Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Medical Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Willard Council weighs starting local ambulance service, building addition and recurring costs
Summary
Willard City Council members discussed an administration proposal to start local ambulance transports, build a small addition to the fire station and cover ongoing equipment and personnel costs. No formal decision was made; staff was asked to return with a summarized two‑scenario budget.
Willard City Council members spent the bulk of the April 24 meeting reviewing a city staff proposal to begin ambulance transport service from Willard and to add space to the fire station to support that service.
City staff described a package of one‑time capital needs — a building addition and new ambulance equipment — and recurring operating costs for personnel, supplies and billing. Van (city staff) said staff estimated one‑time equipment and capital costs “around” six figures and annual operating costs in the low six‑figures, and that Brigham City has told Willard it would charge roughly $300,000 a year for outside ambulance coverage if Willard continued to rely on that provider.
Why it matters: Council members said an ambulance could lower response times for residents and reduce the city’s current indirect subsidy for ambulance coverage in nearby county areas. The choice carries tradeoffs — higher local expense, added staff time and long‑term replacement liabilities for vehicles and equipment. Council directed staff to return with clear, itemized scenarios to enable a follow‑up budget decision.
Discussion and staff presentation Van presented a draft plan and cost estimates for three related elements: (1) a building addition to create room for ambulance operations and staffing; (2) purchase and equipping of an ambulance and medical devices; and (3) ongoing annual operating costs such as personnel stipends, supplies, equipment service contracts and billing software.
Van said the building addition estimate was based on a wood‑framed option and included a 20% contingency for unanticipated items; he also cited a local contractor’s estimate that a cinder‑block wall for a similar addition could cost “in the neighborhood of $50,000.” On equipment, staff included a new monitor/defibrillator (Lifepak 15) and a mechanical chest‑compression device (LUCAS) among the one‑time purchases. Van described an equipment total “around” $100,000 as a baseline and noted that refurbished items could reduce that cost.
On recurring costs, staff presented an estimated annual payroll/stipend range for personnel to staff daytime standby hours (roughly 6 a.m.–6 p.m.), FICA and related payroll costs in the neighborhood of $89,000–$110,000, plus recurring service agreements (for example ImageTrend patient‑care software and Lifepak service contracts). Van said ImageTrend was likely to cost about $7,700 per year and that medical supplies historically run roughly $8,000 annually.
Staff also explained a potential billing model. State fee schedules were cited (examples used by staff: EMT transport and advanced EMT transport fee levels and a mileage rate), and staff said a third‑party biller (Gold Cross) would handle collections for a percentage fee. Van said preliminary modeling assumed a conservative collection profile and that transport revenue could partially offset operating costs.
Council questions and direction Councilmembers asked whether to operate a basic or advanced service (availing higher allowable fees but increasing training and staffing requirements). Van and staff said the council would pick the service level to commit to; staff noted that once the city upgraded to paramedic/advanced service, it could not easily revert to a lower level.
Councilmembers pressed for clearer numbers. Mayor (chair) and council asked staff to return by the next Thursday work session with two clear scenarios: (A) startup (one‑time) costs and the first‑year operating budget with conservative revenue assumptions; and (B) a multi‑year plan that includes replacement/reserve assumptions for ambulances and high‑cost items (for example, a replacement ambulance every five to seven years). Jordan (councilmember) and others emphasized the need to show annual revenues the city could reasonably collect and to model mutual‑aid/backup options with neighboring agencies.
No formal action The council did not vote on a final plan or appropriate funds at the April 24 meeting. Councilmembers agreed to schedule a follow‑up work session and asked staff to provide an itemized one‑time cost total, annual operating costs, and a scenario that includes capital replacement accruals for a second ambulance in the future.
Ending Councilmembers said they want to preserve local control over emergency medical services rather than join a larger district that could impose taxes without the city’s direct authority. The council set a deadline for staff to present the requested two‑scenario summary at the next work session.
