Richland County committee asks administrator to draft RFP to study countywide ambulance model

The Richland County Executive and Finance Committee asked the county administrator to prepare a request for proposals to evaluate third-party operation of ambulance services for the portion of the county currently served by Richland EMS.

County administrator (speaker 10) told the committee the consultant’s study recommended a “distributed approach” — a countywide levy funding 9-1-1 ambulance coverage run by an external provider — and said he could have an RFP ready “by either the end of this week or next week.” He added the county could reject all proposals and keep the service in-house if the bids do not meet expectations.

The item attracted public comment and detailed committee discussion about costs, scope and safeguards. Sharon Schmitz, a public commenter, said minutes from the March 30 meeting misstated the ambulance-advisory group’s consensus and urged supervisors to verify facts with municipal representatives and EMS staff before deciding. “I fear the discussion and consensus of the unofficial ambulance committee have not been fully explained,” she said.

Annie Winthrop described operational problems in recent local responses: long transport times, an ambulance that required a swap and a multi‑hour delay before her husband reached the hospital. “When they got here, they discovered a problem with the ambulance…so they had to drive it to Prairie Du Chien and pick up another ambulance,” Winthrop said, urging the committee to consider on-the-ground response reliability.

Committee members discussed multiple models. One member summarized current cost estimates by saying, “1,500,000.0 is what we’re quoting at right now,” and other speakers suggested third-party quotes could range much lower (speaker 10 referenced figures “300 to 600” thousand in the conversation). Several supervisors emphasized the need for contract provisions requiring in-county basing of crews and vehicles, emergency medical dispatching (EMD) to keep callers informed, countywide training, regular reporting on response times and billing, and performance clauses allowing the county to enforce standards or terminate contracts.

The administrator said an RFP could specify a nonprofit preference, require basing in Richland Center and ask for separate accounting of 9-1-1 response versus interfacility transfers. He also said the county would compile a five‑year projection comparing running the service in-house (including a possible levy exemption option) with third‑party proposals so the board could see likely costs under both approaches.

There was no formal vote to transfer service; the committee instead advised the administrator to issue the RFP and return results to a special informational meeting set for May 12, with a target of a recommendation by the regular May board meeting. The administrator said he would collect municipality budget contributions and other data to model equitable distribution of any county levy.

What happens next: the administrator will draft and, with county attorney review, issue an RFP and present bids and comparative five‑year financials to the board at a special meeting. No contract award or levy decision was made at the session.