[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,98,110],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",5973458,"mediaKeyId","5830383-437971fc9ae3cb311eb118b2e70f3edc","parentId",5830383,"title","Committee opts for informal six‑month review of county administrator; will solicit selected input","audioSeconds",100,"startMs",2864000,"endMs",2964000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5830383-437971fc9ae3cb311eb118b2e70f3edc&start=2864&end=2964","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5830383-437971fc9ae3cb311eb118b2e70f3edc/thumbnail_2864000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5973458/Richland-County/Wisconsin/Committee-opts-for-informal-sixmonth-review-of-county-administrator-will-solicit-selected-input","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5973458-7faea0d7f9c08db0eace2fb6e9eaff78/orig.mp4?Expires=1770782928&Signature=o8MBdNr4kdg8fTOYOHlOiGEQEJPaBy7TXjpV82zbsDcVTIy~2W9YpD116d1UKbLMJCpraJrtfPziXqTXLSPgHuZYWIJ-UBiYJ~yR5ISR-YZ9-1tVaZaH1pqws6ZNhpOjdvM1jejQRMMNj0617tiZ~7m69D7iwtQLRCipLI5o3XPfZDJOjJDutlPvhQ~JdyFFYl8Ry-LtPHDxOZZeBp2-FqURb1rqPkush57bLc6YTZi~l89EZtW18R88a3I5dwhct9Z34AgVm6FxLl7r0ipiOvRT~NubltbXkZL3Nm0uxpDhZ3Cr3RD7GvbrWVRPfGWorWPbPVsJ1S3PBz~JSMFLhA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Richland County, WI","date","2025-09-26T00:46:58.55Z","article","The Executive Finance Standing Committee discussed how to conduct the county administrator’s required six‑month performance review and agreed to use an informal, two‑way process that includes a self‑evaluation and targeted external input.

Process and input: members agreed the six‑month review need not replicate the lengthier annual process. One supervisor recommended soliciting input from at least one department head who reports directly to the administrator and at least one elected official who works closely with the administrator but is not a subordinate. “I would also solicit input from at least 1 department head, as a direct subordinate, and at least 1 elected official who is not the subordinate to the administrator, but works closely with her,” a committee member said during the meeting.

Confidentiality and timing: the committee noted the review would include a closed‑session component for performance evaluation, with an opportunity for two‑way dialogue and a self‑evaluation by the administrator. Committee members asked staff to prepare a draft process for the next Executive Finance meeting so they could finalize the approach and begin outreach; the administrator’s contract anniversary was identified as Oct. 1.

Next steps: staff will prepare a proposed review process for committee approval at the next meeting, including a plan to select several department heads (committee discussed randomly selecting a small subset) and to solicit brief written feedback and a self‑evaluation. If grievances exist against the administrator, the committee reiterated that a written grievance process already directs such complaints to the committee.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Executive & Finance Standing Committee - 2025/09/25","oneSentenceSummary","The Executive Finance Standing Committee agreed to use an informal, two‑way process for the county administrator's six‑month performance review that includes a self‑evaluation and targeted input from selected department heads and an elected official.","taxTitle","Richland County, Wisconsin","taxId",72898,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5973479,"County committee reviews new ambulance contract after township warns of large rate jump",1856,83000,1939000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5830383-437971fc9ae3cb311eb118b2e70f3edc&start=83&end=1939","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5830383-437971fc9ae3cb311eb118b2e70f3edc/thumbnail_83000.jpg","/articles/5973479/Richland-County/Wisconsin/County-committee-reviews-new-ambulance-contract-after-township-warns-of-large-rate-jump","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5973479-f8bebbb7113c4e70842fe6cacbcd608c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770782928&Signature=Hy4ngYymcY6nvToCTFQkfNfxZmdQrUeZRrp316lOOJrND4x937zHsPA4w5~ydAB4R0kmNzJsnbRZ9uXWyIN1pARonjWP6oUOLX~B8mf-tZzPwNgei6LUh-1kU4r8Kazzlbl47NELwpLjpUkNJR50Qi8GODHNsY-wnsm-kmGSkZb~WjcQHkfutIWqpChwhSfy8EpsSuVQPVFSs6WwQaWXOz9IncLS~a8v5AFFnp1f5q2CiIm9U4KZjThnVz-RpEcL3rmuiBEdvTBB57KUh1~vQrF1JxUAlwwqr4IDQGajfXW6sVhzDxnXkLbkTDSofOsmhsLxggNcjlU8256x9agLRQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A proposed ambulance service contract that would replace a decade-old memorandum of understanding drew public criticism and follow-up questions from the Executive Finance Standing Committee, after a township representative said the new contract would sharply raise his township’s annual bill.

Gordon Palmer, who said he has represented Richland Township on the Joint Ambulance Committee since 2015, told the committee the contract being circulated to municipalities would charge Richland Township for 192.75 calls per year at $225 per call — a change he said would raise the township’s share from about $9,690 a year under the existing memorandum of understanding to roughly $43,369.

The new contract “will be replacing a memorandum of understanding that the JAC has operated under for the last 10 years,” Palmer said. He added: “We were paying $9,690 for the last 3 or 4 years. That's going to be raised under this new contract to $43,369 a year.” Palmer also said a main reason for the increase is that ambulance calls to Pine Valley Manor would be billed to Richland Township. “We get no property tax. We get nothing from Pine Valley,” he said. “That's unacceptable to Richland Township also.”

Why it matters: committee members and staff said the contract is intended to replace an informal memorandum of understanding with a written service contract and that the county must provide municipalities with the data used to calculate each municipality’s bill so they can verify call counts.

County staff reported the contract was drafted after a model service-contract template was revised to include protections the county counsel and staff believed were missing. “We are hoping to send it out to all the municipalities tomorrow with their information as far as their call numbers and what the total amount will be,” the county’s administrator told the committee during the meeting.

Discussion and follow-up: committee members said the Pine Valley billing issue traces to decades-old informal practices. One supervisor described a past “gentleman's handshake” in which the city accepted calls, but no written billing arrangement was found. Committee members asked staff to verify call counts and billing history before municipalities make decisions about signing the new contract. The committee agreed the Joint Ambulance Committee (JAC) will meet again in October to consider more complex cost‑sharing alternatives, and staff said they would re-check the call data and provide accurate counts to municipalities.

No formal approval: the committee took no formal vote to adopt the contract during the meeting. Staff said the draft contract would be circulated to municipalities and that any change — for example, exempting Pine Valley calls from a particular township’s bill or having the county temporarily absorb those costs — would require further committee and full-board consideration.

Numbers and disputed figures provided in the meeting: under the prior memorandum of understanding, Richland Township was described as being billed for about 57 calls per year at $170 per call (about $9,690 annually). The draft contract circulated to municipalities reportedly allocates about 192.75 calls per year to Richland Township at $225 per call (roughly $43,369). Palmer and others disputed those counts; one staff member said that if Pine Valley calls (about 68 calls per year) were removed, the township’s bill would drop to about 124 calls (about $27,900). Committee members asked staff to verify the call lists and billing calculations before the contract is finalized.

Next steps: staff will send the draft contract and municipality-specific call data to the municipalities, double-check the historical call logs and billing, and place the contract on the Executive Finance agenda for further discussion and any recommended changes before the full county board considers adoption.

","A proposed ambulance service contract that would replace a decade-old memorandum of understanding drew public criticism and follow-up questions from the Executive Finance Standing Committee, after a township representative said the new contract would sharply raise his township’s annual bill.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":42,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5973463,"Committee approves sending EMT training reimbursement agreement to full board",3171000,3271000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5830383-437971fc9ae3cb311eb118b2e70f3edc&start=3171&end=3271","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5830383-437971fc9ae3cb311eb118b2e70f3edc/thumbnail_3171000.jpg","/articles/5973463/Richland-County/Wisconsin/Committee-approves-sending-EMT-training-reimbursement-agreement-to-full-board","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5973463-52e0039a6e03c675b311cd4d31962bbc/orig.mp4?Expires=1770782928&Signature=XafOKplBE6q5tMWWjRVuKtqMSaB9byUD41ar0iDxhIlFsohjm88qU7eBvTJgD22op7zGVyA~okhsu1RtDmlzcSTgCBfjCWCWTvsurqZx5XG5prmv5rHQ3X5NPttgoBECYx6KaxtV6H~fm19OxCauVP55OKGWrowOUFAn~3dqAaj9euGnXSQlPo25ikFyiocvxeFrnmQaoKhGOptwO6L85zou0BZsArNOzS0PPywDLPMROnY~ITHpdILm3DqN6FnGsKrSEDfiV18YDBw80fwpQZLg4ErEJ-TvnjI0GP6zPZKmPgjACeXuoU35aFpMMgPSIP4K3kmxDf~zYlnDAa-EMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Executive Finance Standing Committee voted to forward to the full county board a training‑reimbursement agreement for ambulance personnel after hearing a proposal from the interim ambulance director.

Proposal and rationale: Barb Scott, identified in the meeting as interim director, said the ambulance service lacked a formal incentive to recruit and retain EMTs and AEMTs. Her proposal, supported by county staff, would reimburse course costs to employees who agree to remain employed with the service for an additional 15 months after completing training. If an employee left before the commitment period ended, the county could seek partial recovery of the training costs.

“if there are staff members that are wanting to do these things, that the county reimburses them for those costs with the commitment that they stay an additional 15 months,” the interim director said during the meeting.

Committee action: a motion to forward the training agreement to the full board was made by Kara and seconded by Mr. Frank; the committee approved the motion by voice vote.

Why it matters: committee members said such programs are commonly used by public safety employers — the sheriff’s office and Pine Valley were mentioned as having similar arrangements — to encourage recruitment and retention in jobs that require licensure and costly training.

Next steps: the committee sent the training‑reimbursement agreement to the full county board for consideration; staff will provide the full text of the agreement and the proposed recovery terms if an employee leaves before the 15‑month commitment is complete.","The Executive Finance Standing Committee agreed to forward a training‑reimbursement agreement to the full county board. The interim EMS director proposed reimbursing EMT/AEMT course costs if employees commit to remain with the service for 15 months; if they leave earlier the county may recover costs.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5973468,"County preliminary 2026 budget updated; ambulance fund flagged as unsustainable",320,2080000,2400000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5830383-437971fc9ae3cb311eb118b2e70f3edc&start=2080&end=2400","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5830383-437971fc9ae3cb311eb118b2e70f3edc/thumbnail_2080000.jpg","/articles/5973468/Richland-County/Wisconsin/County-preliminary-2026-budget-updated-ambulance-fund-flagged-as-unsustainable","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5973468-230a87371973bd1f1da94cecb6e3cb54/orig.mp4?Expires=1770782928&Signature=Ude9VtCcZho0nIunUgFaGeZvQtgJzmjXtTbY0B3muHEeCoouyYP8owCpOtR~4ye6D7IUI5hTkDSt17PSnLQj3qpkHFpT810HAPrC2balNZ1dCzE0wY1atMjoUd83s13MhtXhe44E5oNIzm7T2LhVcd8-U7zYQjqS6qAW0jfFBdpGEishRYAbD0Z-k5emJB1AgjnuM0s8c39Lv7DGu~7B6OR54dCMczw0Sx9U2mdupNpFXZkws-LBSHUiffgh4F~DfltCc20r335OAI5KN-0BRiH52RumyJqr1lafccBuQS-UNCjCbsIS6pd~awendwgJ88To4P0G4Ypu7H3NnCgyuw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County finance staff presented an updated preliminary 2026 budget to the Executive Finance Standing Committee and said a combination of modest revenue adjustments and expense changes reduced the amount of general‑fund balance needed — but the ambulance fund remains at risk.

Key figures: staff increased the sales‑tax estimate from $1,550,000 to $1,600,000 based on current trends and an outside projection, and adjusted shared revenues upward by roughly $40,000 after receiving more current estimates. As a result of a variety of updates, staff said they reduced the general‑fund balance applied to the preliminary budget from $303,026.27 to $245,292.86.

Ambulance fund concern: staff and committee members reiterated that the ambulance fund budget currently shows a zero‑balance projection that is not sustainable without either increased revenue, service changes or the creation of a dedicated service district. “That 0T lobby is not sustainable and it's not all we're getting very close to that,” one staff member said during the meeting, echoing earlier committee comments that the service is not a county‑mandated essential and the current model may require levy or other structural changes.

Levy worksheet and timing: staff said the county used the most recent levy‑limit worksheet when preparing the preliminary budget and that allowable operational levy calculations were slightly weaker than expected, which reduced the county’s allowable operational levy for the upcoming year. Finance staff said final numbers for sales tax and shared revenue will be confirmed in November and that the full county board will vote on the budget at its October meeting (date noted by staff).

Action: the committee voted to forward the preliminary budget to the full county board for approval. The motion to move the proposal was made and approved by voice vote.

Next steps: staff will continue refining final estimates and present the proposed budget to the full board. Committee members asked staff to be ready to discuss levy composition (operational vs. debt service) and to break out levy components in presentations to help public understanding.","Staff presented revised preliminary budget figures, increasing the sales-tax projection slightly and adjusting shared-revenue estimates. The county reduced the amount of general‑fund balance needed to balance the 2026 preliminary budget but officials warned that the ambulance fund remains structurally strained and not sustainable without changes.",{"_33":111,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":112,"_41":113,"_43":114,"_45":115,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5973473,"County reviews radio tower project; sets Oct. 15 deadline for agencies to supply radio data",129,530000,659000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5830383-437971fc9ae3cb311eb118b2e70f3edc&start=530&end=659","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5830383-437971fc9ae3cb311eb118b2e70f3edc/thumbnail_530000.jpg","/articles/5973473/Richland-County/Wisconsin/County-reviews-radio-tower-project-sets-Oct-15-deadline-for-agencies-to-supply-radio-data","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5973473-a51dc96c4da3cca1b2e9ce952fcc81e0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770782928&Signature=M7Sly8SObp8JK-V0guy40VwgYBtui5~RBm8mEP3dQMtP45EWW0n6RzZDh2pFwm5FOgaVPFlOLcebODthjAV7xwt-IdSqZPTDQ4tYh~0cyCz733gNHykMez6PhavGuZ~uZwwany6q7W7bN3i6CmWz03UZuySPXbj8noUhrb~tvEKjHBhDBR-VFl693uHs0yYKWPAd29gRlXLHIZZdzZ-MnQOsqffK6rgdRrpAUcm7BU0xXjRGVEGQ1CWZFiMLeU8tA2L7Gtcwg6Pt9URWgFOp0MFg9DiMZ-xEg6NHtPy1suEMnOT2es6fNuRXd-1gOBgPh7F0CraIFG6vP81dJlDGqA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County staff told the Executive Finance Standing Committee they are working to ensure all emergency responder agencies that serve Richland County residents are prepared for a radio-system changeover and must provide radio inventories and reprogramming bids by Oct. 15.

The project: staff said the county’s radio-tower project remains on track for operational completion by the end of the year, with a target of Dec. 15 for tower activation and a final operational check scheduled next year when foliage is at its worst to verify coverage. The county will fund reprogramming for existing agency radios using a line item included in the original $8,000,000 borrowing for the tower project. “That was built into all of the $8,000,000 that was originally borrowed. They had a line for subscriber support,” a staff member said.

Agency requirements and deadlines: staff said they began outreach to emergency responder agencies in July and sent follow-up emails in August and again in the week of the meeting. Agencies must provide the county with the make and model of radios, serial or identifying information, and a reprogramming bid so the county can estimate and reimburse the work. “We are giving them the deadline of October 15,” the administrator said during the meeting.

Compatibility and standards: the county emphasized that radios that comply with the P25 standard purchased in recent years should be reprogrammable and interoperable on the new system. Staff warned that agencies that bought radios not meeting the new requirements may need new equipment and that the county needs agency responsiveness to plan a reliable, interoperable channel order across the county. The county also said some neighboring counties (Grant, Iowa) and state-level WISCOM interconnections are relevant to interoperability planning.

Outreach challenges and next steps: staff reported that most agencies have replied, but some have not (the transcript named Viola and Lafarge as non-responding agencies). Staff said they will continue phone outreach and asked committee members to direct constituent agencies to contact county staff with their radio inventories and bids. The committee was told the project’s civil work is largely complete; one remaining tower had final work pending.

","County staff updated the Executive Finance Standing Committee on a radio tower upgrade project and outreach to emergency responder agencies. The county will fund reprogramming of agency radios as part of the tower project; agencies must submit radio make/model and bids for reprogramming by Oct. 15 so the county can reimburse costs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee opts for informal six‑month review of county administrator; will solicit selected input

County committee reviews new ambulance contract after township warns of large rate jump

Committee approves sending EMT training reimbursement agreement to full board

County preliminary 2026 budget updated; ambulance fund flagged as unsustainable

County reviews radio tower project; sets Oct. 15 deadline for agencies to supply radio data