Sanford commissioners deny proposed fire-assessment after hours-long public hearing

The Sanford City Commission voted unanimously Sept. 8 to deny a staff-recommended resolution to levy a fire-assessment intended to raise about $2.13 million a year for the department's capital needs.

The measure would have created a two-tiered assessment: a Tier 1 availability fee charged per parcel and a Tier 2 charge tied to structure value (a $1.33 charge per $5,000 of structure value in the first-year proposal). Senior principal Mike Burton, the consultant hired to design the assessment, told the commission the study used an "availability" methodology and said, "The revenue raised by the fire assessment must be used for the fire department and only for the fire department." He described the assessment as limited to recovering average annual capital needs of approximately $2.13 million from the assessment while the remainder of fire operating costs would remain in the general fund.

Why it matters: Commissioners framed the vote as a policy choice about how to pay for long-term equipment replacement and capital needs. Many residents and business owners who signed up to speak urged the commission not to add a new recurring charge that would be billed with property taxes, saying the city should reallocate existing revenues, pursue grants, or require developers to shoulder more of the cost of growth.

The discussion and hearing: The presentation by the consultant outlined the two-tier structure the city would use if the assessment were adopted: a flat parcel fee (Tier 1) and a variable fee based on structure value (Tier 2). Burton explained legal limits on what can be included in an assessment and said EMS transport and advanced medical treatment costs were excluded from the proposed assessment. He said the consultant's work used county property-appraiser data and that some categories (federal, state and local government property, condominium common elements, submerged and undeveloped parcels) were statutorily exempt.

The public hearing drew dozens of speakers. Commenters who identified themselves as homeowners, small-business owners, landlords and ministers questioned transparency in the mailed notice, asked for exemptions for seniors and low-income households, and pushed the commission to seek alternative funding sources such as FEMA grants, SAFER and other state and federal programs. Several residents pointed to recent increases in property values and city revenues and urged commissioners to find savings or use existing reserves rather than add another ongoing assessment. A representative of the Riverwalk Church said nonprofits and faith-based groups provide social services and would be harmed; multiple speakers said the notice read like a demand and cited concern about tax liens for nonpayment.

Commissioner remarks reflected the split between a desire to secure long-term, stable funding for capital replacement and the recognition that residents were not prepared for a new recurring charge. Mayor Art Wijerf told the room the measure was a forward-looking option and reiterated staff's statement that the city was not in a budget crisis. Commissioner Britton thanked residents for civic engagement and emphasized the commission's role in listening. After the hearing and follow-up discussion, a commissioner moved to deny the resolution; the motion passed unanimously.

Outcome and next steps: The commission's vote means the initial levy of the fire assessment (Resolution No. 3416 as presented to the commission) was not adopted. Mayor Woodruff and staff said they will continue to explore alternatives, including grant funding and other budget options; several commissioners asked staff to revisit long-term funding strategies and to re-open communications so residents can better understand trade-offs.

Votes at a glance - Resolution to adopt fire-assessment rates for FY2026 (initial levy as proposed in Resolution 3416): Motion to deny carried unanimously (outcome: failed). The motion and second were recorded and the chair called a unanimous aye; no roll-call votes were read aloud.

Ending: The denial concluded the item after a lengthy public comment period and commission discussion. Staff said they would return to the commission with alternate funding options and further public outreach rather than proceed with an assessment at this time.