Board debates shared EMS staffing plan and trade-offs between full-time and part-time models

Presenter (Speaker 1) opened the discussion by presenting an overhead model he said includes ambulance and equipment depreciation and set-asides: "I put in ambulance depreciation, equipment depreciation, and squad. So that money will be set aside to purchase new squads, new ambulances, new equipment as the need comes up." He described the document as a concept that needs more work and input from the group.

Several board members pressed for clarity about staffing levels and how that translates to 24/7 coverage. Presenter (Speaker 1) proposed staffing with "3 full time, 6 part time, and 3 full time paramedics," arranged so one full timer, two part-timers and one paramedic would cover each 24-hour shift. Committee member (Speaker 3) responded that the county currently runs four full-time staff and warned members not to compare different service levels without adjustment: "If we're comparing an apple to an orange...right now, we're running 4 full time, and we have a paramedic backup."

Board members repeatedly urged that the group first define the desired level of service—time-based (minutes) versus distance or ISO-triggered service—before settling on a staffing model. Committee member (Speaker 3) proposed a small subcommittee of financial and hiring staff to build spreadsheets showing costs for alternative delivery models so the full board can compare like for like. The group set a near-term timeline: participants need more data within about two months to make some jurisdictional decisions.

The board did not take a formal vote on staffing at this meeting. Next steps agreed to include reconciling Hiram's and county numbers so the group can return with comparative models and three baseline options to consider.