Caldwell council weighs forming fire district, public‑safety levy amid staffing strain

Caldwell — An extended council budget session Tuesday focused on the Caldwell Fire Department’s staffing shortfall, capital projects and whether to shift fire services into a separate fire district or ask voters for a public‑safety levy.

Fire Chief Daniels told the council the department’s FY27 operating budget is roughly $16.8 million with about $2 million in capital requests, and that recent retirements, protected leaves and vacancies have driven overtime higher. He said the department expects to recruit and train 12 suppression personnel by July, with a 16‑week academy, but that the community still faces a multi‑year gap in recommended staffing identified in an ESCI analysis.

The appearance by fire leadership prompted a detailed fiscal discussion with Ray Lynn from finance about how a fire district would affect city revenues. Finance staff said the city would reduce by a dollar‑for‑dollar amount the property‑tax allocation currently budgeted for fire; the district’s first‑year revenues also could benefit from an annexation calculation (staff referenced the 90% annexation treatment used in state calculations) that, in some cases, produces added revenue for a newly formed district.

“December 31st is the last date” to adopt a change that would affect FY28 property‑tax allocations, a finance official told council, while a public‑safety levy to appear on the November ballot would require council action by mid‑late August (or the May ballot is a later alternative). Chief Daniels and councilors repeatedly urged rapid follow‑up: councilors asked for workshops and for staff to produce projected buy‑out and transition costs, including potential fiscal exposure for accrued leave, apparatus leases and other items that sit on the city’s books.

Concerns on the council included how existing bond debt for recently approved stations would be handled, and whether Caldwell taxpayers would effectively pay twice if bonding and a new district tax both remained in force. One councilor flagged Nampa’s district transition as a cautionary example: “I wasn’t a part of their negotiating committee, but they thought it would be revenue neutral and three years later their budget was far larger,” the councilor said, urging careful review.

Finance staff offered preliminary transition strategies — short‑term use of general‑fund reserves or intergovernmental MOUs to keep creditor positions whole — but emphasized many details remain unresolved and would be part of negotiation. Council instructions at the end of the discussion directed staff to schedule workshops, to prepare current and projected balances (including possible buy‑out scenarios) and to convene a task force that would include fire chiefs from nearby jurisdictions to examine governance and financial modeling.

What happens next: councilors asked staff to return with specific fiscal options, buy‑out estimates and a timeline for both a possible November ballot measure and the December 31 district decision. No binding decision was taken at the session; staff signaled they would model options and bring them back for a workshop and subsequent votes.

Sources and attributions: Chief Daniels presented the department’s budget and staffing forecasts; Ray Lynn (finance) explained property‑tax mechanics and deadlines. Council discussion included Councilors Williams, Tillman, Stock and others. The council later approved a motion to enter executive session to consider exempt records.

Ending: Council directed staff to prepare detailed financial scenarios, and scheduled follow‑up briefings and workshops before any formal ballot action or a final decision on a fire district.