Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Jackson County commissioners hear plan for fire and EMS special assessments to shore up funding
Loading...
Summary
Commissioners heard an Accenture presentation explaining how non‑ad valorem (special) assessments for fire and EMS would be designed, who would pay, estimated study costs ($40–60K), statutory limits (including agricultural exemptions) and timeline requirements to place an assessment on the tax bill.
Jackson County commissioners held an informational workshop where Accenture outlined how the county could use non‑ad valorem assessments to fund fire protection and emergency medical services.
The presenter, Dubart of Accenture, told the board that non‑ad valorem assessments are “a home rule revenue source, so it’s case law driven,” and explained that while assessments can appear on the property tax bill as a separate line, they are legally distinct from ad valorem taxes. He said assessments must meet two legal prongs: they must benefit property (with an EMS exception for counties designated by the governor as economically rural) and the cost‑allocation methodology must be “fair and reasonable.”
The consultant described the typical study process—service delivery review, an assessable budget, cost apportionment using historical demand, and parcel apportionment—and recommended the historical demand methodology because it has been upheld in case law. He illustrated how call data and a $407,000 sample budget would be apportioned and emphasized that the board can choose what percentage of the cost to fund through assessments (it “doesn’t have to be 100%,” he said).
Commissioners asked specific questions about who ultimately pays an assessment and the practical collection methods. Dubart explained that if the county places assessments on the tax bill the payer is the property owner who receives the tax bill; if the county instead collects via a utility bill the payer is the utility customer. “Whoever pays the tax bill is who’s gonna pay this,” he said, noting a landlord could pass costs to tenants as a business decision.
The board pressed on legal and statutory constraints. Accenture cited the statutory tax‑bill collection procedures (197.3632) and warned of strict deadlines for certification to the tax collector (materials to the tax collector typically by Sept. 15). The presenter also said state law prevents counties from imposing non‑ad valorem assessments on agricultural vacant land or nonresidential structures on ag‑exempt land, a point several commissioners raised in the context of protecting the county’s large agricultural sector.
Members discussed the county’s fiscal pressures and timing. One commissioner said the county could face a “loss of $6,000,000 in revenue” tied to potential changes to homestead property tax treatment; several commissioners said a targeted assessment could help maintain fire and EMS capacity without raising millage. Accenture estimated a combined fire+EMS study would cost about $60,000 and a single‑service study $40,000–$45,000, and said a typical study takes roughly four months.
Accenture also reviewed public‑facing choices—exemptions for institutions or hardship applicants, phased funding rather than immediately imposing the full rate, and outreach strategies to help residents understand the assessment’s purpose. The consultant said many clients begin the assessment at a reduced percentage and use rollbacks or earmarking to make the change more acceptable to the public.
No formal vote or motion to engage a consultant was recorded at the workshop; several commissioners expressed support for pursuing a study. The presenter said the county would need to adopt a resolution of intent in the year prior to placing an assessment on the tax bill (for example, a resolution before Jan. 1 would be required to target the November 2027 tax roll).
