Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jefferson County budget session weighs funding for new ambulance program as state levy limits loom
Summary
County board discussed moving ambulance patient and transport revenues into a dedicated ambulance fund, using a 7% wage assumption in next year’s budgets and shifting levy burden between general supplemental and rural basic to cover a projected multi-year shortfall once state levy caps take effect.
The Jefferson County board spent its budget session debating how to fund a new county-operated ambulance program and how to absorb future state-imposed levy limits.
Speaker 2, presenting updated general-basic figures, recommended recording patient reimbursements and hospital transport revenues directly in a dedicated ambulance fund rather than the general fund so the new program starts with a healthier balance. "We're projecting revenues of 1,502,159 and expenditures of 1,563,269," Speaker 2 told the board, adding the county should "limit the expenditures to the money that can be generated in that fund." That recommendation followed an explanation that moving $175,000 of ambulance patient revenues into the ambulance fund would better position the program and avoid draining the general basic fund.
Why it matters: board members said the county must plan now because state rules will force levy reductions that could produce a multi-year budget gap. Speaker 2 and others noted a target levy rate of $3.50 by fiscal year 2029 and estimated the county could face about a $346,000 annual shortfall at that point without adjustments to spending or levy structure.
Board members discussed alternatives that would shift tax burden among residents while preserving rural services. Speaker 2 proposed lowering the general supplemental levy this year and raising the rural basic levy so, overall, many taxpayers would see no increase and rural basic would retain a roughly $1,000,000 ending fund balance. "That would actually be a 44¢ decrease for the urban people," Speaker 2 said, arguing the reallocation would allow the county to create the ambulance program while keeping some levies steady.
The session also covered operational details for the ambulance program. Speakers reported the county previously received contributions (for example, a $35,000 annual contribution mentioned from the hospital) that are now reduced or gone. Staff said recent billing changes — moving to internal billing rather than an outside vendor — are expected to save about $22 per billed call. The board reviewed call-volume history used in planning: county staff budgeted on roughly 1,500 calls annually, noted an average of 1,700, and reported 2,103 calls as of November in the most recent count.
Board members pressed for fiscal discipline across departments to prepare for the levy changes. Speaker 1 proposed sending a countywide request asking department heads to identify possible cuts (no mandatory percentage), and several members supported asking departments to "fine-tooth" their budgets and return recommendations. The board also agreed to budget using a 7% wage-increase assumption for department planning next year while supervisors will take no raise for a third consecutive year.
Other items: speakers agreed to record a $500 membership/dues request (referred to in the transcript as SITCO/Sitka Southern Iowa Development Conservation) and to check with engineering staff for the correct line-item placement. The fair board’s current-year payment was noted as completed; the board declined retroactive payments for prior-year invoices to avoid setting a precedent.
The board concluded by asking staff to rerun levy and budget numbers reflecting the agreed directions — moving ambulance revenues into the ambulance fund, budgeting at 7% wage inflation, and modeling the supplemental/rural levy reallocation — before the March publication deadline for proposed levies. The meeting was adjourned after a motion and a voice "aye."
