Richland County hears study recommending countywide EMS levy; residents urge keeping local ambulance crews

A consultant’s study presented to the Richland County Executive & Finance Committee on April 1 laid out four principal models for future ambulance service and flagged funding options that would allow the county to raise taxes for EMS outside the state levy limit.

The consultant, Dana of Strategic Management & Consulting, told the committee the study examined statewide EMS trends and presented four viable options: (1) a district ambulance owned and operated by municipalities (which could itself contract operations), (2) a district that contracts with a third‑party provider, (3) a county‑run service owned and operated by Richland County, and (4) a county‑run approach that contracts with an outside operator. Dana said the report also outlined a compliance checklist and 28 recommended items for a self‑run service.

Dana walked the committee through an illustrative cost model: a paramedic‑staffed ambulance, fully staffed year‑round, was estimated at about $1,000,000 per year; dividing that cost by the county population produced a per‑capita estimate of $58.04 for one ambulance (about $116.08 for two). Dana also summarized the state’s “innovation grant” administered through the Department of Revenue, explaining how documented volunteer hours and municipal participation could increase a county’s annual award and reduce net levy needs.

The county administrator said the study’s staff recommendation leaned toward a countywide tax outside the levy limit combined with contracting a third‑party provider to deliver services in the area now served by Richland County Ambulance Service. The administrator warned the ambulance fund has run deficits (an average shortfall of about $114,000 per year across 2023–25) and that the county has limited cash equity.

Public commenters, many of them current or former EMS personnel and residents who rely on local crews, urged the committee to preserve the current, local service. Sharon Schmitz and several others said municipalities and attendees at earlier meetings favored county involvement to support hometown EMS. Michael Hubert and other speakers described local knowledge of roads and families as lifesaving advantages and warned that a third‑party contractor might not prioritize Richland County residents.

Several EMS workers and volunteers described situations where local EMTs’ familiarity with roads and patients shortened response times. Andrea Rainer, who said she is a former highway patrol dispatcher, and Chris Younger, who was introduced as part of Richland Center EMS (but spoke as a citizen), both stress‑tested the proposal in human terms: longer travel distances and unfamiliar responders could increase risk in time‑sensitive emergencies.

Committee members asked detailed questions about funding mechanics: whether a levy exclusion would apply to capital purchases such as ambulances, how a per‑capita levy compares with an equalized‑value levy that spreads costs to tax‑exempt property, how the innovation grant values volunteer hours, and whether counties that contract third‑party providers have used the levy exclusion before. Dana answered that RFPs can require ambulance placement, minimum staffing and response expectations, and that equalized‑value levies typically lower the per‑household cost by spreading the burden across taxable property.

Several supervisors urged more outreach and data before committing to a funding path. Concerns included: outlying towns that currently buy service from other providers, how to avoid double taxation for towns that already pay for a local service, and the absence of concrete cost proposals from potential private contractors. The committee asked staff to gather RFP examples, legal guidance on levy application and opt‑out implications, and cost estimates from potential vendors before the next meeting.

What happens next: the committee did not vote on a final model. It asked staff to return with RFP examples, legal guidance about the levy‑exclusion mechanism, cost comparisons for contracting versus county operation, and outreach to outlying municipalities and neighboring providers. The committee scheduled follow‑up discussion at its next meeting on April 14.

Quote highlights:

• "EMS is an essential public utility just like clean water and safe roads," Michael Hubert said, urging stable funding for the local service.

• "If the service is allowed to wither away, you become beholden to monopolize corporations," Hubert said of outside contractors.

• "They don't know the area... GPS is not always accurate," Andrea Rainer said in opposition to relying on out‑of‑town crews.

The committee directed staff to collect additional information and return with clarified options before making a funding or contracting decision.