Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety Fire Department topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Greenwood rejects squad RFP, moves to deploy two-person squad at Station 93

3095865 · April 23, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At its April 21 meeting the Greenwood board voted to reject a high-cost RFP for a squad company and instead pursue a lower-cost two-unit deployment, placing a two-person squad at Station 93 to capture more EMS call volume.

At its April 21 meeting the Greenwood board voted to reject a received request for proposal for a squad company and directed staff to pursue a lower-cost plan that will place a two-person squad at Station 93.

The move was presented by Jim Marshall, fire chief, who said the department issued an RFP but “it came back significantly higher than we anticipated.” He told the board the department believes a smaller, lower-cost project can achieve the same operational goals while reducing taxpayer cost and improving response efficiency.

Marshall described the operational rationale: the two-person squad model now being used at Station 91 captured about 70% of call volume during its coverage hours and reduced fuel use (about 100 gallons less over a six-month period). He said deploying a squad at Station 93 would cover that station’s call volume (the city’s second-largest after headquarters) and provide additional firefighters for structure fires. Marshall also described capital costs for larger apparatus, saying an engine costs “about a million 2 now” and a tiller truck about “$2,200,000,” comments offered to explain the financial trade-offs.

A motion to reject the RFP was made and seconded; the board approved the motion by voice vote. Marshall told the board he had not signed any contract and that staff will proceed to develop the lower-cost alternative for future consideration.

Board members’ remarks in discussion were limited to procedural confirmation and a recorded voice vote approving the motion. No legal barriers or external approvals were cited in the discussion.

The board did not adopt a specific replacement contract at the meeting; staff will return with the refined plan for formal approval when available.