Oversight board discusses shifting consolidated dispatch funding to county levy; forms committee to draft questions

Elizabeth Burnett, an attorney who presented a legal memo to the oversight board, told supervisors and mayors on Sept. 16 that Chapter 29C of state law covers emergency management response to disasters and authorizes an emergency management commission to coordinate and budget emergency response. “If the 29C emergency management commission approves a countywide property tax levy in its budget, the county board of supervisors have a legal obligation to levy the tax,” Burnett said. She and colleague Kristen Cooper also said Chapter 422D covers certain emergency medical expenditures such as equipment and training, and that 34A governs 9-1-1 surcharge distributions and has different limits on salary reimbursements.

The memo and the board’s discussion focused on whether consolidated communications (the county’s consolidated dispatch/9-1-1 center) could be funded through a county levy and on what limits and authorities would apply. The board repeatedly distinguished three legal strands: (1) Chapter 29C (emergency management commissions and disaster response), (2) Chapter 422D (listed EMS expenditures such as equipment and training), and (3) Chapter 34A (9-1-1 surcharge rules). Burnett said the memo analyzed 29C and 422D but did not resolve all questions about 9-1-1 services under 34A.

Mayor and city officials raised financial and fairness concerns, including effects of tax-increment financing (TIF) districts and levy caps. One mayor noted that “a large portion of what’s generated by the county comes from incorporated cities,” and asked whether properties inside TIF could be exempted from a new county levy; Burnett replied the law does not allow cities to pick which levies are subject to TIF and that using other intergovernmental funding agreements could be researched. County finance director Michelle Weaver clarified that some cities currently fund consolidated communications from a general levy that is capped while others use a separate levy that is not capped, creating different constraints across jurisdictions.

Supervisors and mayors also discussed whether shifting the funding mechanism would change individual property owners’ bills. County Supervisor Chris Fortz said that because the service has already been funded by property valuation, “there wouldn’t be any individual change to a property owner” if the county assumed the levy; rather, the line items and the governmental bucket paying the levy would change. Several city officials said their municipal budgets face near-term statutory caps and other revenue reductions that limit their flexibility.

Staff and elected officials cited examples elsewhere in the state. Judy, who oversees the consolidated communications center, said Johnson County and Scott County use a county levy model and that Woodbury County has a different structure; she and other staffers said those counties had presented their approaches in prior years. The board discussed the practical budgeting timeline: consolidated communications typically develops a budget in October–November, and the consolidated board approves and forwards it to the oversight board and the mayors for final action.

Board members identified legal uncertainty about whether a 29C commission could, by adopting budgetary bylaws, direct the county to levy for consolidated dispatch costs that include salaries for 9-1-1 staff. Burnett said her memo does not definitively resolve whether 9-1-1 salary costs fall under 29C or whether they remain governed by 34A; she recommended further written questions and said the firm could answer a narrowed list of issues if provided in writing. Burnett also recommended engaging a municipal or financial adviser (for example, a municipal advisory firm) to model levy structures and caps; she said attorneys could analyze the legal limits while a financial adviser would produce budget models.

The board did not take a formal vote on changing the funding mechanism. Instead, members agreed to assemble a smaller working group to draft specific follow-up questions and to meet again soon: volunteers and interested officials were named and staff agreed to propose meeting dates. The group set a target of circulating consolidated questions within about two weeks and aimed to have a committee meeting and a compiled question list by Sept. 30 so staff and counsel could return with written answers and options before the budget season. City officials also said they would be willing to contribute some communications funding to explain any eventual change to residents for a limited period.

Speakers who provided the board’s factual record included Elizabeth Burnett and Kristen Cooper (the presenting attorneys), Judy (consolidated communications director), Chris Fortz (County Supervisor), Michelle Weaver (County Finance Director) and several mayors and supervisors who spoke during the discussion. No formal ordinance or levy change was adopted at the meeting.

The board asked staff and counsel to return with clarified legal opinions about the scope of 29C and 422D for consolidated communications, an analysis of which existing levies are capped, and model budget scenarios prepared or coordinated with a municipal adviser. The committee also requested examples and contacts from Johnson, Scott and Woodbury counties for operational and budget comparisons.

Ending: The board closed the discussion by committing to a short working timeline: a small committee will meet before two weeks to draft targeted questions; the full oversight group will aim to have questions compiled by Sept. 30 for written legal and financial follow-up ahead of the next budget cycle. No final funding decision was made at the Sept. 16 meeting.