Town and Municipal Utility District No. 1 officials used their June 18 joint special meeting to begin discussing edits to the interlocal cooperation agreement covering fire protection services and to outline options for a more comprehensive rewrite ahead of the next budget cycle.

Brandon Wright, town manager, summarized the current arrangement: “The district pays for fire services and the town pays for EMS services,” and he said staffing costs are split 50‑50 under the existing interlocal agreement. Wright told directors and council members the town proposes two steps: a near‑term cleanup to remove references to PID assessments now that property taxes will collect that revenue, and a longer review to consider a structure closer to the town’s water services interlocal model, where the district would levy up to its legal maximum and transfer revenue to the town with fewer district approvals.

Wright said the town’s aims include long‑term financial and equipment stability, clearer capital planning, and assigning accountability so residents know which governing body bears operational responsibility. He noted the current agreement lacks an explicit capital improvement plan requirement and leaves questions about how operations and equipment purchases would be funded if district reserves were depleted.

District directors raised alternatives, including a scenario in which the MUD assumes fire and EMS operations; directors asked staff to prepare pro‑/con analyses and cost comparisons for two primary options: (1) a water‑style approach where the district collects a levy and the town assumes operational and capital decision‑making, or (2) the MUD taking direct control of fire services. A third, lower‑change option — do minimal clean‑up while establishing clearer capital replacement processes — was also discussed.

Officials referenced several legal and administrative constraints during the discussion. Staff and counsel said proposed changes must respect SB2 tax‑rate limitations and noted that prior PID assessment language needs updating. District directors mentioned past disputes with a large property owner, Westlake, and legal efforts related to service control; staff cautioned those efforts historically were costly and that state decisions on similar requests have often been unfavorable.

Both bodies agreed to next steps: staff will start drafting clean‑up language (removing PID references) and prepare comparative analyses of the two larger reform options. Wright and district general manager Alan Gorlani asked for a staff‑led review first; participants discussed forming a subcommittee to vet options before returning to full council and board reviews. Officials said any major change would need to be finalized well before the FY2027 budget decisions and requested milestone timing for decisions in the coming months.

Ending

Officials did not adopt substantive amendments at the meeting. They directed staff to prepare detailed comparisons, requested a timeline for fall/winter review and to present recommended language for the near‑term cleanup in upcoming meetings.