Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Ems Funding topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Butler County EMS coordinator asks Clarksville council to support $150,000 levy for local emergency coverage

City of Clarksville City Council · October 7, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Butler County EMS Coordinator Kari Coates asked the Clarksville City Council to support placing up to $150,000 on the ballot as an EMS levy, describing volunteer burnout and giving example tax impacts (about $6.49/year on a $100,000 house); no council vote was taken.

Kari Coates, Butler County EMS Coordinator, asked the Clarksville City Council on Oct. 7 to place an EMS levy on an upcoming ballot to raise up to $150,000 for emergency medical services in rural Butler County.

Coates said the levy — described to the council as a 14-cent increase per $1,000 of taxable valuation — would help hire another staff member and add a response vehicle to improve coverage and reduce reliance on volunteers. She gave sample tax impacts: on a house with a $100,000 assessed value (taxable value listed in materials as $46,342.80) the annual increase would be about $6.49; on 100 acres of agricultural land (taxable value listed as $128,588.23) the increase would be about $18.01 per year.

"I’m just wanting residents to make an informed decision," Coates said, and described increased call volume: she stated she had been a first responder about 160 times since July. She told the council that ballot language would be written to allow the levy 'up to' the requested amount so officials could make later adjustments without returning to the ballot, and that any surplus would remain in the EMS account rather than the county general fund.

Council members did not take a formal vote on the levy during the meeting; the presentation was accepted as information. The request was moved to the top of the agenda after a procedural motion to ensure public discussion.

If the city or residents seek more detail, Coates invited questions and said she welcomed further discussion about staffing models, vehicle purchases and exact ballot language.

Next steps: the council did not adopt a resolution or motion on the levy at the Oct. 7 meeting; future actions would depend on county ballot scheduling and any council direction or intergovernmental coordination.