Board repeals hydrant assessment, rejects proposed 1‑mill special fire tax and authorizes advertisement for a 1‑mill property tax public hearing

At the Nov. 18 meeting the Board of Supervisors considered two linked actions on fire funding.

Hydrant assessment repeal: Manager Martin presented an ordinance to repeal Chapter 7 Part 2 §§202–204 of the township code (the fire hydrant assessment) and proposed covering hydrant‑related expenditures in 2026 with existing surplus funds (approximately $192,000). After a short public comment period and clarifying questions about deadlines and how remaining balances would be handled, the board voted by roll call to repeal the hydrant assessment and to expend the existing fund to zero to meet 2026 hydrant obligations. The roll call vote was unanimous (Chair Patterson: Yes; Supervisor Stevens: Yes; Supervisor Heller: Yes; Supervisor Strickland: Yes; Supervisor Thompson: Yes). The manager said staff will consult the auditor and legal counsel in 2026 about disposition of any remaining balances prior to formally closing the fund.

Special fire protection tax: The board then held a public hearing on a proposed special fire protection real‑estate tax ordinance to levy a dedicated 1‑mill property tax in fiscal year 2026 (estimated revenue ~$616,117) restricted to fire protection expenditures and regional volunteer fire company contributions. Residents and a municipal representative asked how the proposed tax would interact with budgeted general‑fund contributions; staff explained the manager’s proposed budget would move approximately $519,634 of general‑fund fire expenditures into the new fund and the new mill would be a dedicated revenue stream. Board members debated whether the approach would duplicate funding or increase transparency by isolating fire costs.

After public comment and extended board discussion, the roll call to enact the special fire protection tax ordinance failed (Chair Patterson: No; Supervisor Stevens: Yes; Supervisor Heller: No; Supervisor Strickland: No; Supervisor Thompson: Yes). The motion failed to pass.

Next steps: Following the failed ordinance vote, the board voted to authorize staff to advertise and hold a public hearing at the Dec. 2 meeting on a 1‑mill property tax increase (general fund mechanism) that could be paired with a board decision on any restricted allocation; the board also asked staff to further analyze how the new revenue would affect the general fund and fund balances.