Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Medical Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debate over city ambulance service centers on costs, county relations and tax implications
Summary
City leaders debated a proposal to operate municipal ambulances. Staff provided preliminary capital and operating estimates; council members asked for firmer cost, financing and county coordination details before committing. No vote was taken; discussion of a special called meeting and additional financial analysis followed.
City leaders spent an extended portion of the work session debating a proposal to establish city‑operated ambulance service and the budgetary, operational and intergovernmental implications of that move.
City staff provided topline estimates intended to inform the 2025–26 budget discussion: capital expenditures for ambulances and equipment were presented at roughly $1.6 million (with options to finance or lease), and operating costs were estimated at roughly $1.5 million for a six‑month partial year of operations (staff noted operating costs would likely double for a full 12‑month year). Revenue projections in staff materials assumed roughly 5,000 billable transports at an average of $650 per transport (about $3.25 million in gross billings before collection rates and billing fees). Staff also noted the county collection numbers in recent audits: the county reported $4.4 million in ambulance collections in a recent audit and staff described an assumption that Crossville could capture a share of those collections if it operated transport in the city.
Council members focused on several recurring issues: whether the county would reduce its ambulance presence and thus whether total county‑wide ambulance capacity would change; which transports the city would be obliged to take versus county responsibility or hospital contracting; how many ambulances the city would need to keep dedicated within city limits to avoid service gaps; and the extent to which TennCare (Medicaid) reimbursement rates and payer mix would reduce collections below gross billings. Doctor Fox, who assisted the city on projected call volumes and reimbursement, described the $650 projected average as a realistic middle value based on local experience; council members and staff observed TennCare payments are generally below Medicare and commercial payor levels.
Opponents on the council said they were not convinced the service would be budget neutral and expressed concern about recurring personnel costs and health insurance expense growth; supporters said the city could improve response capacity and retain more local control over transports to nearby hospitals. The mayor said he had not received constituent complaints about current EMS response and expressed reluctance to add recurring costs without clearer evidence it would be budget neutral.
No formal action or contract award was taken. Several council members asked staff for more detailed, line‑by‑line cost estimates, financing scenarios (lease versus bond), estimated collection rates by payer (commercial, Medicare, TennCare), and a clearer interlocal plan with Cumberland County and local hospitals. Staff and a member of the council discussed scheduling a special called meeting to consider final numbers before the council would make a commitment to buy vehicles or approve ongoing funding.
