Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let fire districts levy EMS in parts of their territory not already covered, witnesses say
Summary
House Bill 23‑26 would permit a fire protection district to impose an EMS levy on portions of its territory not subject to another district's EMS levy; supporters from fire districts called the change a restoration of voter choice for uncovered residents, while some testifiers warned generically about tax increases.
The House Finance Committee heard House Bill 23‑26, legislation that would allow a fire protection district that is partially overlapped by another taxing district’s EMS levy to impose its own levy for the portion of territory not already covered.
Committee staff Serena Dolly told members that the bill requires a fire protection district to clearly identify the boundaries where the new EMS levy would be imposed and that voters within those boundaries must approve the levy. "Under House Bill 23 26, a fire protection district that is partially covered by another taxing district's EMS levy may impose its own levy for any portion of its district not subject to that other district's levy," Dolly said, noting the Department of Revenue anticipates no state general‑fund impact and a one‑time expenditure of $28,000.
Fire chiefs and commissioners testified in support, offering examples where only a small enclave of a district has an EMS levy while the larger portion of the district lacks that option. Chris Drone, fire chief of Clark County Fire District 3, said roughly 47,000 of the district’s 49,000 residents are not located in an EMS levy area and therefore cannot vote on funding local EMS service; the bill would restore the choice to the majority of residents.
Opponents at the hearing urged caution about adding levies in a time of rising property taxes. Jeff Pack, speaking for Citizens Against Unfair Taxes, said steep property‑tax increases during the session have heightened sensitivity to new levies, particularly for retirees on fixed incomes.
The committee took testimony and left the record open; no committee vote was held.
