Detachment from ambulance district, procedure (City of Riverside) - ...
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 190.088
in effect*190.088. Detachment from ambulance district, procedure (City of Riverside) — inapplicable to St. Louis County. — 1. A city of the fourth classification with more than two thousand seven hundred but fewer than three thousand inhabitants and located in any county of the first classification with more than eighty-three thousand but fewer than ninety-two thousand inhabitants that is located partially within an ambulance district may file with the ambulance district's board of directors a notice of intention of detachment stating the city's intent that the area located within the city and the ambulance district, or a portion of such area, is to be excluded and taken from the district. The filing of a notice of intention of detachment must be authorized by ordinance. Such notice of intention of detachment shall describe the subject area to be excluded from the ambulance district in the form of a legal description and map.
2. After filing the notice of intention of detachment with the ambulance district, the city shall conduct a public hearing on the notice of intention of detachment and give notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation qualified to publish legal matters in the county where the subject area is located, at least once a week for three consecutive weeks prior to the hearing, with the last notice being not more than twenty days and not less than ten days before the hearing. The hearing may be continued to another date without further notice other than a motion to be entered upon the minutes fixing the time and place of the subsequent hearing. At the public hearing, the city shall present its reasons why it desires to detach the subject area from the ambulance district and its plan to provide or cause to be provided ambulance services to the subject area.
3. Following the public hearing, the governing body of the city may approve the detachment of the subject area from the ambulance district by enacting an ordinance with two-thirds of all members of the legislative body of the city voting in favor of the ordinance.
4. Upon duly enacting such detachment ordinance, the city shall cause three certified copies of the same to be filed with the county assessor and the clerk of the county wherein the city is located and one certified copy to be filed with the election authority if different from the clerk of the county that has jurisdiction over the area being detached.
5. Upon the effective date of the ordinance, which may be up to one year from the date of its passage and approval, the ambulance district shall no longer provide or cause to be provided ambulance services to the subject area and shall no longer levy and collect any tax upon the property included within the detached area, provided that all real property excluded from an ambulance district shall thereafter be subject to the levy of taxes for the payment of any indebtedness of the ambulance district outstanding at the time of exclusion; provided that after any real property shall have been excluded from an ambulance district as provided under this section, any buildings and improvements thereafter erected or constructed on the excluded real property, all machinery and equipment thereafter installed or placed on the excluded real property, and all tangible personal property not in the ambulance district at the time of the exclusion of the subject area shall not be subject to any taxes levied by the ambulance district.
6. The city shall also:
(1) On or before January first of the second calendar year after the date on which the property was detached from the ambulance district, pay to the ambulance district a fee equal to the amount of revenue that would have been generated during the previous calendar year by the ambulance district tax on the property in the area detached which was formerly part of the ambulance district;
(2) On or before January first of the third calendar year after the date on which the property was detached from the ambulance district, pay to the ambulance district a fee equal to four-fifths of the amount of revenue that would have been generated during the previous calendar year by the ambulance district tax on the property in the area detached which was formerly a part of the ambulance district;
(3) On or before January first of the fourth calendar year occurring after the date on which the property was detached from the ambulance district, pay to the ambulance district a fee equal to three-fifths of the amount of revenue that would have been generated during the previous calendar year by the ambulance district tax on the property in the area detached which was formerly a part of the ambulance district;
(4) On or before January first of the fifth calendar year occurring after the date on which the property was detached from the ambulance district, pay to the ambulance district a fee equal to two-fifths of the amount of revenue that would have been generated during the previous calendar year by the ambulance district tax on the property in the area detached which was formerly a part of the ambulance district; and
(5) On or before January first of the sixth calendar year occurring after the date on which the property was detached from the ambulance district, pay to the ambulance district a fee equal to one-fifth of the amount of revenue that would have been generated during the previous calendar year by the ambulance district tax on the property in the area detached which was formerly a part of the ambulance district.
7. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any county in which a boundary commission has been established under sections 72.400 to 72.423 .
(L. 2014 S.B. 672) *Revisor's Note: This section was declared unconstitutional in Calzone v. Koster, et al., see 2016 annotation below. (2016) Provisions of S.B. 672 from 2014 declared unconstitutional as violating the single subject rule of Article III, § 23; under the facts presented, those provisions cannot be severed and the bill is unconstitutional in its entirety. Calzone v. Koster, et al., Case No. 15AC-CC00247 (Cole County Cir. Ct., Feb. 9, 2016).
Source: Open US Law by Vaquill AI (CC BY 4.0)URL: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=190.088Fetched: 10/17/2026