Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Countywide Ems topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Germantown trustees question countywide EMS levy, move to table current resolution
Summary
Village staff and a Washington County battalion chief outlined a countywide EMS levy that would generate an estimated $550,000 from Germantown (about $51 on a $400,000 home). Trustees raised concerns about double taxation, distribution formulas and the lack of a finalized IGA; the board voted to table the county resolution and continue discussions.
Battalion Chief Reicher Holmes and Washington County public safety staff presented a countywide EMS funding proposal that would levy roughly $3.5 million across Washington County and redistribute funds to municipalities. Holmes said the plan was designed to provide stable funding, retain local operational control for participating municipalities, and create efficiencies via county-level purchasing and shared services. He told the board the countywide levy would translate to about $550,000 from Germantown — roughly $51 on a $400,000 home — and that 75% of the base funds would be allocated to municipalities for general EMS costs while 25% would be held as a grant pool with more restricted uses.
The presentation traced the problem to rising costs, declining volunteerism and the exhaustion of one-time grants (ARPA and opioid settlement funds) that had previously provided about $177,000 annually to Germantown. Holmes said the county-level plan builds in an annual adjustment between 2% and 5% and includes limited provisions for municipalities to opt out, though the effect of an opt-out would be to redistribute levy revenues among participating jurisdictions.
Trustees and residents expressed strong concerns about the proposal and about the materials supporting it. Trustee Pieper presented calculations indicating Germantown would pay about $549,466 into the county levy while receiving $428,363 in return, a net loss of $121,103. Several trustees described the language in the supporting documentation as implying "taxation without representation" and said there was no final intergovernmental agreement (IGA) or service-provider contract to review. Trustee Kaminsky and others said the village had already passed a March resolution to continue vetting and that the current draft resolution, as written in the packet, did not match the board’s understanding of the intent.
County representatives said the packet framed a framework for discussion rather than a finished IGA. Washington County public safety officer Dave Sager said many municipalities had already passed resolutions to continue discussions and that the county still needed to finalize terms with the county public safety committee and county board. He and Holmes emphasized that the plan was intended to preserve local operational control and that key details remained subject to county board approval.
After extended debate, trustees made a procedural motion to table the resolution; the motion carried. Several trustees said they wanted more detailed financial modeling, the final IGA language, and clearer information about how redistributed funds would be calculated before taking a formal vote. The board asked county staff and the village administrator to return with more specifics and to improve communications with county supervisors and the public.
The immediate outcome: the Germantown board did not adopt the county resolution and asked staff to continue discussions and obtain a final IGA and clearer financial figures before any formal commitment.
