Brentwood committee weighs $90,000 proposal to cover Fremont ambulance calls

Brentwood’s EMS contract review committee met to consider a proposal that would have Brentwood’s fire department take on Fremont’s ambulance transports under a contract starting at $90,000 a year, a plan that supporters say would improve response and critics say would shift costs to Brentwood taxpayers.

The Brentwood fire chief told the panel that Raymond Ambulances Inc., a private provider, is being absorbed into Raymond Fire and that the new leadership does not want to continue Fremont’s contract. The chief said private providers have faltered in the region and that, based on conservative modeling and a local billing company’s payer-mix estimates, an initial $90,000 payment would cover adding a third on-duty person, equipment wear-and-tear and a modest reserve. “I want to provide a quality service to Brentwood first and foremost,” the chief said.

Committee members pressed for more data. The panel heard that Fremont’s three‑year average of EMS runs is roughly 412 annually while Brentwood’s runs were cited in-session at about 600; combined fire and EMS activity in Brentwood was reported near 1,100 calls. The chief and the committee emphasized they lack Raymond’s private billing details and that a state billing change referenced in the discussion (described as a new system with a “325%” commercial multiplier) could materially change revenue projections but is not yet fully implemented.

Opponents said the $90,000 figure feels inadequate or unfair without a market check and a clearer allocation of costs. One member argued Brentwood taxpayers have already invested heavily in local services and that, under the proposal, Brentwood residents would effectively subsidize Fremont at a lower per‑residence cost. “If we charge them $90,000, the Brentwood taxpayer will be paying 270, something like that, $260 per fire per resident. And in Fremont, they’re gonna be paying, like, $80,” the committee member said. Another member called $90,000 a “nonstarter” without more analysis and asked for stakeholder meetings so expectations align before any price is set.

The committee discussed operational details: with an added on‑duty person, Brentwood crews could send two responders to a transport and keep a third in town to handle new calls, allowing initial on‑scene care until a transporting ambulance from a neighboring town arrives. The chief noted that per‑diems would have no benefits and could be paid from the department’s revolving fund so the town’s general budget would not be directly charged.

Legal and mutual‑aid limits also came up. One participant cited RSA 154:24 to emphasize that municipal mutual‑aid obligations do not force neighboring towns to provide ambulance service if a town has no in‑town service; committees discussed that excessive requests can prompt formal letters declining aid and that mutual aid arrangements have limits.

Next steps were procedural: the chief said he would circulate the draft contract and related materials by email and invited Jeff from MBS, the department’s billing contractor, to attend a future meeting to explain revenue assumptions. The committee agreed to continue fact‑finding, request Fremont call statistics and consider a probationary one‑year trial before committing to a longer contract. The panel set a follow‑up meeting cadence (Wednesdays at 1:00 p.m. was proposed) and asked the chief to contact Fremont’s select board to arrange a joint discussion.

No formal motion or vote was taken at the meeting; the committee framed the session as an initial fact‑finding review and adjourned after scheduling the next meeting.