A Garland committee convened on Oct. 8 to continue a nine‑month public review of the city’s fire and emergency medical services, hearing a national overview of EMS models and debating whether schedule and staffing changes are needed to sustain local service.

Consultant Tim Nowak of Emergency Medical Solutions told the committee that “if you’ve seen one EMS agency, I would argue that you’ve actually seen a thousand of them,” drawing attention to how widely practices vary around the country and why no single model fits every city. City Manager Doug Rex introduced Nowak and cautioned, “Just because it shows up on a slide … doesn’t mean the city of Garland is gonna pursue this.”

Why it matters: Committee members said Garland’s system appears strong but faces financial and staffing pressures that could require operational changes. The group discussed possible shifts from the current 24‑48 schedule toward alternatives such as 24‑72 or 12‑hour platoons, tradeoffs between two‑paramedic and paramedic/EMT ambulance staffing, and the potential costs of adding staff or changing shift structure.

Nowak presented national trends and operational benchmarks: he said the average hospital arrival‑to‑patient transfer time in the local data set was about 10 minutes, 12 seconds on roughly 13,000 patient contacts; the longest recorded transfer in the handout was 20 minutes and the shortest five minutes. He summarized call‑volume growth from October 2018 through September 2025 as: EMS calls up 17 percent, non‑EMS fire calls up 22 percent, and total call volume up 19 percent.

Committee members pressed for local detail. A staff speaker said Garland recorded 656 structure fires in the referenced calendar year and an additional 1,395 alarm responses (alarm responses are tabulated separately). Members asked staff to break down responses by apparatus (ambulance, engine, etc.) and to provide overtime and sick‑call statistics at the next meeting.

Several operational and staffing tradeoffs were discussed in detail. Nowak described differences between static fire‑station deployment (geography/coverage) and dynamic EMS deployment (placing ambulances where call volume is highest), and noted that many U.S. ambulance services staff with one paramedic and one EMT rather than two paramedics because of cost and skill‑maintenance concerns. The consultant also warned of “ambulance deserts” in sparsely populated areas and described a range of organizational models — municipal, third‑service EMS, emergency service districts (ESDs), public‑private partnerships and private nonprofit or for‑profit providers — noting each carries different funding and oversight implications.

Committee members raised local concerns: some said Garland’s culture currently values cross‑trained firefighter/paramedics and expressed worry staff would leave if neighboring cities adopted schedules with more time off or higher pay. City staff provided rough staffing comparisons discussed in the session: Garland’s current staffed firefighter positions were cited as approximately 292; to add a fourth platoon under a 24‑72 model the figure discussed was about 377 positions (figures offered by participants during discussion and flagged for staff verification). Plano and other neighboring cities were cited as recruiting large candidate pools and offering different schedules; members said those cities’ larger tax bases make direct comparisons imperfect.

Public comment included a resident who told the committee he opposed privatization and “do[es] not wanna lose the Garland Fire Department EMS who will serve us, has been there, has cared for us.”

What the committee directed: committee members asked staff and the consultant for additional, itemized data at the next meeting — including unit‑level response counts, overtime and sick‑call metrics, an apparatus‑by‑apparatus break‑out, historical comparisons, and recruitment/retention statistics — to support any subsequent recommendations. No formal change of policy or procurement action was taken.

The committee approved the minutes from the Sept. 10 meeting (motion by Council Member Blunt; second by Council Member Dutton; passed unanimously) and set its next meeting for Nov. 12, when the group will review the additional data and further modeling.

Local leaders emphasized the study’s purpose is exploratory. City Manager Doug Rex said the consultant’s role is to “add value and perspective” and to challenge assumptions, and he reiterated that the presentation of alternative models “doesn’t mean the city of Garland is gonna pursue this.” Nowak concluded by warning that many rural and smaller systems nationally are facing sustainability issues and that Garland’s committee should consider operational options now to avoid future gaps in service.

Looking ahead: staff will return to the committee with the requested unit‑level data and cost estimates; the committee signaled interest in exploring options that address overtime, staffing levels and sick‑call exposure while preserving clinical competence and the department’s existing community ties.