Lengthy debate over proposed 28E dispatch agreement, EMA levy and whether county should assume dispatch

A central topic at Jackson County’s Jan. 6 meeting was a long, detailed discussion with municipal representatives over a proposed 28E agreement to fund and govern regional 9‑1‑1 dispatch services.

City officials presented two financing options under discussion: option A (per‑capita) and option B (a 50/50 blend of per‑capita and property‑valuation). City leaders said they preferred keeping dispatch employees on city payroll under a 28E (lease/contract) rather than an immediate county takeover. County supervisors expressed concern about long‑term fiscal exposure if the county should assume staffing and facility costs; Chair Don Swinker warned a move of the dispatch center could run from "1 to 1,500,000" to as much as $2,000,000, citing comments from a police chief on the estimate.

Representatives also discussed whether emergency management (EMA) levies could be adjusted or expanded to include dispatch costs. County staff and supervisors asked the county attorney and the auditor to determine whether dispatch services could be folded into an EMA levy or otherwise funded without forcing city employees to become county employees; the consensus was to research code and legal ramifications before deciding.

A Jackson County Economic Alliance representative urged supervisors to consider that valuation‑based approaches still result in tax impacts tied to property values and argued there is no perfect allocation that entirely separates valuation effects from per‑capita concerns. Several supervisors suggested negotiating language in any agreement to preserve county leverage and to require future negotiations if a full transition occurs.

No final vote was taken. The board requested county staff, the county attorney, and municipal representatives meet in a short work session (about three weeks) to refine figures, check legal authority for levies or billing arrangements, and draft amended agreement language if feasible.