Kanab and Kane County negotiate fire contract for Vermillion Cliffs SSD; key terms tentatively agreed, final details left to staff

KANAB, Utah — City and county elected officials met May 19 at the Kanab Center to coordinate a proposed fire protection agreement covering the new Vermillion Cliffs Special Service District (SSD), with officials tentatively narrowing differences on term length, termination penalties and annual cost adjustments while leaving final dollar calculations and legal language to staff and counsel.

The meeting, a joint session of the Kanab City Council and representatives of Kane County, focused on how Kanab City will provide fire protection to the SSD once the district is formally created. County and city leaders said the SSD paperwork must be filed with the state by the end of May and that state processing takes about 10 days; Kanab City's current agreement with the county expires around July 1, which creates a potential coverage gap if no interim arrangement is finalized.

Why it matters: The discussion concerns who pays for day-to-day fire response and larger capital costs as development east of Kanab grows. Officials framed the agreement as both a stopgap and a path toward a longer-term, countywide fire response or a local SSD-run department. The outcome affects residents east of Kanab, Kanab City taxpayers and countywide emergency coverage.

Most significant outcomes and remaining issues

- Term/termination: Officials discussed reducing a proposed five-year term for the city27s service commitment to allow an earlier exit if the SSD establishes its own station or if a countywide fire service is created. The parties discussed a compromise: keep a five-year maximum contract in place but include a two-year minimum "out" for the SSD. If the SSD exits before the two-year minimum, it would pay 50% of the remaining obligation unless the exit is because the SSD created its own staffed or volunteer fire response or the county created a countywide fire response.

- Annual adjustment: The draft contract uses a formula tied to certified taxable value (a 0.00135 factor was cited in the meeting) plus a 6% annual escalator. City council members said they would accept a 6% escalation in principle; county representatives and city members asked staff to run alternative models (flat-fee base year plus escalator, or a value-based metric that automatically captures large new developments) before finalizing language.

- Expansion-of-service ("new growth") fee: Participants debated whether to keep a stipulated per-unit fee for new residential connections and a separate commercial square-foot metric. City representatives proposed a residential charge of $900 per new dwelling (and a commercial per-square-foot formula), to be used to seed SSD capital (apparently the city had proposed larger per-unit figures in earlier drafts). County participants said legal counsel had raised questions about labeling such charges as an "impact fee" and suggested calling it an "expansion of service" fee or using a higher annual percentage instead of a transaction-based fee. The council indicated majority support for $900 per residential dwelling as a workable compromise to avoid complex collection schemes.

- Collection and complexity: Council members expressed reluctance to require the SSD to run complex per-unit collections (which resemble typical impact-fee processes that can require engineering studies). Options discussed included (a) the city collecting a single flat fee and returning a portion to the SSD, (b) the SSD collecting a hookup/expansion fee if legally permissible, or (c) baking expected new-growth costs into a slightly larger annual percentage. Counsel disagreement on the legal path for an impact-style fee was cited; staff were tasked to review statutory options and thresholds.

- Capital planning and timeline: County staff reported locating county-owned property that could be used for a fire station east of Kanab and described a potential federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) RMP/RMP process (multi-year) and a possible Community Impact Board (CIB) loan for station financing. The Kanab City Council said it issued an RFP for a feasibility study to examine a countywide fire model, station siting, combined EMS/fire approaches and costs.

- Volunteer incentive and operating details: The draft includes incentives tied to volunteer staffing (participants noted a provision that would provide a $50,000 allocation if the SSD sustains 10 volunteers for a year). City officials described substantial recent capital expenses (an approximately $187,000 equipment bill for replacement turnout/SCBA gear) and argued that operational and administrative overhead must be recognized in the payment formula.

Next steps

Officials directed staff and legal counsel to meet and reconcile assessor figures, refine the contract language, and run model scenarios showing how assessed-value metrics, a flat base fee plus escalator, or per-unit expansion fees would affect city revenues and SSD capital over a five-year window. Parties agreed to avoid reopening political debate at each step: the draft contract will remain at a five-year maximum but include the negotiated termination conditions described above. No formal vote or final contract adoption occurred at the May 19 meeting.

Community context and risks

Participants repeatedly emphasized the shared public-safety goal: reliable 24-hour response east of Kanab without imposing disproportionate costs on long-time residents. Officials also warned of the coverage gap risk between the SSD27s formal creation and the expiration of Kanab City27s current county agreement around July 1. They asked county and city staff to prioritize the necessary filings/technical work to avoid a lapse in response authority.

What was not decided

Final fee figures, whether the base $2,700 commercial / $900 residential split (or a flat $2.70 base tied to assessed value in the draft formula) will remain, and the final legal form of any expansion-of-service fee were left to staff and counsel. The parties asked the county assessor, the SSD organizers, and city finance staff to meet and reconcile taxable-value calculations and recommended that legal counsel resolve whether the SSD could use simplified collection methods or requires a formal impact-fee engineer report.

Meeting outcome and immediate follow-up

Council and county leaders recessed after a recap; staff were assigned to run the numbers, hold technical meetings (including the assessor and SSD organizers), and return with revised contract language and a proposed implementation schedule. No formal motions or votes were recorded during the May 19 meeting.