Kane County commissioners outline process and funding choices for proposed Vermillion Cliffs fire district as protest period remains open

KANAB, Utah — Kane County commissioners and staff outlined how a proposed Vermillion Cliffs Special Service District (SSD) for fire protection would be formed and funded at a town hall April 15 in Kanab, and answered residents’ questions about likely fees, wildfire responsibilities and next steps.

The protest period on the proposed SSD is open now and scheduled to close April 28. If the number of formal protests filed is below the legal threshold, the commission could finalize the creation of the district, meet the following day to approve formation paperwork and submit the documents to the lieutenant governor’s office; county staff said the lieutenant governor’s office typically responds about 10 days after submission. Until the SSD formally exists the county cannot sign contracts or set permanent fees as a district.

Why it matters: formation of the SSD would create a legal entity able to contract for structural and wildland fire protection, levy or collect fees, build fund balances for future equipment or station needs and ultimately allow elections to select a governing board. The financing model chosen will directly change what property owners east of Kanab pay and how wildland response responsibilities are assigned.

County Treasurer Karen (County Treasurer) and Kane County Assessor Ryan Maddox presented numbers and technical background used to model several funding options. Karen showed a spreadsheet based on the parcels included in the proposed district and on a Kanab City proposal for fire services; she said the city’s proposal figures into a target revenue figure near $293,000. She told the meeting: “If you are normally FAA land, you might pay 64¢ a year,” and said commissioners asked her to produce models that would avoid imposing large, sudden bills on ranchers and farmland owners.

Maddox explained Utah valuation concepts and how a fee tied to assessed (taxable) value differs from a flat fee. “Utah’s constitution requires everything to be taxed according to value,” he said, and noted two statutory exceptions that change taxable value: the primary residential exemption and the Farmland Assessment Act (FAA). He added that VRBOs and commercial property do not qualify for the primary exemption and generally pay on a higher taxable base.

Funding models discussed

- Ad valorem (value-based) fee: Karen explained a calculation using an assessed-value rate approximately 0.0013 (as shown in the Kanab proposal). Under that method, a home with a $293,000 taxable value could see a fee in the low hundreds; conversely, very high-value parcels could face thousands of dollars per year unless capped. Karen presented a notional cap of $2,000 for very high-value parcels to limit outsized bills.

- Flat (per-parcel) fee: Commissioners and members of the public raised flat-fee options, including a two-tier flat model (one fee for parcels with structures, a lower fee for non-structured parcels) or a single flat fee applied to all parcels. Karen said county staff were modeling a $50 minimum for FAA parcels to avoid creating hardship for grazing lands that currently pay very little property tax.

- Hybrid: Karen presented a hybrid approach that sets a $50 minimum for FAA parcels, applies an assessed-value rate for structures, and imposes an upper limit (example: $2,000) for highest-valued properties to smooth the distribution.

- New-growth fee: Kanab City’s proposal includes a one-time new-growth or “connection” fee for newly built structures (roughly in the range previously discussed by the city, about $2,700), with draft language that would allocate two-thirds of that fee to the SSD for capital (station/truck) needs and one-third to Kanab City for equipment — while commercial development was proposed to be treated differently in the city draft. County staff said this was a negotiable element in contract talks.

Contract terms and immediate options

Kanab City has offered a contract that county staff used as the benchmarking figure in modeling. Commissioners repeatedly emphasized that the county cannot enter a formal contract with Kanab City or any other provider on behalf of the district until the SSD is officially created. The proposal seen by the county included a multi-year term; county staff said the draft contract term discussed was five years and included language that, if terminated early, could hold the SSD responsible for a portion of remaining contract costs.

Wildland fire and initial-attack responsibilities

Residents pressed commissioners about wildland-fire responsibilities and whether formation of the SSD would change the county’s relationship with the state fire warden, BLM or other agencies. County staff and speakers explained that initial-attack responsibilities and mutual-aid arrangements can shift when an SSD or municipality takes primary responsibility for a geographic area. The county’s fire warden and interagency MOUs remain an important part of response for large incidents, and staff said state and federal aviation and large-incident resources would continue to be used for fires that exceed local capabilities.

Costs to stand up a local department; grants and volunteers

Staff and several commenters noted start-up and long-term operating costs. County staff said infrastructure (a station and apparatus) would likely run into the low millions, and operating budgets for a full-service department are significantly larger (Kanab City’s combined fire/EMS budget figures were discussed as context). Commissioners and commenters suggested pursuing grants, low-interest loans and volunteer recruitment as ways to reduce near-term operating expenses; the county’s proposal includes using an interim governance arrangement in which the commission serves as the SSD board until local elections (the county expects elections for SSD board seats in fall 2026 and an elected board to take over in January 2027 if the district forms).

Public feedback and major concerns

Speakers at the town hall voiced a mix of support and concern. Some residents urged the commission to pursue a countywide SSD rather than a smaller, east-of-Kanab district so costs and services would be coordinated across the county; others worried about the burden on low-income or fixed-income residents and on farmland owners who currently pay much lower taxes under FAA. Several speakers recommended keeping the fee tied to assessed value so parcels with multiple structures or higher replacement value contribute proportionally; others urged per-parcel flat fees so that grazing lands and vacant parcels are not charged the same as developed parcels.

Next steps

County staff reiterated the timeline: the formal protest period runs through April 28. If insufficient protests are filed, the commission could finalize the district formation and submit paperwork to the lieutenant governor’s office (county staff estimated about 10 days for that office to respond). The commission said it will not make binding contractual commitments on behalf of the proposed district until it is legally formed. Officials encouraged the public to continue submitting written feedback to commission@kane.utah.gov.

Quotes in this article come from remarks at the April 15 town hall by Karen (County Treasurer) and Ryan Maddox (Kane County Assessor), and from public comments recorded in the meeting transcript.

Ending note: The town hall reflected wide agreement that some form of sustainable funding is needed for reliable structural and wildland fire response east of Kanab, but residents remain divided over whether the fairest approach is flat fees, value-based fees, or a hybrid, and whether a countywide or smaller SSD best protects property owners while minimizing financial hardship.