Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Emergency Services Billing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission defers $202,120 ambulance-billing contract after legal review request

3044965 · April 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission voted to defer action on Resolution 425-23, a proposed three-year contract with ZOLL Data Systems for ambulance billing totaling $202,120, until the recessed meeting on May 28 so Baker Donelson can complete a review.

On Wednesday the Hamilton County Commission voted to defer Resolution 425-23, which would have authorized a three-year software and data-services agreement with ZOLL Data Systems for ambulance billing at a total cost of $202,120. The deferral was set for the recessed meeting on May 28 after commissioners and legal counsel recommended waiting for a Baker Donelson review.

Why it matters: The contract would centralize ambulance billing and data services for the county’s EMS department. Commissioners and the county attorney said they wanted Baker Donelson’s consultancy to complete its review before authorizing the contract.

Commissioner Sharp moved to defer the item; Commissioner Mackey seconded. County Attorney Ruben Taylor told the commission he had conferred with Baker Donelson and said the firm agreed with the recommendation to wait so it can complete the analysis. The mayor added that interviews and the study work would not begin until Monday the 21st and cautioned the May date could need adjustment.

Commission debate was split. Commissioner Graham voted no on the deferral; Commissioner Shipley also registered a no during roll call. The chair confirmed the referral passed and placed the item on the recessed agenda for May 28.

The motion to defer did not change the text of the proposed ZOLL contract shown in the record; it postponed an approval vote so the county can review legal and operational implications. Commissioners said they wanted to ensure contract provisions and data handling matched county policies before committing to signing.

No final contract was approved at the meeting; the item remains pending a future vote.