Agenda - 04-01-1996 - X-B - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• . 5 to change the focus of Option 1 to the simpler concept of making "fee for service" the basic financing mechanism of the EMS system. The underlying philosophy of this approach would be that individual users of the EMS system should be responsible for their own use of the service if either treatment or transport is required. Membership fees were seen under the revised option 1 as just one variation of basic fees for service, if the Board of Commissioners seemed interested in that approach. When the discussion of the Council ' s financing options was put to a vote, revised Option 1 received no affirmative votes . There was strong support among the Council for option 2 . It was noted that there would be some legal review required for this option, as the North Carolina Statutes impose a number of restrictions on the creation and employment of special district taxes . For example, a county may not create a special district tax that includes a town' s jurisdiction unless the governing board of that town agrees to be a part of the special district . If the towns in Orange County chose not to participate in a special district tax, decisions would be required as to how town residents would receive EMS service . Option 2 was restated by the Council as the creation of a special district tax to cover all Emergency Management Department and Rescue Squad costs (less those services for which the County already has alternative dedicated revenue sources) . There would be third party billing of all EMS users, and full billing of all non-Orange County residents or out-of-district residents. Option 2 received by far the largest support with 8 affirmative votes . The Council decided that a third option should be offered, so Option 3 was created for consideration. This option would basically be a combination of Options 1 and 2, use of a special district tax with a broader application of EMS fee for service than that incorporated in Option 2 . There was only 1 affirmative vote for this new option. The two financing options proposed to the EMS Council were built on the assumption that one objective of the approved financing mechanism would be to minimize the amount of additional County funds required to operate the EMS system in 1996-97, even if the basic service model we are now using were to be continued through 1996-97 . It is important to note the view of EMS management that even if the basic service model remains the same next year, EMS would need approximately an additional $150, 000 for FY1996-97 IF we are to try to maintain the same level of service next year. That is primarily attributable to the increasing pressure on County funding to make up for the increasing challenges that the volunteers face in providing the necessary volunteer hours for system staffing upon which the current service delivery model was originally predicated. System Financial Needs County funding of the current EMS system is approximately $850, 000 per year. Approximately $950, 000 in additional funding would be needed to meet the objective of providing service under the new model . Including funding of all operational needs of the two squads (which heretofore have been covered primarily by donations to the squads) , the new