Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ambulance Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richland County committee advances new ambulance MOU and higher fees amid municipal objections
Summary
The Executive & Finance Committee voted to send a proposed memorandum of agreement and new ambulance rate schedule to the full county board after heated discussion about large fee increases, disputed call counts and a $2,500 minimum charge for municipalities.
The Richland County Executive & Finance Committee on Tuesday moved a proposed memorandum of agreement (MOU) and new rate schedule for the county ambulance service to the full county board for final consideration after lengthy debate and public questions about the cost impact on townships and villages.
The proposal would raise the base per-call amount from $125 to $225 and add a $2,500 minimum annual fee for participating municipalities, while using a four-year average of billed calls to allocate costs. Committee members and several municipal representatives pressed staff to confirm call counts and to clarify which areas (for example, Pine Valley) are included in each jurisdiction’s totals.
County staff and the ambulance billing records were cited as the sources for the call counts the committee used to model the new charges. Matt Williams, speaking as a township representative, said his township’s four-year call average is about 54 and asked why the county’s projection was substantially higher. County staff responded that the call counts the committee relied on were pulled from the ambulance service’s billing records and that municipalities would receive their call data when the MOU is circulated for signature.
Committee members said the change is driven by rising operating costs and by costs the ambulance service had not previously allocated to the shared pricing formula, such as certain HR and payroll overhead. Chair Turk and other supervisors emphasized the county’s goal of sustaining an operational ambulance service; opponents warned the new prices could strain small-town budgets or prompt municipalities to seek alternative arrangements.
The committee voted, by voice, to forward the MOU and accompanying resolution to the full county board. Committee members said the forwarded materials will include the source call data and that municipalities will be given opportunity to review and, if needed, negotiate call-volume counts before final adoption. The proposed MOU also requires each municipality to pass its own resolution to accept the agreement.
The committee discussion made clear that the MOU’s structural changes (who signs and when a municipality becomes bound) are intended to take effect Jan. 1, 2026; existing MOUs remain in force through their current expirations. Staff said the MOU itself and the call data will be sent to municipalities for review once the county board has acted.
The item passed the committee by voice vote and will be on the county board agenda for final action. Members asked that staff supply town-by-town call history and the specific billing records behind the four-year averages before the county board meeting.
