Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ems District topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Linn County auditor outlines EMS district petition, anticipates March 3 election
Summary
County Auditor Todd Taylor said a petition to form an emergency medical services (EMS) district met the minimum valuation threshold to trigger a public hearing and an anticipated March 3 election; he outlined ballot mechanics, staffing needs and estimated precinct costs.
County Auditor Todd Taylor told the Linn County board on Dec. 2 that a petition to create an emergency medical services district met the statutory threshold to trigger a public hearing and move toward an election.
"All of the petitions that were signed...the data below proves that we certainly met, or the, I shouldn't say we the petitioner met the minimum quals to...trigger the public hearing which triggers the next steps and then likely an election," Taylor said, explaining the petition included properties representing at least 25% of total valuation in the affected area.
Taylor named likely jurisdictions included in the petition as Lisbon, Mount Vernon and parts of unincorporated northeast Johnson County and said that if the separate areas prevail and elect to join, they could form a consolidated 20A district to serve the whole area.
He described how the special-election ballot will work: an approve/deny choice on the question and a separate write-in process for a short list of names ("five blanks," Taylor said) from which the board will later choose three. Taylor also described county procedures for reading and tabulating handwritten write-ins.
On logistics and costs, Taylor estimated election expenses at roughly "less than $3,000 per precinct," said the county anticipates two or three precincts for this vote, and explained the code prohibits paying poll workers for this specific election (though he noted training costs may be allowable): "the code says I shall not be paid." He outlined basic staffing needs—three people per polling location, nine people total across three locations.
Taylor described March 3 as the anticipated election date given the current calendaring and post-public-hearing timelines: "Tuesday, March 3 is the anticipated vote date," he said.
The auditor also suggested the board consider clarifying code language through a cleanup bill to address practical anomalies, saying parts of the law appeared copied from other states and could benefit from revision.
No formal action or vote on the petition occurred during the Dec. 2 meeting; the item was presented as an administrative update and timeline for future public hearings and the election process.
