Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
County official proposes voucher plan to redistribute fire taxes; Lewiston leaders raise staffing and service concerns
Loading...
Summary
A county official presented a voucher-style plan to collect $4 million in county fire and EMS taxes and return funds to cities based on taxable value. Lewiston officials welcomed potential funds but pressed the county on staffing, training access and whether apparatus and mutual-aid arrangements would remain in place.
George (a county official) told the Lewiston City Council the county has been moving toward a centralized, county-run fire and EMS system but many mayors oppose that approach and prefer local control. He proposed a voucher model in which the county would collect the existing $4,000,000 in fire/EMS taxes and distribute funds back to cities based on taxable value so each city receives money to run its own service.
"We collect about $4,000,000 by taxing all of the citizens in the Valley for fire and EMS," George said, and walked the council through mill-levy examples showing how a typical $600,000 home currently contributes roughly $83.88 to the county fire levy. Under his illustration, a countywide levy set between 600 and 800 mills would change how much individual homeowners pay and would return larger voucher amounts to some cities.
Why it matters: George argued the current arrangement causes double taxation—some cities raise their own fire revenue while county taxes are redistributed elsewhere—and that a voucher plan would equalize funding and preserve local control. Council members and fire-representation raised operational questions about training, apparatus availability and staffing during daytime hours, saying money alone would not solve personnel shortages.
Council members pressed specific operational details. Lewiston's fire representative noted volunteer staffing and lower per-capita EMS calls locally, and asked whether cities would retain access to county training resources and reserve equipment. George said apparatus title would likely stay with the county while cities could continue to use pumpers stationed in their areas; decisions on training facilities and mutual-aid reserves would be left to the mayors collectively.
Council members also sought a detailed accounting of how much unincorporated-area taxable value would flow to Lewiston under the voucher plan. George said Craig McAllister supplied a map and pledged to provide a numerical breakout within a day or two so the council could review the proposal with concrete figures.
On governance, George proposed expanding mayoral representation on the existing fire board (from four mayors to eight, plus a few county seats) so cities would have greater influence over distribution and operations. He said, depending on how quickly mayors act, the voucher program could be in place as early as January 2027, or more likely by January 2028.
The council did not take immediate action on the proposal; members agreed to review the county'provided numbers and discuss mayoral positions before any formal commitment. George emphasized that any voucher funds must be used for fire services, and that cities would decide how to spend returned funds.
What happens next: George will deliver an unincorporated-area breakdown to Lewiston staff within a few days. Mayors and city councils in the valley will need to weigh governance changes and agree on training and mutual-aid arrangements for the plan to move forward.