West Bend council backs development of countywide EMS property-tax funding plan; city cautions it is not a final commitment

The West Bend common council on July 20 voted to support development of a Washington County emergency-medical-services (EMS) funding system built on a county property-tax levy, while noting final details remain to be negotiated.

City staff member Jesse told the council the county is proposing a $3,500,000 EMS property-tax levy. Under the working concept, West Bend residents would contribute about $605,000 toward that total; the city would receive a direct payment of roughly $504,000 from the county under the model and could realize more than $684,000 cumulatively when offsets through service agreements with neighboring towns are counted.

Jesse said the levy mechanism is authorized under state statute and that funds raised by the county levy would be limited to EMS purposes: "No exceptions. Not fire, not police, not dispatch. It is specifically for EMS," he said. He emphasized the council’s action is to support development of the funding system, not to commit the city to immediate participation: "We are supporting the development of this funding system because there are some details to work through yet." (Speaker identified in the meeting as Jesse.)

Chief Norin—who city staff selected as West Bend’s representative to the county working group—said the countywide program aims to stabilize EMS funding as federal grants and ARPA funding expire. He described volunteer shortages and levy-limit restrictions on municipal revenue as drivers of the proposal and said the model would help smaller departments sustain basic response capabilities while preserving local authority over operations and medical direction.

City staff walked council members through comparative scenarios: funding the shortfall from city levy alone would require about a 21-cent increase per $1,000 of assessed value and an $84.25 annual hit for a $400,000 home. Under the combined county-and-city approach presented, the county levy would add about 12 cents per $1,000 and the city would need about 7 cents per $1,000 to cover the same gap—resulting in a cumulative 19-cent change and a net reduction of roughly $6.48 per month for a $400,000 property (about $77.71 per year) compared with the city-only option.

Council members asked about administrative fees; Jesse said Washington County intends to cap administrative charges (described in the presentation as either $2.73 [sic] or up to about $300,000 of the $3.5 million levy) and that the county represented the charge would be capped year over year with no escalator. Councilors also asked about the timetable; staff said the county planned to bring the proposal to its public-safety committee at the end of the month and to the full county board the following month.

Multiple council members praised the work group that drafted the framework and commended chiefs, staff and the firefighters’ union for participating in negotiations. The resolution passed by voice vote; councilors reiterated that the city would retain local control over dispatch, medical direction and operational decisions under the proposed structure, and that participation would be subject to further intergovernmental agreements.