Vernon County seeks comparables, insurance review as it reconsiders four-county hazmat agreement

Vernon County emergency management staff asked the Local Emergency Planning Committee to reexamine terms of a four-county hazardous-materials mutual-aid agreement after one partner county delayed renewal in 2024 and questions surfaced about liability and cost-sharing.

Brandon, the county emergency management director, explained the intercounty agreement is currently two-year in length and noted one covered county failed to re-sign in 2024, creating a short interval when that county technically lacked a team. He said "we would have covered them, but we would have had to go as a state asset, not as a local team." Brandon recommended updating the agreement to add explicit dates (for example, coverage years 2025–2027) and a clear renewal deadline to avoid end-of-year delays.

Under the current arrangement, each participating county pays $2,500 annually into the regional hazmat account, a figure Brandon said has been unchanged since 1997. That contribution primarily serves as the required match to a state hazmat equipment grant; the state grant program historically had a $10,000 maximum award, Brandon said, and actual awards are prorated based on statewide requests. Brandon told the committee that when a participating county spends its local grant award on equipment, the agreement generally provides that the equipment remains with the county that purchased it; if a county leaves the agreement, equipment bought with their grant funds may remain with the lead team under the existing terms.

Committee members expressed concern that the $2,500 annual payment does not cover the county’s full exposure when the team deploys to incidents in other counties. Brandon said the county bears payroll, vehicle and other operational costs when the team responds outside Vernon County and that work‑comp and liability exposure could increase. "If they want to change the contract and say, once we enter whichever county, if they want to take it under their workman's comp and their liability, then that's fine. But if they don't, they should help [pay] for our increase," he said.

Committee members asked staff to: 1) research comparable agreements and contribution levels in neighboring counties (Grant County, Lafayette and others were mentioned as comparators), and 2) ask county insurance staff to estimate any premium or liability increases associated with operating a regional hazmat team. The committee agreed to revisit the issue in April, with staff bringing comparable contract language, contribution levels and any insurance cost estimates.

Brandon and others reviewed operational details and finances for the hazmat team. Key points staff reported: the county had roughly 27 active team members after recent roster updates; the team logged 10 hazmat calls in 2024, with 2–3 full activations and multiple smaller responses; a Richland Center incident in August required 14 team members and generated a sizeable reimbursement; and the county’s hazmat account showed expenses since October of about $27,003 and revenue of about $13,006, leaving an operational account balance staff reported as approximately $107,338 (staff said some state reimbursements were pending).

On equipment and training, Brandon said the county recently completed five‑year hydrostatic testing of 28 SCBA bottles, arranged meter maintenance and obtained two new mobile radios through state grants to align with an upcoming statewide radio-system change. He said the county will continue to evaluate whether to repair or retire older meters and other equipment.

No immediate contract changes were adopted at the meeting. The committee directed staff to gather comparables and obtain an insurance-impact estimate and to return with draft agreement language for consideration in April.