Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Response Time Metrics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council members question whether 6‑minute response goal is realistic
Summary
Council members pressed staff over the contractual and clinical meaning of the 6‑minute benchmark, contrasting it with county and consultant standards; staff said the goal exists in contract and the Fitch report but measurement definitions differ.
Council members used the Star EMS check‑in to press city staff on the 6‑minute response benchmark that appears in both the Fitch feasibility study and the city's contract with Star EMS. One council member asked bluntly, “Were we too ambitious?” and recounted neighbors who reported waiting 15–20 minutes under prior providers.
Bob and city staff explained the origin of the 6‑minute number and the limits of the study data. "The feasibility study was just that — a study — and it was only as good as the input data," Bob said, noting the figure was theoretical and that measurement definitions (dispatch, turnout, travel, total response) vary. Another council member warned of a "race to 6" that could encourage unsafe driving: "I'm watching speeds increase on our crews because our crews are...bound and determined that they are going to meet that goal," the member said. Staff said they will continue monthly reporting, track clinical outcomes as well as speed metrics, and revisit benchmarks after a full year of data.
