direction more than likely in order to cover those calls. The real answer for this is full inclusion or completely opting out. If the city decides to opt out, it would likely take the entire west side of the County with it in terms of cost because there is no opportunity to staff a second station on the west side of the County without the population base of Laurel. Brad knows that the ambulance is in the hole over here. As the individual who gets the phone calls at 2:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. when the ambulance cannot go out, he has to make the call for which out-of-county resources get called, such as Red Lodge or Columbus. Ambulances have come in from a long ways away because the residents have had very long response times. Not as long as we have had on the east side of the County, where there have been 2.5 hour response times. A couple months ago they were putting people in the back of the sheriffs deputies' cars to take them from one of the areas outside the city but still within the city fire district. EMS is in dire straits in Yellowstone County. In the last 20 years, call volume has tripled but the volunteer base has not. This will be a long process, as it will be 2019 before there is a true solution. Brad stated that now is the time for this body to debate in the next month and make a decision about inclusion or not. If there are questions, he is willing to return anytime to answer them, but it is decision time. • Ordinance No. 017-01: Subdivision Regulations (PH and 2"d reading on March 7, 2017) Heidi stated that the public hearing and second reading will be on March 7th. Monica Plecker, from CTA Architects, went through the substantial changes with the council two weeks ago. Noel is here to answer any questions tonight. Noel stated that the council has been presented with the changes made to the Subdivision Regulations already. The last update was in 2006. Monica and Noel noticed several things that needed updates due to legislation and specifically to be congruent with Yellowstone County as a whole. One big change is the traffic studies with major subdivisions. Since Laurel does not see 500 trips per day, notching the threshold down to major subdivisions will allow the community to access a little bit more of the offsite improvements and get the money from the developer. Tom asked a question regarding page 20, section F, Governing Body Action, in the Subdivision Regulations. Tom read the following: 2. Consistency with the adopted Growth Policy and Bike/Ped Plan; and 3. These Subdivision Regulations. 4. The governing body (City of Laurel) shall give due weight and consideration to the subdivider's expressed preferences. The governing body may not deny approval of a subdivision based solely on the subdivision's impacts on educational services, or based solely on compliance with the Growth Policy. Tom stated that another section says that the city has to adhere to the Growth Policy and the large lot design standards and applications for a Planned Neighborhood(PND). Noel stated that a lot of the subdivision regulations are already State law, as the Subdivision and Platting Act. Her understanding is that the Growth Policy has a lot to do with expansion in the city and future growth. It does not state that a subdivision could be denied if it meets all the standards set by State law. Monica can address this, but subdivisions are regulated by State law and, with the educational services and the Growth Policy, subdivisions cannot be denied on that. 6 Council Workshop Minutes of February 28,2017 Tom asked regarding the difference between a subdivision and a PND, Planned Neighborhood Development. Heidi explained that a Planned Neighborhood does not have to conform to all the required design standards. A PND could have curbed streets, have lots that are irregularly shaped, and be phased differently than an actual subdivision. It gives the developer more freedom than they would have within the set regulations. The developer takes the risk and understands what they are doing when they come with a PND rather than just a regular subdivision. Tom asked if the Planned Neighborhood Development (PND), which would be a development with city streets and public access, must be consistent with the Growth Policy and other plans would not be viable. Heidi explained that it would still need to be in an area that is considered for growth and still need to conform to the street standards. Instead of being on a grid, streets might go like a river, but it must still be built to the same standards of the road that was built on a grid. It will have the same requirements for the street,but the design standards may be different. Tom asked if subdivisions qualifying for expedited review could not be denied based solely on compliance or the Growth Policy. Heidi said that is correct. Noel said that one example for an expedited review was a subdivision that had an agricultural restriction on it already. They had to resurvey the same lot and take the agricultural restriction off, creating its own subdivision and its own parcel. That went to the County Commissioners for review. Heidi explained that the land designation was changed but the use would not change until it is actually platted with lots, so it does not need to be reviewed before the governing body. Tom stated that the subdivision is governed by MCA,but he does not know if the PND is governed by State statute. Heidi explained that it has different requirements. The PND is governed by some State statutes, but it is mostly for design and phasing. They have rules, but they are more flexible. Heidi wishes that Laurel would have a PND because they are neat subdivisions. Josephine Crossing is a perfect example of a Planned Unit Development where the homes face a common park area, the streets are not straight, and they are built in different phases with different types of use. There are larger lots, smaller single-family lots and multi-family lots on the outside. Tom thanked her for the clarifications. • Resolution- Transportation Coordination Plan Noel stated that the Transportation Coordination Plan is a requirement from the Montana Department of Transportation for the yearly operating grant. Quarterly TAC meetings are required by MDT, and a meeting was held in February. It is hard to get people to attend the TAC meetings. The transit system is working, but more can be done. One of the changes in the Transportation Coordination is to start a focus group in place of the TAC meetings in order to encourage more members of the public 7 Council Workshop Minutes of February 28,2017 and other transportation providers to attend. This would help the city get a sense of what the public wants and how to make the transit system more accommodating to the community. The transit system currently operates on a call basis. A new bus has been needed in the last couple years, but there are not enough riders to warrant a new bus. Noel hopes that the focus group will give more of a needs assessment to apply for a capital grant through MDT to secure a new bus for Laurel. The focus group can discuss ways to increase ridership. Noel applied for the city's Operating Grant through MDT today. Bruce asked how she would interest people in attending a focus group, since they are not attending TAC meetings. Noel plans to reach out to different transportation providers. Steve Woodard, who works for LIFTT (Living Independently For Today and Tomorrow),has attended the last two meetings and gave her the contact for the Miles City program, which now runs seven buses. Noel plans to schedule evening meetings and/or lunch meetings to see what works best, and hopes to include community members and some of the bus riders. She also plans to communicate with Tender Nest, MET Transportation and other entities to get a representative from each place. • Resolution- Revision to the LURA Large Grant Request Program and Application Heidi stated that this is the third year for LURA's Large Grant Program. Noel met with the small group this year and will present the changes or the 2017 grant cycle. Noel said there has been great success with the Large Grant Program in the three years. The first year there were four applications, and all applicants were awarded money. Applicants included Taco Bell, High Plains Brewery and Cornerstone Plumbing. There were nine applicants last year, and six of them were eligible. The program has seen more applicants and larger expense projects, specifically land acquisition type projects or an overhaul of a building. The small committee met and made some minor changes to the application itself specifically to help the applicant go through the application. The biggest item is changing the total amount of the grant from $75,000 to $100,000. This is an assistance program and is not meant to completely fund projects. Other LURA grants require a one- to-one match. For this grant, the small committee reviews and allocates the projects for the grant money each year. Last year's grant money was awarded on a percentage basis of the total amount and the total amount of the projects, which was 100 percent fair. Noel explained the changes in the Large Grant Request Program. Two changes made to the application review process last year include: F. Operational Businesses. Businesses must be open and operational prior to receiving any match funds. Applicants must also attend a LURA meeting before receiving any and all funds to update the Board on project status. G. Fiscal Year. Funds must be requested within the fiscal year, July Pt - June 30th, of award unless applicant requests an extension in writing from the LURA board that is approved, otherwise all grant award money is forfeited. Changes for this year include: H. Extension. An extension may only be applied for if the project awarded is more than 50% complete. A maximum of six months can only be granted in the event an extension is requested. 8 Council Workshop Minutes of February 28,2017 I. Re-applying applicants. Awarded applicants and/or projects must be complete prior to a subsequent application request. There was discussion regarding the application process, the number of recipients, the small committee's recommendation to LURA to increase the amount of the grant from $75,000 to $100,000, the one-to-one match requirement, the process by which the small committee submits recommendations for the grant to LURA and then LURA submits the final recommendation to the city council for approval via resolution, and the fact that the grant program is based on availability and cannot be overspent. There was further discussion regarding the remaining timeframe for the LURA District. Heidi stated that there are a couple years left. She is currently working with MDT on the suggested bondable project in the Gateway Plan, which is the roundabout on East/West Railroad and First Avenue. A meeting is needed to figure out how to configure that intersection in order to move the bond forward in the time to extend the sunset of the TIF District. Further information will be provided to the city council when it is available. J. Council Issues: a. Discussion regarding combining Tree Board, Cemetery Commission and Park Board (Mayor Mace) Heidi stated that the city attorney is still looking for guidance from the council. Doug stated that the Cemetery Commission, Tree Board and Park Board need to make a decision and recommendation. Tom stated that they are engaged in talks and will probably be engaged in the process for the better part of this year to make sure everything is reviewed and considered, as it is a big decision to make a change like that. Doug stated that the item will be moved to future meetings until it come back with a recommendation. b. Update on 2011 Yellowstone River flooding event Heidi stated that installation of the pipe is going great. Unfortunately, the river has not broken so there is still an ice jam at the intake site. The contractor needs/needed five weeks of good weather to get this done. That deadline is rapidly approaching and the window of five weeks is rapidly closing. Heidi has not seen an extension request from the contractor at this point. Today's construction meeting was cancelled, so they will meet next Tuesday. This has been a true Montana winter, which has made the construction of the intake very difficult. The city has to be cognizant of runoff and make sure it is not in violation of any permits with the permitting agencies. Other items • Resolution- Contract with for the Riverside Park Master Plan Heidi spoke regarding the contract for a Riverside Park Master Plan. Sue Taylor, with Beartooth RC&D, spoke to the council recently about applying for a Big Sky Trust Fund grant for a master plan. The city received the grant and needs to enter into a contract to move this project forward. The city attorney and Great West Engineering are reviewing the contract, which will be finalized by next Tuesday. 9 Council Workshop Minutes of February 28,2017 Sue Taylor spoke regarding the contract. An issue under the compensation section and payment exhibit will be worked out Great West and Beartooth RC&D. Basically, it is a mechanism of how Great West will get paid and how Beartooth RC&D will track it. Her biggest concern with the compensation section is to make sure they are getting the invoices in the proper way from Great West so they are tracking a percent complete, or the number of hours against a goal. Sue spoke about the Scope of Services with the estimated dollars attached. The total amount of the grant is $50,000. There was discussion regarding the Park Board's involvement in the development of the master plan, the need to complete the master plan prior to the award of the Exxon money to Yellowstone County, and the possibility that the City of Laurel will receive some of the Exxon money for projects in Riverside Park. Chuck requested that Sue and Heidi attend the Park Board meetings on March 2'" and April 6th to present information and answer questions regarding the grant and the Park Board's involvement. Sue will plan to attend the Park Board meetings. There was further discussion that the completion of the Riverside Park Master Plan would allow the city to use any Exxon funds for shovel-ready projects instead of a master plan. The council will be notified when a kick-off meeting is scheduled. Doug asked if there were any other items. Chuck stated that the Park Board recently discussed reviewing and approving their previous month's minutes and combining the Park and Tree Boards and the Cemetery Commission. Chuck mentioned that the Rifle Club put out a newsletter to its members. At the bottom of the newsletter, there was a paragraph from Curt Lord, who is a member of the Rifle Club. It was a finger pointing situation regarding the leases for the different entities in Riverside Park and that they were told when and how they would be handled. Chuck requested discussion at the Park Board meeting in April when Heidi could attend the meeting. Heidi said she was disappointed in that paragraph since she has mentioned numerous times that the city attorney is handling the leases down there. Her frustration is insurmountable at this point because that was directed at her unnecessarily. Heidi will tell the city attorney that Chuck requested him to attend the April Park Board meeting because he should have taken care of this. Heidi stated that Mayor Mace turned the leases back over to the Park Board a while ago, so the board could have negotiated with the buildings down there. She is going to ask that the city attorney attends that meeting because this is pointing the finger in the wrong direction. Chuck stated that it would be fantastic for the Park Board to get some direction. Sue Taylor stated that the LARQ group recently gave a presentation to the council about a grant for a feasibility study. The grant will be submitted tomorrow and they would like the council to consider providing a letter of support. There is still no money attached to that. It is simply a statement that the council is supportive of learning what types of facilities would be most appropriate for Laurel. Sue asked that it be a possibility for action at a meeting soon. 10 Council Workshop Minutes of February 28,2017 Review of draft council agenda for March 7, 2017 • Public Hearing: o Ordinance No. 017-01: An ordinance amending Chapter 16 of the Laurel Municipal Code to update the City's Subdivision Regulations. Second reading. The public hearing is for the subdivision regulations. • Ceremonial Calendar: o Certificate of Recognition - Hannah Halvorson, Finalist in Montana's Top Youth Volunteers of 2017 Attendance at the March 7, 2017 council meeting Rick will not be able to attend. Announcements There were none. The council workshop adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 6,;-? 6/3 Cindy Allen Council Secretary NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of the Council for the listed workshop agenda items. 11 YO�gTONpcpG �, CoUn �T s TO 11)‘ 1 EMERGENCY& GENERAL SERVICES 4�`= �=. P.O. Box 35004 (406) 256-2775 Mp ANP Billings, MT 59107-5004 Fax (406) 256-6947 March 1, 2017 Chief John Staley Lockwood Fire Department 501 Johnson Lane Billings, MT 59101 Lockwood Fire Department: Yellowstone County Department of Emergency Services,working in cooperation with Yellowstone County volunteer fire and volunteer ambulance services, is beginning the process to contemplate,with voter approval,Advanced Life Support (ALS/ Paramedic) emergency medical transportation and medical treatment services across select rural areas of Yellowstone County. Initial boundaries have been proposed through the rural fire services and volunteer ambulance services consisting of areas currently without reliable ALS medical treatment and transportation services.These areas are currently being vetted with neighboring jurisdictions, including your local jurisdiction. The proposed new service area includes locations currently in Yellowstone County, excluding the City of Billings, Billings Urban Fire Service Area, Lockwood Fire District#8, and areas within the Crow Reservation.The proposed service area and areas excluded are shown on the attached map. The proposed service area would provide 24/7 staffed emergency medical transportation and medical treatment services at the advanced life support(ALS/Paramedic) level to residences and businesses.These areas are currently serviced by volunteers or lack emergency medical treatment and transport. Individuals living or visiting these areas are not currently guaranteed to receive any emergency medical transportation. Recently the volunteer services have experienced difficulty in responding to the call volume in the areas as a significant increase in call volume over the last 20-years and decrease in volunteers available have strained the service. Looking to the future, a paid service, as proposed, is the only way to ensure the availability of these emergency medical services. If your jurisdiction has comments regarding your inclusion or exclusion from the proposed Special District's service area please send them to Brad Shoemaker, Director of Yellowstone County Department of Emergency Services at PO Box 35004, Billings MT 59107 or e-mail them to bshoemaker@co.vellowstone.mt.gov. Comments are due back by April 1, 2017. Sincerely, Bradley Shoemaker Emergency Services Director,Yellowstone County 044gt OWE"I-a`- ,�I t PROPOSED RURAL AMBULANCE SPECIAL DISTRICT ;`MIN YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, MT OWTANP WITH AMBULANCE STATIONS LOCATED AT: • Intersection of Shepherd Rd & Highway 312, Shepherd • `j•1 • 215 W 1ST ST S (Safety Complex), Laurel i LI • Excludes the City of Billings, Billings Urban1• •� �• i Fire Service Area (BUFSA), Lockwood Fire 'i� . District and Crow Reservation r) 1.., • I I 1eo, 1 • Fq I f ,,< .-1 yw •' 1 qn { 1 ,• c I Broadview i Mltf flet RD 1 Ski 47 l I 1 1 1 i 1 Pompeys L1 C3 worden Pillar • • 3Ai1ARO ME Re 5}IMIERp AtCy_T Rm D Shepherd Bal *bse I Acton -- = — u Q ^`.. - — . • .11 1 J,i ,o • 1GU 4, X11.44 '..A. ` 1 'p Leg '� 1 1 .`--- .,,s,!!0 1P 1 7 rq 1 I `.'' j Proposed Ambulance Special District I i. 7. i Excluded from Ambulance Special District �RANn Q Billings = �) Proposed Ambulance location 1• °",avew IIJ I Interstate 1 1, ' , i,,, I <, I I' .I I US/State Hwy • 1 1i State Secondary, Principal arterial — Laurel • ,,..--4,,==., %s7 1 ( o i Minor arterial,collector L• u• 1 Local street li ii• Driveway,undeveloped trail s a 1 j 0..■ County boundary 1•—. - I Yellowstone River 1 i N 1—•—•—._•—•—•—• 0 5 10 15 20 M1e, 11.111111111111 INIIIIIIIIIII W--.....-���>-E Map produced by Yellowstone County GIS Dept based on . ��,I data available February 14th.2017.Accuracy and completeness ,VS of data is not guaranteed. S File:M:\emergency\ProposedEMSservice\ProposedEMS_small.mxd LAUREL FIRE DEPARTMENT 215 WEST 1 ST STREET • LAUREL, MT • 59044 OFFICE 406.628.4911 • FAX 406.628.2185 Yellowstone County EMS presentation Brad Shoemaker YC DES Pros • 24/ 7 coverage • Advance Life Support service(ALS) (Paramedics) • Reduces the spending out of the General Fund. • Could bring revenue into the General Fund with rental of storage area. • Could utilize current Laurel EMS staffing. Cons • Only one ambulance to oover the western hatforf;'''.' one to cover the eastern ossr. • ,2„-„,...one we run the of 14.111P 4 else am wriang a delayed response if is ' - in • There are times where multiple osis are •20, 044one-brae. • Not sure what the mutual aid agreements will be or with who. I support having a county EMS in Laurel under certain conditions. • We reduce the Laurel EMS area to just the City limits. • Maintain an EMS service in Laurel. • Yellowstone County EMS will have everything outside the city limits. • Laurel EMS and Yellowstone County EMS will be mutual aid partners by contract, • Laurel could provide backup outside the city limits in the event that County EMS is unavailable. • Yellowstone County EMS will provide backup inside the city limits if Laurel EMS is unavailable. The intent is to have continuous EMS staffing to support the residents of Laurel and surrounding areas. To reduce response and transport times. Provide an ALS service to better meet the needs of the residents. Brent S.Peters FIRE CHIEF,LAUREL FIRE/EMS