Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance Millage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fire commission votes to pursue millage to fund staffing for additional 24‑hour stations
Summary
The Lancaster County fire commission voted in favor of pursuing a millage to fund staffing for proposed second and third 24‑hour stations; members directed staff to produce cost estimates and 5‑ and 10‑year scenarios for council consideration. One member representing the City of Lancaster recused.
The Lancaster County fire commission voted at the meeting to pursue a millage to fund staffing for additional 24‑hour stations, and directed staff to prepare cost estimates and multi‑year scenarios to present to county council.
Agency official (S1) moved "I would like to make a motion to vote towards millage," and the commission conducted a roll call. Multiple members answered in the affirmative and one member was recorded as recused; S1 explained the recusal was because that member is an employee of the City of Lancaster and "needs directions from his administrator" before participating in a vote on intergovernmental participation.
Why it matters: Commissioners said adopting a millage could be the primary way to fund hiring enough personnel to reach four‑person engine companies on every shift at the proposed stations. S1 told the panel the commission needs employee cost estimates and to consult the assessor and auditor "to find out what a mill would be worth" in the areas under consideration; that figure will determine whether to pursue a county‑wide millage or an area‑specific levy.
What the commission asked staff to do: S1 said the financial analysis should include options the commission requested — the likely per‑mill value, the cost of employees, and 5‑ and 10‑year staffing scenarios to justify any request to the council. "It can include whatever you all want to put into it," S1 said, adding the analysis will show commissioners whether to proceed.
On next steps: Commissioners agreed to move forward with the financial scenarios and return with numbers so the commission can decide whether to ask the county council to place a millage before voters. The motion to "vote towards millage" was recorded as approved among the members who voted; the transcript does not specify an exact numeric tally of yes votes beyond the roll‑call affirmations and the recorded recusal.
The meeting also included related operational discussion — S1 noted earlier presentations to council had covered the second and third station locations and staffing assumptions (two people per shift previously, with a goal to reach four persons per engine company over time). S1 said those earlier council briefings did not outline the whole plan for additional stations and that the commission must decide the funding approach before presenting a full implementation schedule.
The commission did not set a date for a formal council submission; the panel asked staff to return with the required cost and assessor/auditor inputs to support whatever funding path they choose.
