Consultants tell Summit County a single, countywide EMS system would be most efficient; estimated multimillion-dollar funding gap remains

Aaron Reinert, owner of Safetec Solutions, presented a draft assessment of Summit County's emergency medical services on April 17, summarizing interviews, on-site work and national comparisons and urging a data-driven decision on governance and finance.

Reinert told the Summit County Council of Governments that Safetec found a functioning EMS system today but noted gaps in clarity about the true cost of staffing, readiness and vehicles. "Summit County does have an EMS system today," he said, and Safetec estimated the "true expense of EMS" at about $10,300,000 annually when measured without subsidies or county-provided ambulances.

The consultants explained how they modeled costs: wages plus a 60% benefits factor validated by county finance, administrative overhead, vehicle depreciation and supplies. They recommended staffing each advanced life-support (ALS) ambulance with one paramedic and one advanced EMT, and estimated the all-in cost to operate a 24/7 ALS ambulance at roughly $1.5 million annually. Safetec concluded that the county would need a dynamic fleet of seven ambulances to provide equitable coverage across Park City, North Summit and South Summit.

Safetec presented four delivery models and highlighted trade-offs: (1) a single countywide system governed by Summit County or a special district; (2) three independent systems run by existing fire districts; (3) a hybrid in which two entities collaborate; and (4) outsourcing to an outside provider (dismissed after analysis). Reinert and colleagues said model 1 offered the best combination of cost-efficiency, workforce stability and consistent clinical standards, while model 2 would likely create duplication and intensify competition for a scarce workforce.

Council members pressed consultants on numbers. County presenters and some mayors noted prior per-ambulance estimates closer to $900,000'$1,000,000; Safetec said differences stem from inclusive accounting (paramedic staffing, higher local benefit rates, vehicle insurance and county-owned vehicle capitalization), and that the higher figures reflect a countywide parity level of service that respondents told the consultants they want. The consultants also clarified that their projected funding gap of "about $5.6 million" includes the county's existing subsidy (described in the presentation as $1.8 million) and that the gap varies depending on whether subsidies or county-owned ambulances are counted.

Staff described next steps: consultants will publish a final report in May, the EMS subcommittee and stakeholders will meet in additional sessions later that week, and the COG intends to review the final report and consider a recommendation to the County Council in June. No formal decision or funding action was taken at the April 17 meeting.

Speakers quoted are participants who spoke during the presentation and Q&A, including Aaron Reinert (Safetec Solutions), Ben Wasman and Ryan Quinn (Safetec team) and multiple local elected officials and staff. The consultants repeatedly emphasized that the presentation was a draft intended to solicit local feedback, not a final county policy.