Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Services Hazmat topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lebanon County commissioners express concerns about extended HAZMAT coverage for Lancaster County
Summary
Commissioners discussed a Leadtown article and raised resource, cost and operational concerns about Lebanon County providing extended hazardous-materials coverage for Lancaster County under current arrangements; staff said current assistance is under long-standing mutual aid and any formal agreement would return to the commissioners for review.
Lebanon County commissioners debated whether the county should assume extended hazardous-materials (HAZMAT) coverage for Lancaster County after a local news story reported the county team would cover Lancaster for two months.
A commissioner said Lebanon County “does not have the resources” to take on Lancaster's HAZMAT response, citing long travel distances, additional overtime and training costs, equipment wear and tear and the potential for staff recruitment by a larger county. “I just don't think that's proper,” the commissioner said. The same speaker urged staff to bring any formal proposal back to the board for a vote rather than relying on news reports.
County staff and other commissioners said the current response for Lancaster is being provided under mutual-aid arrangements that routinely allow fire and emergency services to assist across county lines. A staff member said mutual aid has been the longstanding method for neighboring counties to assist each other and that, at present, Lancaster is operating under that arrangement.
Bob Dowd, identified in the meeting as director of the Department of Emergency Services, was referenced by the board when discussing an earlier recommendation related to a radio technician position; Dowd was not quoted on the HAZMAT topic in the transcript. Board members said a formal contract or agreement would be reviewed by the commissioners if and when one is presented; until then, staff should monitor developments and prepare details for any proposal.
Commissioners raised specific operational concerns: long travel times between Lebanon and points in Lancaster County; differences in call volume tied to population and roadway miles; increased costs for training, uniforms and vehicle maintenance; and the stress on on-call personnel and their families from increased out-of-county responses. One commissioner also noted environmental differences—citing the Susquehanna River’s depth and pollution relative to local waterways—as a factor increasing response complexity.
Multiple speakers recommended waiting for a formal proposal and related staffing, cost and mutual-aid details before taking action. The board emphasized that, as of the meeting, no formal contract or vote was pending and that staff should return with clear options and cost implications if Lancaster requests a formal agreement.
The meeting record shows commissioners challenged the accuracy of the news story and asked the reporter to correct any factual errors if needed; the reporter offered to amend the article if information presented to them was incorrect.
The discussion concluded with commissioners reiterating priorities for public safety and instructing staff to keep the board informed and to prepare any formal proposal for consideration at a future meeting.
