The High Springs Commission received a presentation from consultant Sandy Newbarth of Accenture on Resolution 2025-I, which would set rates for the city’s fire-assessment program for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2025.

Newbarth said the updated study reallocates costs based on demand for fire response and recommends setting the residential assessment at $2.50 (up from $2.23 in the prior role as presented). She explained the methodology used household-response parity as the basis for a uniform residential charge: “We charge all residential the same because they get the same response. They don’t send a half a response to a small house versus a large house.” Newbarth said the city last updated its study in February 2008 and that the new apportionment reflects a roughly 9.71% drop in residential demand and an increase in nonresidential demand.

Newbarth reviewed exemptions the resolution would carry: government properties and so-called “institutional tax-exempt” parcels (the consultant described this as parcels that are wholly tax-exempt and in institutional use, such as many churches and nonprofits). She also described an available hardship exemption that in past years has applied to only “2 or 3” parcels; the hardship test requires ownership, a homestead-eligible primary residence, and income at or below the income threshold specified in the policy. Newbarth said customers who believe they qualify should contact the city manager’s office to apply; she also noted the city must submit the assessment roll to the tax collector by Sept. 15 and that notices had been mailed July 24.

Commissioners and residents asked substantive questions. One commissioner asked whether churches can be charged; Newbarth said a city can include institutional tax-exempt parcels in the exemption policy and use general-fund dollars to “buy down” those exemptions because the exemption reduces the assessment roll rather than reallocating costs to other payers. Commissioners pressed the practical effect of hardship exemptions: Newbarth clarified that a 100% hardship exemption would reduce assessment revenue and the general fund or other unrestricted funds would need to make up the difference.

A number of operational and legal limits were discussed. Newbarth explained that the fire-assessment can legally fund fire protection services but not EMS: “You are now ALS…you can only fund fire protection services with the fire assessment. You can’t fund the EMS component.” Commissioners considered whether an EMS assessment is permissible; Newbarth said some counties have limited EMS assessments but generally cities do not qualify because courts require the assessment to be a property benefit rather than a personal medical benefit.

Commissioners also expressed uncertainty about near-term budget impacts because the city has limited data since a new station came online; Newbarth said two months of data is insufficient to project a full-year effect and that staff may need to return with updated figures. At the time of the transcript, the commission had not adopted final rates or the resolution; commissioners discussed the prospect of revisiting rates after more operational data were available.

The transcript records quantitative figures as presented by the consultant (the proposed residential rate as stated and the consultant’s characterization of exemptions and mailing deadlines). The transcript includes an internal inconsistency in which the consultant said the residential charge would increase from $2.23 to $2.50 “per year” and also described that change as a "$27 increase"; that arithmetic or unit description was not clarified in the meeting record.