Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Services Rescue topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Atchison County and local fire districts debate mutual aid, liability and ownership of Rescue 2 after EMS reorganization
Summary
Commissioners and fire district representatives discussed a disputed rescue truck, mixed ownership of equipment, lack of a written agreement, liability for volunteers and options to form a mutual-aid/automatic-aid agreement or to transfer assets.
Atchison County commissioners and local fire-district leaders spent the bulk of a March 27 special meeting on a long-running dispute over Rescue 2: who owns the rescue truck and equipment, how volunteers and county personnel are paid and covered, and how to document mutual-aid arrangements.
John Edson, president of the Edson County Rural Fire District No. 2, described a February decision by his fire board to accept “option 3” for Rescue 2: that the county establish a similar level of county-run rescue service station in Effingham while allowing current Rescue 2 members who wish to join to continue as county rescue personnel. “On our rescue truck decision, we voted to go with option 3,” Edson said, describing the board action and subsequent disputes over amendments.
Fire-district representatives told the commission the district originally received an older ambulance and equipment to run rescue service and then later upgraded tools and vehicles at its own expense. Several speakers said some of the equipment on the current rescue truck is county-owned, creating a mix of district- and county-owned assets on the same vehicle.
County staff and commissioners flagged two central problems: the absence of a written agreement governing the arrangement, and unclear liability and medical‑control arrangements for non‑county personnel performing medical care. A county official said staff could not find any executed written agreement despite minutes referring to one. “There was an agreement at one time … but if you can’t find it and we can’t find it, there is no [agreement],” the official said.
Commissioners and staff urged a mutual‑aid or automatic‑aid agreement that clearly sets who will operate, maintain and access equipment and how medical protocols and liability will be handled. County officials said a mutual‑aid agreement could preserve volunteer participation while establishing county protocols for paid rescue personnel, medical direction, background checks and access to county‑owned equipment.
Fire‑district members said the district has paid for many upgrades and that volunteers would be demoralized if they lost access to equipment or to deployments they historically performed. Board representatives also raised practical concerns about response times and call volumes if the district withdrew rescue coverage, which could affect future grants and funding tied to run totals.
County commissioners and staff agreed to pursue a mutual‑aid/auto‑aid agreement and to continue negotiations. County staff said they are exploring refurbished tool purchases and an additional set of rescue tools to ensure the western portion of the county has compatible equipment. The meeting did not include a commission vote on transferring vehicles or equipment; later in the meeting the commission adjourned on a motion that carried 3–0.
No formal transfer of the rescue truck or assets was approved at the March 27 meeting; the county indicated it will continue drafting a mutual‑aid agreement and work with fire districts on access and liability issues.
