Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners discuss bringing Emergency Management Agency under county control after proposed fee increases
Summary
Commissioners debated assuming operational control of the regional Emergency Management Agency (EMA) following concerns about proposed per‑capita fee increases and limited transparency about deployments and equipment; the board directed staff to begin conceptual planning and stakeholder outreach with a formal process and notice period.
Get email alerts on the Emergency Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
On Dec. 16 the Butler County Board of Commissioners discussed a proposal to assume operational control of the regional Emergency Management Agency, citing concern that EMA leadership proposed raising the per‑capita fee from $0.39 to $0.50 in 2025 and potentially $0.59 in 2026 without sufficient communication to commissioners.
Commissioners said EMA has struggled with recurring funding and leadership turnover, questioned transparency around deployments and equipment use outside the county, and said the county should have more input into tax/rate increases and budget oversight. One commissioner who serves on the EMA executive board said he had abstained from a recent vote and acknowledged he had not fully briefed fellow commissioners prior to the EMA action.
Board members noted neighboring counties place EMA operations under their boards of commissioners and argued the county could provide clearer budgetary oversight and consistent funding. Staff cautioned that unwinding and transferring operations will require deliberate steps and notice periods (including a possible 90‑day notice window) and that municipalities participating in EMA should be contacted and given time to consider options.
Commissioners directed staff to engage stakeholders, reach out to EMA leadership and participating communities, and to prepare a conceptual resolution indicating the Board’s intention to assume operations. The board did not adopt a final structural change at the meeting; members said they will continue discussions over the coming months.
