Board hears first detailed pitch for countywide fire and EMS plan; supervisors press on levy, local control and timeline

Washington County’s executive and staff delivered the board’s first detailed briefing on a proposed countywide fire and EMS program on July 8, framing it as a shared-services effort to stabilize volunteer and paid-on-call firefighting and EMS across the county.

County Executive Showman said staff will propose continuing at least $1 million in county funding for 2026 and will prepare a permanent funding recommendation for 2027 and beyond. Staff described a two-track approach: (1) county funding and an EMS levy option available under state statute that some counties use, and (2) a consortium/shared-services model that seeks to retain local volunteer companies and reduce municipal fiscal pressure. Showman said the administration aims to have a proposal that is executable no later than Jan. 1, 2028 and asked the board to expect a draft by August and final consideration by November to fit municipal budgeting timelines.

Staff and supervisors discussed a set of data points intended to show urgency: EMS runs have increased roughly 50% since 2018; countywide total fire and EMS budgets were described as roughly $18 million by staff, with projections showing an approximate $10 million increase in cost over five years if no operational changes are made. Presenters emphasized demographic change (rising share of older residents) and shrinking volunteer ranks as structural drivers.

Supervisors pressed several themes during the multi-hour exchange: - Tax and levy tradeoffs: Some supervisors asked how a plan designed to “mitigate tax burden” could rely on exceeding levy limits to generate new county revenue. Staff said county law provides levy tools municipalities lack and framed the levy option as a means to equalize funding across jurisdictions that otherwise face divergent property-value bases and capacity. - Local control and takeover fears: Multiple supervisors relayed constituent concerns that a county levy would mean the county would “take over” local operations. Staff repeatedly denied an intent to supplant local control: “No, we are not taking over at all,” a staff member said, and presenters said the preferred approach is partnership with municipal elected officials and fire chiefs. - Market versus partnership models: Several supervisors warned that an open RFP and procurement model could undercut volunteer departments and lead to territorial ‘grabs’ and a domino effect of department collapses; presenters said an unfettered market approach would likely be destructive and that negotiated, hybrid models are preferred. - Measurables and accountability: Board members asked for concrete, measurable actions from the chiefs and municipalities showing how shared services will reduce cost (e.g., equipment-sharing, consolidation of apparatus, shifts in staffing models) and asked for timeline commitments to avoid open-ended funding.

No formal vote was taken; staff were given direction to bring a draft proposal to public safety and the county board by August at the latest with the goal of final approval in November so municipalities can incorporate impacts into their 2027 budgets.

Ending: Staff said they will continue stakeholder engagement and return with a first draft for board review. The board did not take formal action on the policy at the July 8 meeting.