Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Otho Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Webster County EMS advisory council hears split views and fails to advance Otho funding proposal
Summary
The council debated whether to recognize Otho Fire as a transporting EMS service and recommend a $75,000 allocation from the county EMS levy. Conflicting call counts, CAD/mapping discrepancies and liability concerns left the motion without a second and the committee made no formal recommendation.
Get email alerts on the Otho Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Webster County’s EMS Advisory Council on Oct. 22 considered a request from Otho Fire to be recognized as a transporting EMS service and to receive $75,000 from the county’s recently approved EMS levy, but the council took no formal action after a motion failed for lack of a second.
The council heard written data read into the record from Dylan Hagen, the county EMA, listing Jan. 30–Sept. 30, 2025 figures: “Total calls, 98. Total EMS calls, 62… Otho transported 34,” and noting that Otho responded on about “69% of calls” during that span (written comment read aloud, SEG 113–125). Otho Fire Chief Marty Smith answered questions in person and said the CAD data Dylan used is a condensed version of longer dispatch printouts and that county dispatch or the original records could be audited to reconcile differences (SEG 285–313; SEG 296–316). “He specified all the colored sheet exactly what each one was and whether we responded… He already gave a condensed version of it,” Smith said, urging the council to review the original dispatch data before deciding.
Webster County 9-1-1 Director Brian Hitchcock told the council he reprocessed Dylan’s report and found additional records that were not on Dylan’s sheet, reporting about 111 calls in the reviewed set and saying ambulance units 58 or 59 responded to 45 of them; he recommended a deeper, call‑by‑call audit to resolve discrepancies (SEG 480–501; SEG 554–561). Kristi Lumsen, who manages the dispatch center, described mapping problems in the county’s Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system that can cause the wrong agency to be logged as the responder: “Our CAD… mapping currently only says Fort Dodge as in EMS transport… it doesn’t say Otho is a transport so it’s up to the dispatcher to utilize that” (SEG 392–397; SEG 421–427).
County public commenters and local responders were split. Supporters argued that Otho’s two ambulances and volunteer effort expand county capacity and free ALS (paramedic) trucks to cover areas farther north. Melissa Joyce of Southwest Webster Ambulance told the council that BLS units save lives and that Otho’s transport capacity is valuable: “Otho does have plans to become provisional… which would elevate them to a ALS service,” she said, adding that two additional transport trucks could reduce gaps (SEG 1607–1610; SEG 1688–1696). Opponents and some panel members raised concerns about liability if care were downgraded from ALS to BLS and questioned whether the levy funds should be used to backstop a new transport service before it demonstrates sustained performance. Doctor Lewis (on the phone) said his review of ImageTrend run reports showed inconsistencies and expressed a worry that “40 to 60% of calls are an ALS type call,” a point several commenters disputed (SEG 746–756; SEG 714–721).
After the public comment and council discussion, a council member made a motion “to accept the proposal made from Otho” but no one seconded the motion; the chair declared the motion dead for lack of a second (SEG 2196–2204). The council’s chair said the failed motion would have been only a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and that she would consult the county attorney for guidance on next steps before the advisory council’s next meeting.
The council did not vote to recommend funding for Otho at this meeting. Members asked staff and stakeholders to continue auditing CAD and ImageTrend records, suggested better GIS/CAD mapping and an EMS coordinator to funnel dispatch and response policy updates, and scheduled the next council meeting for Nov. 5 to review further information.
The council’s chair said she will consult the county attorney about the procedural implications of the failed motion; any formal funding decision would be made by the Webster County Board of Supervisors.
Ending: The advisory council adjourned after setting Nov. 5 as the next meeting date and directing members to begin drafting or finalizing the 2080 service agreements that define district responsibilities and first-response roles.

