Kanab City and Kane County near agreement on vehicle emergency response; dispute over gross‑negligence language remains

Kanab City and Kane County officials on Friday discussed a draft vehicle emergency response agreement intended to give legal authority and liability clarity when city fire personnel respond to vehicle extrications outside municipal limits. The parties said most contract terms are settled, but they remain split over whether the agreement should exclude indemnification for gross negligence.

County counsel summarized the remaining dispute, saying the county had added exclusions for gross negligence and intentional misconduct and that the change remained in tracked edits for the two bodies to resolve. “We’ve come to agreement on everything except whether gross negligence and intentional misconduct should be excluded,” the counsel said during the meeting.

City participants pushed back that governments commonly avoid assuming another entity’s gross negligence because municipalities do not control training or hiring at other agencies. One city representative said it is “standard to not take on another person’s gross negligence” and that waivers typically apply only to ordinary negligence, not gross negligence or intentional misconduct.

Participants debated practical consequences. Several speakers noted that third parties typically name the city in litigation and that a gross‑negligence allegation triggers immediate legal costs even if the claim is later reduced to ordinary negligence. County counsel said arbitration could lower overall legal expense compared with full litigation but would still entail upfront costs and discovery; arbitration is likely to follow disclosure and investigation rather than as an immediate filter for new claims.

The meeting also focused on consideration — what the city will receive in return for allowing response and what value exchange makes the contract legally defensible. Counsel warned that very small nominal amounts risk later being challenged as insufficient consideration; the county attorney recommended a defensible floor near $5,000 and suggested $7,500–$10,000 as reasonable compromise figures. One participant proposed, alternatively, that the county and city buy vehicle‑extrication equipment together so that in‑kind purchases (tools that directly improve life‑saving capacity) serve as consideration.

Fire chiefs emphasized operational limits: paramedics and ambulance crews are not trained or equipped in the same way as firefighters for vehicle extrication, and storing heavy extrication tools on ambulances raises safety and packing concerns. “You have to have the other tools to stabilize the car…there’s a whole gamut of stuff that has to be done,” Chief Pearson said, arguing that extrication equipment and the space needed make an ambulance an impractical platform for some tools.

Speakers also noted grant and budget options. Commissioners referenced a new mitigation grant pot tied to a TRT tax increase that could be tapped for equipment purchases; several participants said they would pursue grants to offset equipment costs. County counsel explained that IRMAA (the county indemnity/risk pool) may advance funds as an interest‑free loan repayable over multiple years when claims qualify, but the parties agreed that litigation or large settlement exposure would still impose fiscal risk.

By the end of the discussion, participants said they had resolved most language and were left mainly with liability exclusions and the term length (a move from five years to two years had been discussed). Several officials signaled support for a midrange monetary figure (roughly $7,500–$10,000 annually) or commensurate in‑kind equipment as defensible consideration, and they asked staff and counsel to refine language on arbitration, cost‑sharing of defense, and the precise indemnification carve‑outs. The meeting closed with direction to continue negotiations and to pursue grant and equipment options.

Next steps: counsel will refine proposed contract language on indemnity and dispute resolution, staff will investigate grant options for equipment, and the city council may consider ratifying the updated agreement to enable immediate approval by any successor SSD board.