Vermillion Cliffs SSD approves fire-response contract, removes new-growth fee; Kanab City to decide

The Vermillion Cliffs Special Service District voted unanimously June 10 to approve a structural fire-response service contract with Kanab City after striking a proposed ‘‘new-growth’’ fee that the district’s legal advisers said could be legally vulnerable.

The vote adopted the contract language the district board agreed it could defensibly commit to while removing the clause that would have charged each newly constructed residential or commercial unit a one-time fee payable to the city.

Board members said the change reflects legal advice that the district likely lacks a feasible and legally defensible mechanism to collect a one-time new-growth fee directly from developers or new residents. An interim board member summarized the district’s position: “We don't think it is plausible, feasible, and legally defensible to have that component of the contract.”

Why it matters: The new-growth fee was the primary sticking point between the district and Kanab City during months of negotiations. District officials said the contract otherwise includes a 6% annual contract increase and a method for calculating contributions based on a taxable assessed-value multiplier (0.00135), and that the contract provides a two-year term with a provision that, if terminated earlier, would obligate the district to a payment equal to 50% of the remaining contract balance.

What board members said: A county board member explained the district’s rationale for removing the clause: “I really think that, we could open ourselves up to a lawsuit… I really think that would not allow the district to still impose the fee and hand it over.” The district’s counsel cautioned that charging a fee characterized as a new resident charge or as an impact fee could expose the district to legal challenge and could duplicate or conflict with other fee structures the city or county imposes.

City response: A Kanab City staff member told the board that the city council will see the version of the agreement that was discussed in joint meetings (including the growth fee language) and that staff’s recommendation to council is based on what both parties previously discussed. The city staff member also warned that without an approved agreement the district area lacks a formal contract for Kanab to respond to calls: “If the agreement's not approved tonight… there's continued no fire protection, because we have no authority to provide that fire protection.”

Process and next steps: District members said they will submit the contract version approved by the board to Kanab City staff and urged the city council to accept it. The board emphasized it had informed Kanab City staff and council of the district’s legal concerns in advance and had publicly discussed the change in prior county meetings. Board members also noted that, even with the removed clause, the city stands to receive ongoing revenue from the contract formula and that removal of the growth fee is not intended as a ‘‘bait and switch.’’

Votes and formal action: The board adopted the revised contract by unanimous voice vote. The motion approved the structural fire-response service contract between the Vermillion Cliffs Special Service District and Kanab City with the new-growth clause removed; the board did not record a roll-call tally in the meeting minutes and approved by voice vote.

Background and context: Board members said the district was formally created the day before and that, once formed, some preexisting contracts between the county and Kanab City excluded district areas. The board referenced prior joint work meetings with Kanab City, earlier contingency agreements, and local rules governing taxation and ‘‘truth in taxation’’ constraints that affect how cities can raise property tax revenue without separate public processes.

Unresolved questions: The legal question of whether a special service district can directly collect a developer/new-resident fee and pass it to a city remains unsettled locally; the district’s counsel and the county attorney expressed differing legal views during the meeting but the board removed the fee pending a clearer, legally defensible mechanism. The Kanab City council was expected to consider the contract the evening of June 10.

Ending: The board reiterated the urgency of finalizing an agreement so there is an ongoing, recognized responder for the district area and encouraged the city council to review the district’s approved version promptly.