Formerly - Totaled Squad Owned Assets
From Richard Doub: Separately, in regards to the letter that was sent out by EMS asking for each station to sign it and return it. I strongly suggest that no one sign this till we have a chance to meet to consolidate concerns and clarify points like:
1. Getting a copy of the agreement this is replacing and so we can read what changed?
2. If a city employee is driving a vehicle and wreck's it, who pays the deductible?
3. If someone who has not been checked off on a vehicle from another stations jumps in squad 16, Storm 4, Cart 5, etc.., we can't stop them from driving it, per this letter. So if they wreck it or damage it beyond a economically feasible repair point, who pays the bill. If we can't control who get's in this equipment, how can we control a outcome? Who will maintain the list of who is allowed to drive what? What are the "City administrative and training requirements" that are in place, allowing members to operate each classification of vehicles?
4. We have no control over our maintenance, but we have to pay the first $50,000 of a wreck. What if maintenance caused or contributed to the wreck?
5. Who is allowed to drive the MCI trucks or the city MCI bus?
6. If the city puts a member from another station in a truck from your station. They wreck it, who pays the deductible? What if the drivers station can't afford to pay it? Do we have to require each station and the city to show proof of insurance to use a asset?
7. What coverage or deductibles are in place for other asset's like carts, trailers, utility trucks, etc.....
8. Who pays the deductible for 404 members, that volunteer directly for the EMS office, with no station ties.
In my opinion, we need a copy of the risk management binder spelling out all of our current coverage, so we can study this prior to signing a new agreement. I formally asked for this in the last meeting and assume we will have it next week. If not we need to get a ETA for this to be provided to us. We need to have a closed door meeting with no city staff, so we can discuss this and come out with a unified position on this, in my opinion.
Ambulances - need assurance - Still looking at options for private insurance
Can we get a commitment or letter of understanding to support to cover exposure?
EB - these are not City assets? We can work the political process? As far as your risk - blunt - you are taking a risk. If we cant afford to lose it, should I deploy the widget.
We have been told for years, we're good. We already bought these assets. Now the table has changed.
EB - It is the interpreting of insured that has changed.
We have a responsibility to protect ourselves.
EB - It is possible to address this long term. It will be a little different...we go years waiting for replacement. You get what you pay for.
What do we do if we can't one right away. We have to have means to protect ourselves.
We are volunteers and in a niche - we have more expectations -
EB - as the chief, I think they should be insured. We have to lobby and work towards it.
EB - there are capabilities we need...but this is the size of the fleet.
Make sure we are going in the right direction.
Stroud - To clarify, the concern is valid, your community is involved, it is not going to turn into a members can/staff cannot.
We need to minimize knee jerk reactions by corrected public policy.
EB - shared assets is a cornerstone of the system
The City has done a good job - we need to protect for the future.
EB - For the long term, there are winds of change, we do need to make sure we are well protected.
EB will be following up on Committee and moving it forward.