Floyd County workshop weighs how to spend $6.6 million public-safety LIT

At a Floyd County Board of Commissioners workshop, staff and county board members discussed how to allocate roughly $6,600,000 in public-safety local income tax (LIT) revenue, focusing on covering emergency medical services (EMS) costs, reducing a projected general-fund shortfall and stabilizing the jail fund.

The discussion centered on immediate line items that staff said would free money in the general fund. “Our distribution is gonna be in the $6,600,000 range,” said Speaker 2, the staff presenter, as the group reviewed a spreadsheet of proposed allocations. Under the draft breakdown staff reviewed, Emergency Management (EMA) would receive $229,783; probation about $1.1 million; EMS about $1.4 million; and contractual portions of the sheriff’s department about $1.85 million — a total of roughly $4.574 million, leaving about $2 million unallocated.

Why it matters: commissioners said shifting these costs to the public-safety LIT would “free up” general-fund dollars for other priorities and avoid short-term emergency borrowing at year end. Several board members urged caution because the county is still managing a $2 million projected general-fund deficit and faces uncertainty about EMS delivery and state-level legislative changes.

Board members and staff reviewed reserve levels and constraints. One participant labeled Speaker 4 said the general fund was entering the year with about $4 million in reserves and a $2 million deficit, a figure sourced to an outside financial review from Baker Tilly. The county’s rainy-day fund was described as about $3.8 million, of which roughly $1.1 million originated from CARES Act funds that staff had previously set aside for a public-health building. “I would prefer to keep some in reserve until we figure out which direction we’re going,” Speaker 2 said, urging a stepped approach rather than allocating all revenue immediately.

Several board members pressed for limits and guardrails. Speaker 4 said the group should hold enough to cover both the $2 million general-fund shortfall and $1.4 million of EMS costs — about $3.4 million total — before committing additional money. Another participant raised equity concerns about the tax structure and how much of the revenue would flow to city residents versus county residents, saying, “for every dollar that they pay, a 50¢ of it goes to the city.” That comment underscored continuing disagreement about the adopted tax structure and how it divides revenue between the city and county.

Jail fund and sheriff costs: staff outlined a plan to shift about $900,000 of contractual medical costs out of the jail fund and move some recurring sheriff costs into the public-safety LIT to prevent the jail fund from borrowing or running insolvent this year. Staff said the jail LIT distribution is about $6.1 million while the current jail budget is roughly $7.3 million; moving contractual medical expenses would largely close that year’s shortfall but would not permanently fix the fund’s structural issues. The group discussed a recurring sheriff vehicle funding gap of roughly $500,000 per year and debated whether to fund that ongoing cost from LIT proceeds or identify other solutions.

EMS uncertainty and timing: multiple participants cautioned that EMS costs are uncertain beyond 2026. Staff said the county might face higher costs if it moved to a county-operated EMS or if private contractors bid higher rates. “We don’t even know. And the problem that I see is I have done Google search, but I’ll bet you there’s probably not 25 companies in the entire country that provide EMS services anymore,” said Speaker 6, emphasizing procurement uncertainty. Staff recommended holding a portion of the LIT revenue in reserve until the county and commissioners decide on an EMS delivery model.

Reserve rules and restrictions: the presenters and board members discussed internal limits on transferring money to rainy-day accounts and referenced institutional guidance that a 10% reserve is a common target; the county’s reserves were described as between 6–7% of operating costs. Participants also noted that some CARES Act funds had been set aside by local policy for the health-department building, and a portion of those amounts might be needed for that capital project.

Next steps and direction: participants agreed this workshop was for discussion and that no binding votes would be taken. Staff was asked to draft proposed ordinance language and bring a formal proposal to a future board meeting; participants noted a joint meeting with commissioners was scheduled for Feb. 25. Speaker 2 urged board members to review data and call Jason (a staff analyst identified in the discussion) with specific questions about the spreadsheet.

Procedural note: the session concluded with a motion to adjourn that was moved and seconded; the transcript does not show a recorded roll-call vote.

The board plans additional workshops and joint meetings to refine allocations and to await clearer information about EMS options, state legislation that could affect county revenues, and capital needs for a public-health building.