Ambulance authority approves Manchester Fire & Rescue MOU to formalize city response
June 19, 2026 | Coffee County, Tennessee
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Coffee County Ambulance Authority approved a memorandum of understanding with Manchester Fire & Rescue on June 18, authorizing Manchester to respond to specified city calls under terms the board described as nearly identical to an existing Tullahoma agreement. Moderator (S1) introduced the item and outlined the change to the agenda that added the MOU to new business.
Board members said the Manchester document draws heavily on Tullahoma’s MOU and that Manchester initially will be authorized to respond to a reduced list of call types while the parties ‘‘work this up’’ and expand coverage later as appropriate, Director Bonner (S3) said. Bonner described the Manchester wording as “literally identical” with only names changed and a smaller initial response list to match current local training and capabilities.
Board member (S4) moved to approve the MOU (motion introduced at SEG 309–311); Board member (S2) seconded the motion (SEG 312). The motion passed on a voice vote with members responding in the affirmative. The board did not record a roll‑call tally in the transcript.
Members said the agreement should ease coordination for high‑traffic incidents and provide clearer expectations about which agency is to respond within Manchester city limits. Several board members thanked Manchester for working on the document and said they were comfortable with sending the near‑identical wording forward.
The authority did not attach a timeline in the meeting for any phased expansion of response types under the MOU; members said they expect to revisit operational details as Manchester and the ambulance service implement the agreement.
Board members said the Manchester document draws heavily on Tullahoma’s MOU and that Manchester initially will be authorized to respond to a reduced list of call types while the parties ‘‘work this up’’ and expand coverage later as appropriate, Director Bonner (S3) said. Bonner described the Manchester wording as “literally identical” with only names changed and a smaller initial response list to match current local training and capabilities.
Board member (S4) moved to approve the MOU (motion introduced at SEG 309–311); Board member (S2) seconded the motion (SEG 312). The motion passed on a voice vote with members responding in the affirmative. The board did not record a roll‑call tally in the transcript.
Members said the agreement should ease coordination for high‑traffic incidents and provide clearer expectations about which agency is to respond within Manchester city limits. Several board members thanked Manchester for working on the document and said they were comfortable with sending the near‑identical wording forward.
The authority did not attach a timeline in the meeting for any phased expansion of response types under the MOU; members said they expect to revisit operational details as Manchester and the ambulance service implement the agreement.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
