Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors and emergency services debate part‑time firefighters and cross‑training of EMS staff
Summary
Board members and public‑safety leaders discussed adding part‑time firefighting positions, cross‑training EMS staff to assist with fire response, equipment and pay-tier costs, and operational risks such as tied‑up EMS units and carcinogen exposure during structural firefighting.
Fluvanna County supervisors and public‑safety leaders spent a significant portion of their meeting discussing approaches to close daytime coverage gaps for fire response, including hiring part‑time firefighters and cross‑training ambulance personnel to support fire calls.
Assistant Chief (self‑identified at the meeting) urged that part‑time positions would help supplement daytime coverage and that local volunteer and paid staffing patterns mean "we're gonna have issues sooner or later in the daytime" if no supplementation occurs. The assistant chief asked the board to consider funding the agreed‑to part‑time positions so daytime response capacity can be increased.
The county’s emergency‑services director, introduced by a board member as the director, said his unit currently has 24 staff on the per‑time roster, with 14 of those cross‑trained in fire. The director noted operational constraints: if an EMS unit is committed to a structure fire (especially interior operations), it is effectively unavailable for other emergency medical calls until released by command, creating potential countywide vulnerability.
Board members and staff flagged legal and policy questions before adopting a hybrid model. County staff said adopting a cross‑servicing model would likely require ordinance or policy changes, pay‑scale tiers for various certifications, and one‑time start‑up costs (turnout gear, air packs, water cans). "There would be some ongoing cost to compensate individuals for doing that," the county staff member said, and added that some jurisdictions do use EMS personnel to supplement fire response but a local legal review would be required.
Operational concerns included contamination and recovery for EMS personnel who enter structure fires (exposure to carcinogens, need for decontamination) and the risk of tying up multiple units on a fire scene. Supervisors asked staff to research other localities’ models (Culpeper County was cited as an example) and recommended a legal and operational review over the next several months so the board could prepare a proposal for the next fiscal year.
What’s next: staff and the director will research policy, ordinance and pay‑scale options and report back; the board suggested treating this as a multi‑month project that could yield a proposal before the next budget year.
