Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Medical Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves two EMS service agreements amid debate over coverage and cost allocation
Summary
The Lewiston City Council approved two EMS agreements after discussing coverage, cost-allocation and how stationing affects Lewiston taxpayers.
Get email alerts on the Emergency Medical Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Lewiston City Council approved two separate emergency medical services agreements after discussion about cost allocation, response times and the effect on Lewiston taxpayers.
Resolution 2025-48 authorizes an emergency services agreement with the rural EMS district (contract language and the partner name appear in the agenda packet). Chief Greg Reitmeier explained that the contract uses annual ground emergency medical transport (GEMT/GMT) data to calculate cost adjustments each year and does not include a fixed numerical increment; instead, annual submissions reflect changes in staffing, fuel and medical-supply costs. "All of those things will be included each year," Reitmeier said, referring to personnel and supply-cost increases.
Council debated whether the unit stationed under the contract primarily benefits Lewiston or the neighboring county. Councilor Spickelmeyer argued the station's runs are heavily used by the county; supporters said the contract reduces the city's net staffing cost and provides surge capacity. After roll-call votes recorded in the transcript, Resolution 2025-48 passed with the motion carrying and one recorded dissent.
Resolution 2025-49 is an intergovernmental cooperation agreement with a neighboring fire district that provides a staffed ambulance based in the other jurisdiction's station. Chief Reitmeier described the arrangement as a partnership and a cost-allocation model that factors in station costs as well as staffing and transport revenue allocation. He said the agreement includes an annual review and a triggering mechanism if the usage percentage changes materially.
Councilors again discussed tradeoffs in response time and taxpayer cost; proponents said housing a unit across the river improves response times for the Elk Subdivision and other areas and is less expensive than the city staffing and housing an additional facility entirely on its own. Opponents said the unit spends more time on the neighboring county's calls than on Lewiston calls. The council approved Resolution 2025-49 after a roll-call vote; the transcript records one "nay." Chief Reitmeier and council members said they will continue to review contract data and recommended annual reporting to the council.

