Municipal representatives and Richland County staff on Tuesday discussed how to fund and operate ambulance service after the county set a Nov. 1 deadline for returning 2026 service contracts.

The Joint Analyst Committee met in the Richland County boardroom on Oct. 21 to review changes in call billing and contract language, to consider three broad options for providing ambulance service going forward, and to plan follow-up meetings. Committee members were told several municipalities had not returned signed contracts to the county and that a county board decision the previous day rejected a proposed three-month memorandum of agreement offered as a short-term alternative.

Why it matters: municipalities must decide quickly whether to sign new county contracts that would run Jan. 1–Dec. 31, 2026; some local leaders said the new terms, including revised call classifications and minimums, could strain small jurisdictions. Committee members discussed county-wide financing options — a per-capita levy, formation of a multi-municipality ambulance district under pending state legislation, or each municipality contracting separately with a provider — and asked staff for more detailed call and billing reports before committing to a course.

The committee heard three options repeatedly in discussion: continue county-operated ambulance service funded in part by municipal contract payments and potentially by a county levy; form an ambulance district of participating municipalities that would have taxing power if state legislation is enacted; or allow individual municipalities to contract with private or other providers. A committee member said a county levy could be used both to make up any operating shortfall and to pay private providers that serve areas not covered by the county service.

Staff and municipal representatives described recent changes to how certain calls would be charged and who would absorb them. Tricia (county staff) read a memo summarizing actions from an Oct. 20 county board meeting: the Richland County Board of Supervisors had voted down the three-month memorandum of agreement and voted to have the county absorb calls to county-owned facilities; the memo said the county’s Nov. 1 deadline for returning previously provided 2026 contracts remained in effect. The memo was distributed to committee members and copied to corporate counsel Michael Windell.

Committee members asked for more detailed call-location data to verify how many calls occurred in each township and thereby to validate contract charges. Staff said they would try to produce aggregated counts by road or neighborhood (without addresses or protected patient details) and work with the sheriff’s office Spillman dispatch software to avoid HIPAA violations. Staff cautioned that some individual-level data are protected by HIPAA and could not be shared.

Financial and operational details discussed included: past per-call charges that the committee used for cost-sharing (described historically as a $75 baseline), recent county proposals that would increase municipality charges for certain responses (committee discussion referenced a $225 charge for some municipal responses), and concerns from small municipalities about minimum contract amounts (one speaker called a proposed minimum of $2,500 “outrageous” for a township with about 53 residents). Staff also presented account figures from the ambulance fund packet: members discussed a receivables figure reported as $311,260.60 and earlier references in committee discussion to negative cash balances in certain reports; staff said packet formats and report truncation had complicated interpretation and offered to reformat reports and to meet individually with municipal finance officers to explain the numbers.

State law and pending legislation were part of the discussion. Committee materials referenced state statutory provisions for cities, villages and towns (citations discussed aloud during the meeting included “62.133,” “61.64” and “16.565”) describing municipalities’ authority to operate or contract for ambulance service and to levy reasonable fees. Participants also described pending state legislation, reported by a committee member to be sponsored by state Rep. Tony Kurtz and state Sen. Howard Marklein, that would allow eight or more municipalities to form an ambulance district with taxing power; the member said sponsors expected the bill to be introduced and possibly enacted during the coming legislative session, but no final text was available during the meeting.

No formal committee action was taken on ambulance policy at the Oct. 21 meeting. Gordon Palmer (Town of Richland) said he would move to advise the county board to pursue a county levy approach but withdrew that motion to allow further discussion. Several members urged the committee to send consolidated guidance to the county board and to participate in a county convened committee that staff said would begin work in January; the county finance and executive committee was scheduled to meet with an ambulance presentation the week following the meeting.

Public comment at the start of the meeting raised two issues: one resident asked how a recent donation from “Bob Simpson” would be treated if municipalities did not sign contracts and expressed concern about county plans to retain ambulance assets if municipalities withdraw; staff and counsel were copied on a memo addressing the county board’s Oct. 20 actions and said they would follow up. Committee members flagged the memorandum of understanding and contract language as potentially affecting asset ownership if municipalities split from county service, and they asked legal staff to clarify the consequences of pulling out under the new contracts and MOU.

Next steps and follow-up: staff committed to prepare re-formatted call-count and billing reports that exclude protected patient identifiers but show counts by area; to send revised contract language reflecting changes agreed at the county board (including the county covering calls to county facilities); and to coordinate with municipal finance directors to review account reports. Committee members agreed to reconvene on Nov. 17 at 5:00 p.m. to hear invited experts and to prepare advice for county decision-makers; county staff said any county convened committee on the topic would most likely begin work in January after the Nov. 1 contract deadline.

No vote to adopt new policy or to change municipal contracts was recorded at the Oct. 21 meeting. Committee members repeatedly emphasized the short timeline before contracts take effect Jan. 1 and urged municipalities to review contract revisions and to coordinate with the county finance office and counsel before Nov. 1.

Ending: The committee scheduled a follow-up meeting for Nov. 17 at 5 p.m., invited subject-matter presenters and county lawmakers, and asked staff to produce clearer financial and call-distribution reports in advance of further discussion.