HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/1990 AGENDA
City of Bakersfield-County of Kern
Intergovernmental l~elacions Committee Meefng
Wednesday, September 19, 1990
' I. Introductions/Groundrules - Mary lc Shell
II. Castro Lane Sewers - Mary tC Shell
III. Congestion Management Program - Geary Taylor
IV. Metropolitan Bakersfield Park/Recreation Services - Geary Taylor/Lee Anderson
V. Booking Fees - Dale Hawley
VI. Ambulance Ordinance - Mark lc Shell
VII. Other Member Items
VIII. Next Meeting Date
BAKERSFIELD
1990
September 10, 1990
Honorable Pauline Larwood, Chair
Kern County Board of Supervisors
1415 Truxtun Avenue -.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Ms. Larwood:
On behalf of the Bakersfield City Council, enclosed is a copy of City of
Bakersfield Budget and Finance Committee Report No. 13-90, regarding the
Implementation of Property Tax Administration Charge and Jail Booking
Charge by Kern County. The City Council approved the acceptance of the
Report and the implementation of its recommendations at its. September 5,
1990 meeting.
With regard to these new, additional fees, the Council implemented the
fol 1 owl ng recommendati ons:
1. The City not pay retroactively for booking charges prior
to the date the City was notified by the County of such
charges on September 5, 1990; and
2. The City should pursue legislation through our state
legislators, which would require the recovery of the
costs for booking criminals from the criminals
themselves; and
3. City staff review current booking practices in order to
_. address ways to reduce this additional cost which has
been shifted from the County to the City; and
4. The matter of these charges and the manner in which they
are calculated be referred to the combined City/County
Intergovernmental Relations Committee for review.
We look forward to discussing this matter with you at the 'City/County
Intergovernmental Relations Committee meeting of September 19, 1990.
Sincerely,
~J. Dale Hawley~ City Manager
JDH. al b
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Geary Taylor
City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield · California · 93301
(805) 326-3751 · Fax (805) 323-3780
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 13-90
September 5, 1990
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION cHARGE AND JAIL BOOKING
CHARGE BY KERN COUNTY
The City Council requested that the Budget and Finance Committee be kept
updated on impacts to the City budget resulting from the recent State budget
crisis. Recent events have occurred which were brought to the ,Committee by staff
involving actions taken by both the State and County which .will dramatically
impact the City's budget and level of service.
On Tuesday, September 4, 1990, the Kern County Board of Supervisors voted
to implement a jail booking charge to non-County agencies {except CHP} for jail
bookings occurring since July 1, 1990. In addition, they are preparing to
implement a property tax administration charge on cities which was passed by.the
State-'legislature as part of Senate Bill 2??5 {Maddy}. The Board deferred
charging school districts and special districts the property tax administration
fee until Fiscal Year 1991-92.
The impact on the City .of Bakersfield budget is estimated by the County
Administrative Officer to be $357,000 annually for the property tax
administration charge.and $1,200,000 annually for the jail booking charge.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COIV~MITTEE
REPORT NO. 13-90
September 5, lggo
Page -2-
The Committee has reviewed these new additional fe~s with staff and
recommends the following:
First, that the City not pay retroactively for booking charges prior to
the date the City was notified by the County of such charges on September
5, 1990; secondly;
that the City should pursue legislation through our state legislators,
which would require the recovery of the costs for book.ing criminals from
the criminals themselves; and third;
that staff review current booking practices in order to address ways to
reduce this additional cost which has been shifted from the County to the
City; and finally;
that the matter of these charges and the manner in which they are
calculated be referred to the combined City/County Intergovernmental
Relations Committee for review.
We request that the' Council accept this report and implement its
recon~nendati OhS.
Respe~ctful ly submitted,
¢oun~i.'lmember Ke~i~r McDermott, Chair
~Co~cq lmem~er· Patti cia DeMond
.alb
SUMMARY OF JAIL BOOKING PRACTICES BY
CITIES IN KERN COUNTY
A. CITIES OPERATING THEIR OWN JAIL OR BOOKING FACILITIES
1. CITY OF ARVIN
o Operates city jarl (capacity for 18 prisons; can hold for 48 hours
excluding weekends and holidays).
o Books nearly all city prisoners in city-operated jail.
o Very rarely books prisoners imo County Jail
2. CITY OF DELANO
o Operates city jail (capacity for 10 prisoners plus drunk tank).
o City Jail can hold prisoners for up to 72 hours.
o City charges other agencies a $40 booking fee.
o City has been booking prisoners into County Jail in order to avoid
the need to guard prisoners in court during arraignment
(approximately 60 bookings per month into County Jail).
o Because of the city booking fee, no other agencies (including
Sheriffs Depa~uuent) use the Delano Jail
3. CITY OF TAFT
o Opemt~ own city jail.
o BOoks most prisoners into city-operated jail
o City jail is sometimes used by the She~ff's Department to hold
County prisoners.
o Taft Jail is used to book prisoners arrested in Maricopa.
4. C1TY OF SHAFI~R
o Operates prisoner holdin~ facility (24 hour holding limit).
o City books most prisoners into their own holding facility pending
arraignment
o · City books approximately 10 prisoners per month in County Jail.
o City is now exploring change in classification of holding facility to
extend holding period until prisoners are arraigned.
~ o City does not intend to change arrest policy.
B. CITIES WHICH ALREADY PAY FOR COUNTY ,JAil, SERVICES.
1. CITY OF RIDGECREST
o City shares in the cost of operaring the County Jarl in Ridgeerest
through agreement with the County.
o City pays County $81,000 per year for booking and custody of city
prisoners (approximately 700 bookings per year),
o City also has holding cells at City Police Station.
C. CITIES WHICH USE JAILS OF OTI~R CITIES
1. . CITY OF MARICOPA
o Contracts for police services with City of Taft.
o City does not book prisoners into County Jail
o Persons arrested in City of Marieopa are booked into City of Taft's
jarl by Taft Police Depam-ent.
D. ~CITIES WHICH CONTRACT WITH SH1;'RIFF FOR POLICE SERVICES
1. ClT~ OF TEHACHAPI
o Contracts with Kern County Sheriff's Department for police services
(no city jarl or holding facility).
o Contracts may be canceled by either party with 6 months written
notice.
o Applicability of new booking fees to contract dries to be reviewed by
County Counsel
2. CITY OF WASCO
o Contracts with Kern County Sheriffs Department for police services
(no city jarl or holding facility).
~' o Contracts may be canceled by either party with 6 months written
notice.
~ o Applicability of new booking fees to contract cities to be reviewed by
County Counsel.
E. CITIES WHICH BOOK ALL PRISONERS INTO COUNTY JAILS
1. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD _
o No city jarl; No prisoner holding facility.
o Books all city prisoners into County Jarl in Bakersfield.
2, CITY OF MeFARLAND
o No city jarl; no prisoner holding facility.
o Book all prisoners into County Jarl in Bakersfield.
o Number of bookings estimated at 40 to 50 per month (480 to 600
annually).
o Formerly booked prisoners into Delano City Jail, until Delano
imposed jail booking fee of $40.
3. CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
o No city jarl; no prisoner holding facility.
o Books-about 8 prisoners per month into County Jail in Moiave.
SUMMARY OF "JAIL BOOKING FEE' LAW
ORIGIN: Senate Bill 2557 (Maddy) was enacted on July 31, 1990, as one of several companiOn
bills implementing the FY 1990-91 State Budget~ This State legislation provides new authority to
California counties to recover fi.om other agencies the actual cost of property tax administration and
jarl booking services,
EFFECTIVE DATE: SB 2557 was not enacted as an urgency statute, and therefore does not beeome
effective until January 1, 1991.
PURPOSE: Tke purpose of SB 2557 was to allow California counties to partially replace losses in
State :bventions resulting fi.om major cuts in the FY 1990-91 State Budget through new fee
revenue. The basic premise of this new law was to share the burden of State budget cuts among
all levels of local government, (State funding loss to all California counties: $781 million; State
funding loss to County of Kern: $11,7 trillion).
MAJOR PROVISIONS RE: BOOKING FEE
· ADows all counties to charge a fee to recover the actual cost of '"oooking and
processing" prisoners arrested by non-county agencies (excluding California Highway
Patrol), including overhead costs,
· Specifically allows booking fee to be charged for bookings occurring after July 1,
1990.
· Does not specifically exclude any types of arrests from the booking fee (excludable
arrests may be determined by each county),
ACTIONS TAKEN BY KERN COUNTY TO DATE
Board of Supetwisors acted on September 4, 1990, to approve concept of charging
the jarl booking fee for bookings occurring since July 1, 1990.
° Board has referred matter to Sheriff, GAO, and County Counsel to develop fee
amount and implementation procedures.
ITEMS OF CLARIFIGATION
· BoOking fee amount for Kern County has NOT yet been determined. (Inaccurate
reports have mistakenly indicated that the fee has been set at $80 per booking,
which was a very rough estimate of costs provided by Sheriffs Department without
cost analysis).
· Booking fee amount will NOT be set until Statewide guidelines have been
developed. Guidelines will specify uniform methodology for determining chargeable
cOSts.
· Types of arrests which may be excluded from the booking fee have NOT yet been
determined.
· No city or any other agency will be charged or required to pay the booking fee until
after January 1, 1991.
SJ:dr~jbfsum
09/1,1/90 Pa~e 3
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
S£C/[2N .. Article 12 (commencit:.% will] Section 29550) is ad,:'.ed .'.o
Chap~': 2 u'.' Dlvis:.oa 3 of Tit!~ 3 of
Au:ic[~ 12. Criminal Justice Administrative
29550. ~(o~withs~.,-'~nd[ng dny o~heF provision of 'aw. a COUllt¥ may
impose a fee upon a C:iy. special district, schoo' dls~rict community
expenses incurred w~th respect ~o the booking
;..~:'~(~ns a:':'-~:.~[ by an ~mpiuyee ,~ that city, :~p~c[ai district, school
nlst:'.i,:r, community college district, coiiege, or university, where
the arrest, ed per~,ons ar, brough~ ~o the county ~aJ' fou booking or
detenti,-,n. The fee ~:upr, sed by a county pursuant to this section shali
hoc ~xce,,i the ~xcr;:a' a~jmin:.strative costs, including applicable .
overhead costs as pe"mitted by federa~ Circular 1-87 standards.
incurred in booking or o[,,er~Jse puocessing arrested persons I county
may submit an invoice to a c'ty. special district, school district.
uommunLc7 .:',~'[~g,-, .'iLs~r(c'r.. ,:ul'ege. or university for these expenses
.=~ ~e Julv ~. 1990.
incurred by the county on and ~ :'
SEC. 2. 5ecti,_m v~200 of the Government Code is amended to read:
77200. (~) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c) with
respect to ne~ly cre;~ted judgeships, the Controller shall transmit
each opt'on c~unty quarteuiy payments on the block grant owing to that
county based upon the number of judges, court commissioners, and
referees in -.he county, as determined pursuant to Section 77202.
:n~itlpiied e~ch ,luarter by the foilo~ing amounts:
39~-9i fiscal year, the sum of forty-four thousand
~ l) Yor-.the ic
nine hundred forty-four dollars (844.944).
(2) For the '991-92 fiscal year and each fiscal year the~eaftes,
the sum of fifty thousand five hundred sixty-two dollars [$~0,~62], as
adjusted pursuant to Section 77201.
lb) With respect to judseships authorl'zed by Chapter 1211 of the
Statutes of 1987, for any new jud~eshiR in excess of 10 new judgeships
for a particula~ option county, if the ,~ounty's average quarterly
appropriation fo~ court o~erations for the !987-88 fiscal year.
determined by the Controller. divided by the number of judges,
referees, and court commissioners determined pursuant to Section 7T202
for that year tlm base year quarterly 'cost per judge), exceeds the
agpiicable sum sgecified in subdivision (a; as adjusted pursuant to
Section 77~01 (the base year quarterly block grant), instead of the
quarterly multipliec determined 9ursuant to subdivision (a), the
quarterly multiplier for each such new judgeship shall be:
(1) For the first four quarters followin~ the creation of that
judseship, the base year quarterly cost per judge.
(2) For the second four quarters thereafter, the apglicable sum
GEARY TAYLOR scott Jo~s
D~rec:or ot Bud, get 4,
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
JO[L HEINRICH$
MARY WEDDE!!' D'recror ol P:,c', Ana~,s,s
Asmstam County Adr~tnlsttatlve Officer &: [nb~?:~o~t, rnm~4a~
ROBERT 5E~,'ER5
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
Aug,.mt 29, 1.990
TO: All Cities, School Districts, and Special Districts in Kern County
COUNTY FEE AUTHORITY
You are undoubtecLly aware that the recently enacted FY 1990-91 budget for the State of Cailfomia
will have an adverse Lmpact on most local government agencies. Statewide reductions in programs
operated by CalLfomJa counties total $781.5 million, includ~g $227.7 million in budget cuts made
by the Governor through 1:is Line-item veto authority. Funding reductions for programs operated
by the County of-Kern total more than $11 milliom The ciJ~roporfionate reductions in State
ftmdJng for County government programs have been rationalized on the basis of the new fee
authority granted to counties by SB 2557 (Maddy).
SB 2557, enacted into law concurrent with the State Budget, ~ dl California counties to
charge incorporated cities for their sha~e of property tax administration costs beginn~g with FY
1990-91, and makes it optional for counties to charge school cListricts and spec. iai districts for their
proportionate share of property tax administration costs. In addition, SB 2557 peri,ts all councies
to charge non-county agencies (except CHP) for the County Jail costs related to' bootd.ng and
processL~g prisoners m'tested by those other agencies. This new jarl boolcL~g fee would be
applicable to all jail boolciztg ocmzn'ing after July 1, 1990, ff established by the Board of Supervisors.
The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider the issue of the new fee authority prescribed by
SB 2557 on Tuesday, SeDtembez 4, 1990 (afternoon Board session, Room 708, County Admire and
Courts Bldg.). The recommeadations of the County Admin~trative Office regazding the new County
fee authority ate .~'pinir~ed in the attached report.
Anachment "F' to tttis report provides a prelim/nary estimate of the property tax administrative
chazge applicable w each city, as well as the estimated charge which would apply if the charge to
school districts and spe~.inl districts were to be made effective this fiscal year.
. 1415 Truxtun Avenue, Room ~704 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (8051 ~b[ ~ i-'
This office will advise all a/fected agencies as soon as a final decision is made with respect to
implementation of the new County fee authority.
Sincerely,
GT:SJ:dr\cfa.l~
Attachment
cc: Members, Board of Supervisors
September 19, 1990
COUNTY OF KERN
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PROPOSED AMBULANCE ORDINANCE
PUBLIC MEDICAL NEEDS SUMMARY
DISCUSSION PAPER
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems, commonly referred to
as the "third public emergency service" under well established
public law enforcement and fire protection service, has experienced
massive technological growth over the last decade. In 1983,
realizing the priority public need for organized and competent
prehospital medical systems, the State of California adop'ted
revisions to the Health and Safety Code legislation which
established local EMS agencies and mandated local EMS system
devel, opment according to technological advances from the State,
medical system control ahd quality assurance parameters (both
medical and operational) through the EMS agency and the EMS system
Medical Director for protection of the public (Enclosure 1).
This legislative action, prompted by public need throughout
the State, resulted in the creation of the local EMS Department.
The EMS Department Director, Medical Director and administrative
staff, along with all other EMS administrations throughout the
State were directed by Health and Safety Code mandate and
subsequent legislation to develop, direct and provide medical
control of the EMS system according to State guidelines (Enclosure
2). The guidelines defined minimum standards and recommended goals
for system development within the eight EMS components.
The legislative action placed the responsibility and legal
obligation onto the local EMS Department to protect the public
health and safety, prevent unnecessary loss o~f life and disability
within all of its jurisdiction, necessitating the EMS Department to
be equally responsive to the needs of city and non-city public.
!
Our local EMS ~ystem has ~volved significantly with
technological medical ~dvances and State ~andates administering
public emergency medical services that the public expects in time
of need. The local EMS system development and administration to
protect the public however is at a crossroads in evolution.
Envision yourself, a family member, friend or any citizen
experiencing a sudden need for emergency medical services;
suffering from a critical life threatening emergency--such as a
heart attack, stroke, trauma, or any other of the multitude of
emergency medical conditions experienced in the field which warrant
prompt, efficient EMS response, competent prehospital basic llfe
support and advanced life support emergency medical treatment and
appropriate transport to a medical facility capable of providing
medical dare according to patient medical needs. These are the
basic mechanics of the EMS system and the public expectation in
time of need. Each facet being complex and different from each
other, each facet undergoing rapid technological development, each
facet requiring organization, direction, medical control and pro-
active, ongoing and reactive quality assurance at the
responsibility and 19gal obligation of the EMS Department Medical
Director and administration. If any one of the facets fail, loss
of life and disability hangs in the balance, oftentimes causing an
explosion of public controversy which could have been avoided.
The proposed ambulance ordinance literally ties these facets
together and would enable the EMS Department Medical Director and
administration to meet responsibilities and legal obligations for
~h~ ~ of city ~n~ county public health ~nd safety. The
proposed ordinance would cause a significant transition from a
"level of effort" type EMS system into a "performance based"
system. In the level of effort system, service is provided on a
best effort basis and as long as no one complains, it is presumed
there is no problem. In the performance based system, performance
standards are set based on medical considerations and generally
2
accepted standards of care. The providers are then required to
meet those standards. The differences are major and they are
critical to the reduction of mortality and morbidity. Quite
simply, an ordinance provides the'tools.
As public servants we. have a common obligation and duty for
public protection. The EMS Department, being equally responsive to
city and county public and public official emergency medical·
services needs, has developed the proposed ambulance ordinance to
ensure efficien~ and competent medical emergency care is provided
on a pro-active public performance basis. The EMS Department is
responsible for the county-wide system and the ordinance bridges
that "crossroads gap" in the evolution of the system so as to
provide the best possible prehospital patient care for the public.
FD:RB:srs:ORDINANC:MEDNEED.SUM
Enclosures:
1. California Health and Safety Code (Sections 1797.220 and
1797.222)
2. EMS Authority State Guidelines Extract (System Organization
and Management/Transportation)
3. ~-California Health and Safety Code (Chapter 1 - General
Provisions; e.g. Legislative Intent Section 1797.2)
4. California Health and Safety Code (Chapter 4 - Local
Administration)
~:HE~LTH XI~D SMrETY COD~
~-1, ~ ~o~ w~ ~ .... ~. ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~m~cy ~ ~m~n.
17~21L Adv~ ~e sup~fl ~ uffilzinf ~I
m~~ . . . whflem~eme~e~ ~ .
1 ~u~ ~ h~pl~ ~n~.~ __ ~. · ene~l ~ ~ h~p~
1~97~0. M~i~ ~n~l of EMS sy~m ,
~e e~ of ~ p~pl~t eme~e~~..f,~ e~e~e~ m~
...... · · u~men~ ~o~-~
' - ~nt p~ w~ ~ ~- o~.~. ~clud~ by ~e su~o~ ~m
(Ad~ by~.lg~, ~ ~, [ 1, eft. Ju~ 8, 19~,)
' ~ 17~ patient ~ o~ , .'
A~ ,u~n~~ -- · Id
~ .... ~m~e~
~ · m 8 ~ for ~
~e~ w~n ~e ~mn~ m~ ~ . . .:
~om~ Highway Pa~l ~m s role ~ pm~g eme~e~
AddlU~ ~ ~ I~ ~t~ by ~
ENCLOS ONE
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
C.~O, CA 95814
ENCLOSURE TWO
ST,~TE Of CALIFORNIA GE'ORG~ DEUK/AF..JIAN. Go~,emo~'
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AUTHORITY ~
1600 9TH STREET
sxc~.x~o, c^ 9sm~4
July 30, 1984
TO: American College of Emergency Physicians, California Chapter
American College of Surgeons, California Chapter
California Ambulance Association
California Community Col leges
California Conference of Local Health Officers
California Fire Chiefs Association
California Highway Patrol
California Hospital Association
California Medical Association
California Peace Officers Association
California Rescue and Paramedic Association
California State Fl remen's Association
Commission on Emergency Medical Services
County and Regional Emergency Medical Services Administrators
County and Regional EMS Medical Directors .
Emergency Department Nurses Association, California Chapter
Federated Fire Fighters of California
Northern Calif'ornia EMS Administrator'S Association
Southern California EMS Administrator's Council,
State Fire Marshal
State Department of Forestry
Other lnterestea Parties
FROM: Kenneth W. Kizer, M.D., M.P.H. ~
Di rector
SUBJECT: EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SYSTEMS STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
Please"find attached Part I., General Standards and Guidelines., of the state
Emergency Medical Services System Standards and Guidelines.
This document was approved by the State Commission on Emergency Medical Services
on July 24, 1984.
KWK/llj
Enclosure
B. Basic Life Suppo?%
1. SYSTEM ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
MINIMUM STANDARDS RECOMMENDED GOALS
1.1 Each county board of supervisors
choosing to have an EMS program
shall designate a local EMS agency.
1.2 Each local EMS agency should have a
formal organizational structure.
1.3 Each local EMS agency should plan,
imp'lement and evaluate the system
with input from the county Emergency
Medical Care Committee, health
planning agencies, and EMS
providers.
1.4 Each local EMS agency should develop Each local EMS agency should develop
a general inventory of EMS a detailed inventory of EMS
resources within its area and resources within its area and
analyze resource coordination within periodically update this inventory.
their system.
1.5 Each local EMS agency shall Each local EMS agency should have on
designate a physician as ~dical its staff a physician medical
director, director knowledgeable in emergency
medicine and EMS systems.
1.6 Each local EMS agency shall monitor
and approve EMS personnel training
programs within its area of
jurisdiction.
-31-
MINIMUM SIANDARD~ RECOMMENDED GOALS
1.7 Each local EMS agency shall develop
systemwide policies and procedures
with regard to training and
testing.
1.8 Each local EMS agency should provide Each local EMS agency should be
for review and monitoring of field given the authority to coordinate
field operations,
operations,
1,9 Each local EMS agency shall develop Each local EMS agency should develop
a computerized data management
a data management system.
system.
1.10 Each local EMS agency should Each local EtaS agency should have a
identify potential funding sources funding mechanism which ensures
for the system, continued system operation,
1.11 Each local EMS agency should develop Each local EMS agency should develop
and implement guidelines for written policies and procedures for
prehospital triage, treatment, prehospital triage, treatment,
transport and transfer of emergency transport and transfer of emergency
patients, patients,
1.12 Each local EMS agency should
identify population groups with
special problems (e.g., language)
and address their needs in order to
facilitate equitable access to
emergency medical care,
4, TRANSPORTATION
MINIMUM STANDARDS RECOMMENDED. GOALS
4.1 The local EMS agency should. The local EMS agency should secure a
determine the parameters of county ordinance or similar
emergency medical transport mechanism for establishing emergency
service areas (e.g., ambulance medical transport.service areas
response zones). (e.g., ambulance response zones)..
4.2 Nonemergency transportation by
emergency medical transport vehicles
should be provided only when such
does not adversely impact the
availability of emergency services.
4.3 The emergency medical transport The emergency medical transport
service area (response,zone) covered service 'area (response zone) covered
by an ALS/LALS vehicle should be by an ALS/LALS vehicle should be
designated so that: designated so that:
a. The following maximum response a. The following maximum response
times are not exceeded: times are not exceeded:
Metropolitan/Urban: 10 min Metropolitan/Urban: 5 min
-- Rural: 30 min Rural: 20 min
Remote/Wilderness: 60 min Remote/Wilderness: 45 min
b. The ovecall prehospital time b. The overall prehospital time
does not exceed: does not exceed:
Metropolitan/Urban: 40 min Metropolitan/Urban: 30 min
Rural: 80 min Rural: ~60 min
Remote/Wilderness: 100 min Remote/Wilderness: 90 min
-57-
MINIMUM STANDARDS RECOMMENDED GOALS
Local EMS agencies developing
specialty care plans for
EMS-targeted clinical conditions
should calculate response zones
which are appropriate for the
specific condition involved and the '~
facilities designated.
All emergency medical transpor~ All emergency ambulances should be
vehicles should be staffed with at staffed wi~h at least one person
least EMT-I A personnel and equipped trained in ALS or L~LS, along with
according to current California the appropriate equipment for their
regulations, scope of practice.
The local EMS agency should approve The local EMS agency should secure
qualified agencies to provide EMS written response agreements with
first responders within the system, designated EMS first responder
agencies.
&,? The maximum interval of time between The maximum interval of time between
t~e receip% of a dispatch call by receipt of a dispatch call by the
tile EMS dispatched reSponder to the EMS dispatched responder to :he
ac%ivation of their personnel should activation of their personnel should
b~ no more' than two (2) minutes, be no more than one (1) minute.
~.8 All emergency medical transport
vehicles sha!l Carry all equipment
required of BLS service vehicles,
plus any equipment required for
EMT-IJ and/or EMT-P vehicles when
operating as such,
-58-
MINIMUM STANDARDS RECOMMENDED GOALS
4.9 The local EMS agency should
determine the availability of
helicqpters for emergency patient
transport; this determination should
also address staffing and approved
landing sites,
4.10 Tile local EMS agency should develop Using state standards (when such
policies and procedures for exist) the local'EMS agency should
helicopter utilization within its establish a helicopter response plan
service area. for the transport of emergency
patients within its service area;
among other things, this plan should
consider existing EMS resources,
poRulation density, environmental
factors, dispatch procedures and
catchment area.
4.11 Tile local EMS agency should
determine the availability of fixed
wing aircraft for emergency patient
transport'.
4.12 T~e local EMS agency should develop Using state standards, when such
policies and procedures for exist, the local EMS agency should
utilization of fixed wing aircraft establish a fixed wing air ambulance
for the transport of emergency plan for the transport of emergency
patients within its service area. patients within its service area;
among other things, this plan should
consider existing EMS resources,
population density, environmental
factors, dispatch procedures and
catchment .area.
-59-
MINIMUM STANDARDS~ RECOMMENDED GOALS
4.13 The local EMS agency should The local EMS agency should
determine the availability of all establish a rescue and response plan
terrain vehicles, snowmobiles and for the use of all terrain vehicles,
water rescue and transportation snowmobiles, and water rescue
resources, when applicable, vehicles in areas where applicable;
among other things, this plan should
consider existing EMS resources,
population density, environmental
factors, dispatch procedures and
catchment area.
4.14 The local EMS agency should develop The local EMS agency should develop
a plan for mobilizing emergency mutual aid plans which ensure that
medical response and transport sufficient emergency medical
vehicles during a disaster, response and transport vehicles, and
other relevant resources,, will be
made available during a disaster.
-60-
1795.24
DIVISION 2.5. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Otmpter . ' ..... 1~7
1. Ge~ Provl~ons .............................. ' ............
Oeflnltlon~ .............
.................................
~. State Admtnistrmtlo~ .............................................................
Loc~d Ad~UOn ........................................................... 17~7~
~ u.~ co,~ ....................................................... :::::::::~
~: ~ u~t,~o, ..........._. ....... :""-:'.u:::'a'"; ......... . .........
ha~di~g o/Part I wo~ repealed b~ StatzJ~8$, & ~48, f 1~
CltAPTgR 1. GENERAL PROVISION8
179/.1. Le~islatlye fi]xlln~ ~nd declL~tion&
17S0~. Legislative i~te~t.
1~. Additions] loc~ tr~_i~n~ standards.
1'/~.4. References to mobile i~te~si~e ~ l~ramedics .nd n.raes; me~nin~ m~ter this didsio~
1'/!~.6. Polic7 of state; lesisl~tive inteat.
171~.?. Prehospit~] emerge .~..m. ed....c~re personnel; movement ~o aew ~MR ~le~'lr wit. ho~t
recertiflcation; le~s¼tive
CAapter I ~o~ odded b~ Stotrl~80, & lYt~ p. ,4~$I, f I.
I 17~ ~la2ve In~nt
~~ .-..
~ ' § 1797.4 .E~ ~ s~'rY CODg
(commenCing with ~ection 1480) of ~ap~r ~5 of Dio~n
~ {A~ by S~.19~, e. ~, ~ 1.)
J 17~. ~,la~ve in~n~ ~
It h ~e ~nt o~ ~e ~h~ ~ p~mo~ ~e ~lopmen~ ~fli~, ~ p~n o~
~t ~ ~u. ~ ~t ~ple ~y ~ ~ ~ P~, ~ e~ ....
o~ ~m~ly.
(A~ by S~.19~, ~ 1~6, ~ 8.)
~ m ~ M~ Rd~ A~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ K Ru~ (1983} D ~ ~ ~. DI.
I 17~.~ Policy or ~; l~hflve in~nt
~, 70 ~ 810, 1~ S.~ ~, ~ ~
~) It h ~e ~nt of ~e ~h~ h e~f
~ ~ p~e for s~ ~n ~ ~u~
]~ ~ove~men~] en~ ~ ~f out ~
(Add~ by S~,I~, c 1~9, J 1,)
~~ . .
~4~i~ 1~9,~ ~I~*~JuMi*I~'
J 17~.T. ~k~pJ~ ~e~ ~
~ ~~ ~e h~t
...... - ....... . ..........
.-
· '~ .' ~) It ~ ~ ~nt of ~e ~~ ~ e~g
,., h~g ~ ~t ~g or ~n for
.' m~l ~ ~el who w~ ~
· " ' A~ ~ te~ ~ ~t~
~6
HF.~TH Arm SAFetY coos § 1797.50
not i, oc~t~ed t~.edit~tion. It b tl~ ~e mMnt of ~ ~za~ ~t no ~~.~ ~
~R · DE~mON9
1~.~. ~.
17~. ~ M~ T~I; ~-L
'17~.~ ~m~e~ ~ ~~ E~-~ ~ mo~ ~e ~
~m ~ ~f m~l e~m~e~ner ~ ~e ~ ~.
Uon
J 17~.102. Sudden i~t d~th s~ndm~ ~h~ ~ f~
sudden ~f~t d~ s~me ~ught by ~ ~ ~e ~ of sudden ~f~ d~ s~, ~
fish ~
. . ·
~~ '*
t ~,~.~~~.~.~ ................ . ...... :...~7:n
1797.200 HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
~o~
17~.~. ~un~ develop~nt of eme~
17~.~1. ~n~ ~
17~.~. P~, ~plemen~ ~ ~lus~n of em~e~ m~ s~.
17~.~. Ad~ ~e sup~
17~.~. ~n~g pm~ for eme~en~ ~ ~.
1~.210. ~~n of
17~14~ Ad&~o~ ~ or q~~; ~ ~ ~u~men~
17~.21S. ~opu]~o~
17~.216. ~b~ ~e~ ~
17~.218. Ad~n~ ~e sup~ pm~ u~ ~-H ~ ~-P.
17~.~. M~ ~n~l of
17~.~1. Drag, de~ or ~n~ ~ ~n~ or ~ s~dy.
17~.~ Ps~ent ~ o~.
17~. ~ ~o ~ ~De o~ ~; de~~.
17~. ~unty development of
~ ~W ~Y develop
~bl~hM ~ o~m~ by ~ ~, ~ en~ ~ w~ ~ ~un~ ~n~ mr ~ ~ o
~ e~e~ m~ ~ ~minh~ or ~ ~t ~we~ qe~.~ for ~ ~-
~n of eme~n~ m~ ~ by ~me~ ~n ~ ~r ~. ~~ p~
~v~t ~
(Add~ by S~.lgM, ~ 1~, p. 4~, J 7.)
~ ~ j 49.
U~n ~e ~u~t of s
or ~ ~ ~g
' ' ~ su~ ~e ~t
~ Un ~ ........ ~ ....
~ ~n~u~ st not ~
~ ~r, who ~ ,.~ ~n~ ~ ~ p~ ~ ?~e~.~e,. d~
su~o~ ~r may w~ve
.
HEAl, TH AND 8AF~Y CODE § 1797~10
(b) The medlc~l director of the ~ ~ qency m~y ap~int on~ .or more ph~ic~m. ~d
surgeens u u~istant medical directors to mist the medk:~l director with the dlsch~r~ of abe duties
of medic~ director or to ~ssun~ tlx~e duties during say Ume that tjx* mc~uc~ d~or k ~
c~r), out tho~e duties as the medical director deems necessary.
(c) The medicsJ director may assign to miministrative 8t~'~ of the local EMS agency for completioe
under the supervision of the medic~ director, say ~lmieis~tive functions of his or her duties which
do eot requir~ his or her progessionsl ~dgment as medical dii, ector.
(Added by Stats.1980, c. 1260, p. 4269, J 7. Amended by Stats.198'/, e. 56/, J 1; Stato.19~9, e.
J 9, egg. OeO ~, 1989.)
! i797~04~ ~ lmplementaUon ~ml ev~lu,Uon or en~rgenc7 medical s~,stems
r~sponse services baaed on pul)~c saO pn~m -,,~'~
(Added by Stats.1980, ~. 1260, p. 4269, J 7.)
J 1797.206. Advanced life support s~sl~'nu
The * * * lots! EMS alenc~y shall ~ respons~le for implementation of tdvsaced life support
systems and limit~! advanced lire support systems &nd for the monitoring of tl'~_ining pl~. . .
(Added by Stat~.lg80, ~ ~260, p. 4260, ! 7. Amended by Stoto.191~, c. 1246, J
Hlsiorl~si No~ rg,la~d to ~g Meglc~ R~o~'m Aa, ~eg m~g ux~ O~,.C.
! 1~97`2o8. rrnir~ proSrnnn r~'emer~e"C~ medical technScl~u .
EM'F I F, MT-H s~l I~M'l'-r Mveis ~re m c~ml~,~ . .
st the -, * ..... ~"~--'P~he tr~,em~ si
· - ' ~ be m corn lifi~ w~th ties divis
tr~_*mn roi'f'M~ ii they are fomxl P ' · ' Mc~e.
the ~i~orrni~ Highway Patr~! Ac~lemy shall be exempt f~om-'-~prov~ons o~ this
(Added by Stato.191~), c. 1260, p. 4269, J '~. Amended by $tat8.198~, e. 1246, [ 2S; $tato. 19~, e.
! lax.)
L~e ht~l h' S~19S$, c- 1~6 to b~ r~
J 1797.210. C~rtlflcltlon of p~rsonnel; re~rttflc~tion . .
...... director of the ~ s~(S qeeo7 sl~ll hue s oertifi~to to &u ' .~li~.. upou
proof of sathfactor~ completion .of sa. ap. proved
,,vtmlniti~n · · · deslimsted by the auU~ority, compMuon o ~.. ~..,~l. .......
..... .= · · ' ' ' ~ l'i~.,~___r~_ ~s~,~'-
.. riiry ....... i _~'~.. dmio~a~lrby the aut~oflqt cou~leUon o! -,.j con
-~ · ' ' ' D u~e uuu~n ~ -
~]~cetion or other u~remento got recert/fic~t~on esta~mn~2 ~ ~ '..
(Added by State.1980, c.. 1260, p. 4269, J 7. Amended by St~to.1988, c. 1246, § 29; $Ut~.1988, e,'
1390, § 4; Stat-.1989, c. 11S4, ~ 10, eft. Sept. 30, 1989;, star,.1989, c. 1~62, § ~0, eft. Oct. ~ 1989.)
Addtt~w in text m'e Indic~tod by undodi~ deletfono by ~todsk~ * * *
269
.... HEALTH AND 8~ CODE
I l'l'~'/.~l~. Fe~ Khedutes for certification
$ ·enc m~y e~t~blish · ~hedule o! tees for ceflifk,tiou in ~n ~nount lutf-~ent to
The local EM !g. ~. -, -~-:~,t~,~na the certifi~tion provi~io~ of thi~ div~io_~
cover the re~ot~,ole coa~ v~ ~-.-,~ ·
(Added by $~u.1980, c. 1260, p. 4269, ! 'L Amended by St~ts.1983,' e. 1246, ! ~ $~ta.1986, e. 248,
! 179'/.~1a. EMT-I, EMT-II, EMT-P or ·uthorized r~tstered ~ursei courses of IMLructloa
certification; f~e . .
a A~y loc~.EMS ·gency conducting ~..~g~. EMT-P, or ·uthori~t
registered nuree. W~en euch instzuct~n tud training tre provided, · fee u~y be d~-ged sufficient
to defray the co~t of such inst~ction ~nd training.
belor~ anuM7 t~ ~ .......... no~ e. llll, § 6.) '
~i. dd~ by Stats.1983, e. 1246, § {1. Ameudea uy
Lcgish6v, bdmt fo~ Stau. 1983, ~ 124~ to b~ mvum~u']~ 1111, faBcd to t~ °{~r~fi~.~nd~ d~ p~uvis{om ~ j $
1797.214. Additional .training or qualiflcAtiotu; 1o~8{ agency requirement
A local {~M.% agelmc~ u~.r~4,u~ "" . ...... b.~l {;~S aR 0 ,dOaM SOO of ,0~. --
Consistent with stand, trdo t~k)pted pursuant to ~
1184, § ii, eft. Sept. 80, 1989;, 9t~t~1989, e. 1962, { ii, ~ ~ 2, .}
u~ ~oC.,ardiopulmolmarY
1797J15. resu~ltatlon certificate; .rentwd
renew their cm. diopulmo~-O' rezusau~uu- ~,~.,,.-. .
(Added by $1at~.1983, e. '/'/4, J 1.)
Add{t{o~ Jn text sro In, tod by ~ deloUon~ by
270
~five h~t fw S~1~3, c 12~ ~ ~
~op~ by ~e Eme~e~ M~ ~ Au~ogW.
~Mo~ Highway Pa~! ~m a role m p~ ~ eme~e~ m~ ~ w~n ~e ~t
HEALTH AND SAFETY C~)DE
1797.222
medicslly qualified l~rson ~t ~e ~ of ~ ~nt de~ine~ it ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ of ~Y
~ 1797.226. S~ ~ino ~unty; ~cluslve o~ ~; de~natlo~
Wi~out sl~g or o~e~e df~g ~ m~g of ~y ~on of ~ ~bn ~ ~ ~y ~
179~.250. Development and submission of plM~
179~.251. P~p~ale&
~ 17~. ~velopmerit ~d sub.ion of p~
'A
Patricia Smith, Chair
Conni Brunni
Kevin McDermott
Staff: John W. Stinson
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
PREMEETING
Wednesday, September 19, 1990
11:45 a.m.
Charles Graviss' Conference Room
Convention Center
Staff Attending: J. Dale Hawley
John W. Stinson
Chief Patterson
Bob Sherfy
See attached agenda - from County Hosts
~ Wednesday, September 19, 1990~ ~-~"~'..t :~
Ii~.rgove~ental Relations Committee~g
Revised Agenda
1. Booking Fees - Dale Hawley
2. Ambulance Ordinance - Fred Drew
3. Castro Lane Sewers - Mary IC Shell
4. Congestion Management Program- Joel Heirrriehs (Time Permitting)
S. Metropolitan Bakersfield Park and Recreation Services - Lee Anderson/Joel
Heim'ichs (Time Permitting)
6. Next Meeting Date
Postponed Items
1. Bingo Ordinance
2. Fair Housing Update
3. CSA 79
4. California Clean Air Act
Count'],' Participants
Supenrisor Larwood
Supervisor Shell
Geary Taylor
Joel Heinxichs
Scott Jones
Steve Sehuett
Jerry Findley
Bill Mungary
Fred Drew
Dale Mills
Randy Abbott
Bob Addison
Ci_ty Participants
Council Member McDermott
Council Member Smith
Council Member Brunni
Dale Hawley
John Stinson:
Bob Patterson
Lee Anderson
Ed Schukz :
Bob Sherfy
Dennis Needhan~
JH:dr\agndircm