Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ems Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cedar Mountain service district outlines EMS costs; requests tourism‑tax help for nonresident response
Summary
Cedar Mountain Service District officials told the Kane County Commission their EMS and wildland programs are operating at a net cost driven largely by nonresident calls; officials asked the county to consider transient‑room‑tax (TRT) funding to cover visitor‑driven costs.
KANAB, Utah — Officials from the Cedar Mountain Service District (CMSD) briefed the Kane County Commission Aug. 26 on EMS and wildland operations, call volumes and finances, and urged the county to consider using transient‑room‑tax (TRT) funds to offset costs associated with nonresident emergency responses.
Why it matters: CMSD provides 24/7/365 paramedic‑level emergency medical services and fire protection to a wide area of the county that includes many visitors and nonresident users of public lands. County staff and the special‑district board said nonresident calls represent a majority of EMS demand and create a recurring operating gap.
Key facts CMSD presented (per district statements at the Aug. 26 meeting): - Call volume: CMSD reported roughly 300–336 calls per year in recent years, with EMS accounting for about 61–79% of calls depending on the year. Over three years the district said EMS averaged about 69% of total call volume. - Residency breakdown (2025 tracking): 88 resident calls and 140 nonresident calls recorded to date; approximately 62% of calls that year were nonresidents. The district reported 192 calls inside district boundaries and 37 outside the district boundary during the tracking period shared with the commission. - Cost and revenue: The district estimated an annual average net cost for nonresident services at about $972,000. CMSD reported it receives roughly $120,000 per year from an agreement with the regional hospital for overnight coverage and has previously received a $150,000 TRT grant from the county; those revenue sources fall well short of total nonresident service costs, the district said.
District leaders described three service divisions: structure fire response, a wildland crew that generates income by staffing regional incidents, and EMS/transport services. Wildland deployments, they said, are a significant income source (the district cited roughly $800,000 in season income and said its program returned a high margin in recent years).
What the district asked: CMSD asked commissioners to consider TRT mitigation funding or other county help targeted to the large share of demand from tourists and other nonresidents. District staff said that, for the period they have been tracking data (about two years), nonresident EMS calls are roughly 61% of all EMS calls and account for the majority of expense.
County response and next steps: Commissioners and staff asked about data collection and agreed to coordinate dispatch/EMS reporting so the county and district track consistent categories (resident vs. nonresident, in‑state vs. out‑of‑state, short‑term rental vs. personal property). The county indicated it will use those data for any future TRT grant applications and budgeting decisions. No automatic county appropriation was made at the meeting; district leaders were asked to provide further accounting and documentation to support any formal TRT request.
District caveats: CMSD leaders said grant funding (state EMS and rural grants) has helped with capital and labor costs but is not guaranteed year to year; they advised the commission not to count on consistent grant levels when budgeting.
Ending: Commissioners thanked CMSD and district staff for detailed reporting and asked staff to work on consistent call‑tracking fields so the county can evaluate whether and how TRT mitigation dollars should be allocated to nonresident EMS costs.
