Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Medical Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Crossville council pulls ambulance-service item, directs staff to explore funding options
Summary
The Crossville City Council removed a proposed agenda item on ambulance service and directed the city manager and city attorney to research funding options and report back, citing financial concerns.
At its regularly scheduled meeting, the Crossville City Council removed from the agenda a proposal concerning ambulance service funding and directed staff to research alternate funding options and return with recommendations.
Council members said their hesitancy centered on the financial implications of placing ambulance treatment and transport under the city’s operations rather than the quality or quantity of service. Council member Fox moved to remove the item from the agenda and to authorize the city manager and city attorney to investigate possible funding options; the motion passed on a roll-call vote.
The motion, as introduced by Council member Fox, asked staff to evaluate funding approaches beyond standard treatment and transport reimbursement rates and report back to the council as appropriate. The council did not take further action on ambulance-service policy at the meeting; removing the item ended tonight’s formal consideration and created a staff-directed follow-up task rather than adopting new authority or funding.
The roll-call vote on the motion to remove the item and direct staff was: Mayor Pro Tem Gert — aye; Council member Turner — aye; Council member Fox — aye; Council member Mayberry — aye; Mayor Brent Crawford — aye. The record shows the motion carried unanimously.
The council’s action stops short of adopting a particular funding model or contracting arrangement. The council packet and the transcript record identify Crossville Fire Rescue as one potential provider that could perform treatment and transport services, but no contract or funding commitment was approved. The city manager and city attorney were directed to report options and possible financial structures to a future meeting so the council can decide whether to proceed with any particular arrangement.
No additional documents, contract terms, or dollar amounts were adopted at the meeting. Council members framed the decision as a request for more financial analysis rather than a policy change.
A follow-up report from staff was requested; the council set no deadline in the meeting minutes for when that report must return to the council.
