Committee weighs fire-district mill levy and three EMS staffing models

Committee members spent the meeting laying the groundwork for moving emergency medical services from county control into a newly formed fire district and assessing how a prospective mill levy would be used.

Chair (S1) opened the discussion by asking whether the proposed 3.9 mill levy earmarked for the new fire district would automatically be divided between the Northern and Southern districts and whether the fire board would instead decide distribution. The chair said he expected ‘‘it’s gonna be really hard not to have the money go from where the money came from,’’ and urged flexibility in whether allocations must match dollar-for-dollar by community.

The committee heard a detailed presentation from the county chief (identified in the meeting as Chief George, S6) who outlined three possible models for how EMS could be staffed and paid in the South District. Model 1 would preserve the current structure—two full-time ambulances, a cross-staffed paramedic squad and a paid-on-call ambulance—while Model 2 would move to three paid-on-call ambulances supported by a fully staffed roving paramedic squad (a lower-cost option Chief George said would reduce costs by roughly $450,000). Model 3 would place three full-time AEMT ambulances across the South District with a regionalized paramedic model and provide the highest level of service but at the highest cost.

Chief George gave the committee the key cost assumptions behind those models, including paramedic and EMT wage assumptions and an estimate that maintaining a four-ambulance system plus a paramedic response squad would require about $176,000 annually for predictable vehicle replacement cycles. The chief said the current county revenue base—combined with city payments for EMS service—would allow the district to run the existing system; he summarized, “we do have enough money to make this conversion and run much as we are running now.”

Members discussed trade-offs between cost and service, and how cross-trained ambulance personnel can provide some fire response but ‘‘not as well as hiring coverage fire,’’ as one participant put it. Committee members also raised equity questions across municipalities—several saying some cities ‘‘are paying too much’’ while others pay less—and noted the need to equalize municipal EMS contributions if the district assumes responsibility for transports now paid through city contracts.

Barry Locke (introduced by the committee) described Weber County’s hybrid system as a local example the group could study: in Weber, county-owned transport equipment is paired with fire-district-employed personnel and regional paramedic squads, with mutual aid and nearest-unit dispatch used to balance coverage. Locke noted that county purchases (CPR devices, life packs) are pooled countywide for use in any area and said the Weber approach evolved over many years to even out rural/urban coverage.

The committee approved the minutes from the previous meeting by voice vote and heard several subcommittee reports about equipment inventories and training needs; members asked subcommittee leads to consult municipal fire chiefs and return a short report on equipment gaps.

Next steps: the chair directed staff to produce a city-by-city revenue breakdown and to refine the model materials so the group can present a coherent proposal to the county council. The committee confirmed its next meeting for Monday, July 27 at 10 a.m. in Hyrum and asked that model packets be circulated in advance.

The meeting adjourned after the July 27 logistics were confirmed.