Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ferguson supervisors authorize public hearing on special fire protection tax after debate over hydrant fee surplus
Summary
The Ferguson Township Board voted to advertise a public hearing on a proposed special fire protection tax intended to replace the existing hydrant assessment. Board members and residents debated whether the roughly $192,515 in hydrant fees should be returned to parcel payers or used as an offset to the new tax.
Ferguson Township’s Board of Supervisors voted to authorize legal advertisement of a public hearing on a proposed special fire protection tax that would replace the township’s longstanding fire hydrant assessment.
The measure, presented by the township manager, would shift the fire hydrant assessment into a single dedicated fund labeled the special fire protection tax and apply the revenue to all fire protection expenditures, including the township’s contribution to the Center Region Council of Governments (COG) and payments to area volunteer fire companies. The manager told the board the change is an alternative tax structure designed to address growing public‑safety expenditures, noting that “our contribution in just the last fiscal year went up about approximately $200,000” and that costs are expected to continue rising as services evolve.
The central point of contention at the meeting was how to treat a roughly $192,515.50 surplus that resulted from historical hydrant assessments. Supervisor Heller urged returning those funds to the parcels that paid them, saying residents who paid the hydrant fee had effectively already contributed. The manager responded that the township would rename Fund 2 (the hydrant fund) as the special fire protection fund so those dollars would remain dedicated to fire needs and could be applied to hydrant fees and broader fire protection expenditures. “What it actually is is we’re gonna take that fund 2 and we’re gonna rename it from fire hydrant to the special fire protection tax,” the manager said.
Other board members pushed back on returning the surplus because an audit and administrative costs could reduce the available amount, and some argued dispersing costs across all taxpayers is more equitable as fire services shift toward a hybrid paid model. Several residents asked for clearer accounting showing how the $192,515 was calculated and recommended that documentation be included in the public hearing materials.
After discussion and a motion to advertise the hearing that included language requiring staff present how the hydrant surplus “came to be and how it will be disbursed,” the board approved the advertisement. No final ordinance or tax rate was adopted at the meeting; the manager said the initial step was to obtain public feedback at the advertised hearing and to provide transparent line‑item reporting of revenues and expenditures in the dedicated fund.
The board indicated the proposed tax would be phased—an initial 1‑mill increase for 2026 with a potential increase to 1.3 mills in subsequent years—with the hydrant surplus applied to offset a portion of the shortfall for 2026. The board also discussed the administrative complexity of crediting individual parcels and the need for auditor and legal review before any credits could be returned.
