Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ambulance Franchise Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney updates ambulance-franchise ordinance; committee adopts amended ordinance language and directs follow-up
Summary
The city attorney told the committee that Topeka’s ambulance-franchise ordinance needed updating after discovering nonfranchised services operating in the city; the committee voted to advance an amended ordinance (removal of a redundant section) and directed staff to pursue applications and follow-up enforcement.
Brandy Wight Bachman, senior city attorney, told the Policy and Finance Committee on March 25 that the city discovered at least two ambulance services operating in Topeka that had not applied for a franchise and that parts of the city’s existing ambulance ordinance contained outdated language and citations.
Wight Bachman said the office had sent an application to the owner of one service and had given that operator 60 days to submit a completed application; staff had sent a letter to the second service but that mailing was returned as undeliverable because the listed address was a warehouse or storage unit and the city had not received a response to email. She described the application packet as “pretty extensive” and said she expected applicants would need time to assemble required documentation.
Committee members asked for clarity about which services fall under the ordinance. Wight Bachman said the ordinance covers operators who “regularly offer and provide transportation to residents of the city” and that the state’s EMS licensing rules also apply. Committee members and city staff explained that the county has a contract with AMR that gives AMR exclusivity for 911 ambulance responses in the county; the other services in question provide non-911, nonemergent or interfacility transports.
Council members raised enforcement and next-step questions. Wight Bachman said staff had contacted one operator directly and provided the application; they will follow up on the other operator by phone because the mailed letter was returned. She said the legal team expects to continue outreach and to use the franchise application process to regularize any operators that meet the ordinance definition.
On a motion to approve the ordinance as amended (removing a redundant Section 4), the committee voted in favor and advanced the ordinance language for full council review. Committee Chair Spencer Duncan moved to approve as amended and Councilmember Michelle Hofer seconded; the committee recorded aye votes and advanced the change.
Ending: Staff will follow up with the two identified ambulance/transport operators, monitor application progress under the 60-day timeline described for the responsive operator, and return proposed consolidated ordinance language to the council for final action.
