Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ems Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hardin County supervisors debate referendum to fund EMS; townships’ control and levy size are central issues
Summary
Supervisors and EMS providers debated whether to route referendum dollars through townships or keep county control, the appropriate levy (discussed: $0.75, $1.00, $1.50 per $1,000), and timing to place the measure on the November ballot, with concerns about accountability and service continuity if a provider withdraws.
Supervisors spent the bulk of a county meeting weighing how to fund advanced emergency medical services and whether township governments should receive and control referendum dollars.
The discussion centered on four deal points: the funding method (property tax levy assumed), the per‑$1,000 rate (options mentioned in the meeting included $0.75, $1.00 and $1.50), the duration of the levy (members discussed five years versus the more common 15‑year maximum), and how the money would be allocated to townships and cities. Board members and EMS leaders said a reliable revenue stream is needed to keep ALS (advanced life support) coverage staffed and certified; at the same time, several supervisors warned that locking hard percentages into a 15‑year referendum would remove needed flexibility for townships and could jeopardize first‑responder budgets in small cities.
A county official explained that the state’s July 1 change to certain traffic rules—raised earlier in the meeting by the county engineer—underscored workload and regulatory pressures across county departments, but the EMS conversation focused on how voters would view who controls the funds. Proponents of routing funds to townships argued that trustees are closest to local needs and could negotiate service contracts annually; opponents said many townships lack capacity to run negotiations and that shifting the onus could create service gaps if negotiations stall.
Speakers raised operational risks if an ALS provider withdraws from a service area. EMS leaders argued that consistent revenue is necessary to recruit and retain staff; township supporters said a township allocation model could preserve funds for local first responders’ equipment and priorities. Several supervisors recommended a shorter initial levy (for example, $1.00 for five years) as a political compromise to increase the chance of passage and allow adjustments later, rather than a maximum 15‑year levy at the highest allowable rate.
Participants also noted practical constraints for a November ballot: a county must publish referendum language 60 days before the election, and the board would need public hearings and a draft ballot question in time for that schedule. Board members asked staff to draft sample ballot language reflecting the trustee‑allocation approach so trustees and the public can review it ahead of a June 30 discussion.
No formal vote on a referendum occurred at the meeting. The board directed staff to produce draft referendum language, hold additional outreach and consider placing the item on the November ballot if timelines and public engagement allow. The board scheduled follow‑up discussion for its June 30 meeting.
