Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ambulance Service topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ambulance service reports 34% revenue jump from new transport business; board weighing replacement options
Summary
Ambulance staff told the joint budget meeting that a new non‑911 transport business increased revenue by about 34%, offsetting some declines in 911 calls; the service has $300,000 in reserves and is considering whether to buy a full ambulance (~$450,000, ~3-year wait) or a lower‑spec transport vehicle with shorter lead time.
Ambulance service staff reported a roughly 34% increase in revenue this year after launching a dedicated patient transport operation, and they told the joint budget meeting the change has altered capital planning for vehicle replacement. "You see that there's a 34% increase in revenue this year," presenter (S2) said, describing the new transport business that moves patients between facilities and locations beyond 911 calls.
Service managers said 911 call volume is slightly down, but transport runs are steady and generate income to offset operating costs, including increased labor needed to staff transport coverage. The meeting also covered a change in philanthropic support: a private donor who had donated about $250,000 annually has redirected that giving, meaning the service will have to rely more on earned revenue and reserves.
On capital planning, staff said the service has approximately $300,000 in reserve and faces a choice: a new full ambulance costs on the order of $450,000 and has a roughly three‑year lead time, while a transport‑only ambulance would cost less and have a shorter procurement window but might not support all 911 needs. Presenter (S2) warned that vehicle prices and wait times are rising: "it's probably about 450... for just the ambulance. And it's like a 3 year wait."
Senate Bill 245 — described in the meeting as a recent 'no surprise billing' law — was discussed for its revenue implications. Staff said the law changed insurer payment dynamics, but they told members it would not eliminate commercial write‑offs under the service’s charging model. Meeting participants debated the law's mechanics and how insurer reimbursement rules will affect future collections; the transcript records participants' descriptions of insurer payment rules but does not provide a legal analysis.
Next steps: the board will discuss ambulance procurement options and continue budget follow‑up; staff offered to circulate legible budget files for additional review and possible remote recommendation votes.
