Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ems Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Morgan County officials say EMS contract faces funding shortfall; executive session called
Summary
County commissioners and the EMS board discussed a roughly $230,000 shortfall in the contract with Company 7 and agreed to meet in executive session to discuss multi-year funding options after state support proved uncertain.
Morgan County commissioners and members of the county EMS board met May 7 to discuss an emerging budget shortfall for the county’s contract with Company 7, the private provider that operates ambulance services in the county.
The commission and the EMS board reported a roughly $230,000 gap between available revenue and projected operating needs for the coming contract year and said state-level funding that had been expected — the EMS Salary Enhancement Fund — is not yet guaranteed for 2025. That uncertainty prompted the commission and EMS board to move into executive session to discuss contract options and multi-year funding arrangements.
Why it matters: Ambulance and emergency medical services are capital- and labor-intensive. Commissioners said a stable, multi-year funding plan is necessary to sustain three Advanced Life Support units operating 24/7 and to avoid cutting service levels or losing staff to higher pay in neighboring jurisdictions.
Most important facts: Company 7 representatives told the board they ran roughly 2,626 calls last year and staffed three ALS units (two in Berkeley and one in Paw Paw). About 58% of calls resulted in patient transport, which is the subset of calls that generate billing revenue. Board and county staff also reported response-time metrics that compare favorably statewide: average dispatch-to-on-scene time near 10–11 minutes and an average out-the-door time below three minutes for staffed units.
The county’s prior one-time increase and state support: Commissioners noted that in the previous year the county used a combination of a one-time county payment and state distributed funds to shore up EMS wages and costs; but they emphasized the enhancement fund’s future funding is uncertain. The governor’s office staff were reported to be “looking into” the status of the state line item but there was no assurance it will be available for future years.
Options on the table: Officials discussed three basic approaches: (1) find recurring local revenue (for example by broadening chargeable billing streams such as commercial-property levies), (2) raise the per-property fire/EMS fee assessed to property owners, or (3) reduce service expectations in the contract (for example, by changing guaranteed coverage hours or staffing levels during low-demand overnight hours). Commissioners said they prefer solutions that do not reduce front-line ambulance availability but acknowledged the community may need to choose between higher local fees or reduced service scope.
Next steps and procedural action: The EMS board and county commission voted to enter executive session with Company 7 and the EMS board to discuss contract specifics and fiscal options. Commissioners said they want staff and EMS leadership to return with firm multi-year proposals (1-, 2- and 3-year scenarios) and precise revenue projections to evaluate whether a sustainable plan can be adopted.
Ending: County leaders said they will continue to seek clarity from the governor’s office about the state EMS Salary Enhancement Fund while the executive session work seeks options to preserve service levels without exposing the county to recurring, unbudgeted costs.
