Johnson County commissioners on Aug. 21 spent an extended portion of an agenda review questioning proposed fiscal year 2026 budgets for several local fire districts, pressing chiefs and budget staff for details on proposed mill levy changes, staffing additions and an accounting error that affected the districts’ state form.

The review covered three items that will come before the Board of County Commissioners for formal consideration: Resolution 088‑25 (Consolidated Fire District No. 1), Resolution 086‑25 (Northwest Consolidated Fire District) and Resolution 087‑25 (Consolidated Fire District No. 2). County staff and fire chiefs recapped public hearings that took place the previous evening and explained a revised levy for Consolidated Fire District No. 2.

Why it matters: The mill levy sets the property tax rate for each district; changes affect property owners within district boundaries and fund capital replacement plans and staffing. Commissioners focused on whether districts had sufficiently vetted alternatives to a levy increase, the pace of budget development, and whether districts could reduce or delay capital transfers or hiring to avoid or reduce a levy increase.

Key facts presented and discussed

- Proposed mill levies and adjustments: Chief Mark Dapp and fire district staff said Northwest Consolidated Fire District proposed a flat mill levy for FY 2026. For Consolidated Fire District No. 2, staff reported a revision that reduced a previously proposed change by 0.721 mills and produced a revised total mill levy of 10.259 mills for FY 2026; presenters characterized that 10.259 as roughly a quarter‑mill increase from FY 2025. (Presentation materials provided to commissioners showed the revised figures.)

- Staffing and operational changes: Consolidated Fire District No. 2 is proposing three additional full‑time equivalent positions in its compensation budget. Chief Steve Chick described the staffing plan as an incremental step toward meeting National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) staffing expectations: "we're working toward a plan to get to NFPA staffing and so this year would be an incremental movement of 1 person, only," he said, while noting the long‑term need could be larger.

- Budget error on the state form: Chief Chick and his CPA reported a duplication error on the state reporting form that produced a roughly $900,000 overstatement and “nearly a six‑tenths” (0.6) error in a projected mill figure. The CPA apologized to the district board for that duplication during the public hearing.

- Reserve policy adopted by a fire district board: District leaders said their board unanimously approved a new reserve policy during the public hearing that sets target ranges for general fund and employee benefits fund reserves (a 25–30% range with a 28% goal). Presenters said the capital/equipment reserve is managed separately based on anticipated five‑year capital needs.

Commissioner concerns and requests

Commissioners expressed skepticism about the speed and clarity of the budget process and asked for alternatives. Commissioner Fast summarized constituent concern about property tax notices and the pace of the district’s budget changes and said, "In my 15 years of public service, I've never voted for a mill levy increase." Several commissioners urged the districts to explore efficiency audits, shared services and to present a flat‑mill alternative at the next meeting. Commissioner Fast specifically asked whether districts could extend equipment reserve schedules or delay hiring to avoid a levy increase.

District responses

Chiefs and county budget staff described multiple meetings in May, June and July and said the districts had engaged with county budget staff on their CIP and reserve targets. Chief Chick outlined rising replacement costs—fire truck prices up roughly 70% over six years and bunker gear costs up more than 100%—and said procurement lead times have lengthened, meaning multi‑year capital plans are needed. John Martin, the districts’ CPA, explained that any operating surplus would roll forward into succeeding fund balances.

Process and timing

County staff clarified statutory timing for the revenue neutral rate and the districts’ deadlines for final filings: commissioners may approve, disapprove, or request changes at the upcoming business session; disapproval would require districts to act before statutory deadlines. Commissioners and staff noted there is additional time (mid‑September, per one staff comment) for districts to adjust their filings but urged prompt follow‑up.

Next steps

Each budget and its corresponding resolution will be before the Board of County Commissioners at a future public business session. Commissioners asked district boards to consider alternative levy scenarios, provide additional documentation, and to meet with county budget staff to refine forecasts and address the state form error before the next hearing.