Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves one‑year fire service assessment as staff and public press for alternatives
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing and more than two hours of testimony, the commission approved a one‑year adoption of an amended fire protection assessment resolution and directed staff to return with alternative funding proposals by Sept. 30 to address ongoing public safety costs and county/state revenue uncertainty.
The Ocoee City Commission held a lengthy public hearing on July 15 about a consultant study and a proposed increase in the city’s non‑ad valorem fire protection assessment and approved a one‑year adoption of the assessment while directing staff to return with alternatives by Sept. 30.
Assistant City Manager Mike Grimmer and consultant Sandra Newbarth presented the study results and staff recommendation. The proposed assessment would raise the per‑unit rate from $69.50 to $139.23 per fire‑protection unit under the methodology the city used to apportion costs across structure classes. Staff said the recommended level would fund roughly 36% of the city’s fire protection costs; the department’s full public‑safety cost (police and fire) remains funded largely through the general fund and ad valorem revenue.
The nut graf: The commission adopted a one‑year fire assessment at the proposed rate to provide near‑term funds for fire protection while asking staff to return during the upcoming budget process with a plan to rework how fire and police costs are packaged—possible separate public‑safety funds, phased assessments, or other measures—before the next fiscal year.
Staff explained the rationale: the fee is a non‑ad valorem, home‑rule revenue source based on a demand/availability apportionment (hazard classes, building under‑roof square footage and call‑demand measures). Newbarth said the methodology follows case law standards that require a benefit to property (the courts allow fire protection to be assessed; EMS was excluded) and a fair apportionment across property owners.
Chief Tom Smothers and staff described equipment and capital needs: increased replacement costs for engines (engine lead times now several years, current frontline engines aging), self‑contained breathing apparatus, radios and a marine rescue boat, plus rising personnel costs. Staff reported approximately 7,600 calls last year (most calls EMS related) and said rising capital and personnel costs have outpaced revenue currently available to the department.
More than 30 members of the public spoke during the hearing; common concerns included the size of the proposed increase, effects on residents with fixed incomes, whether commercial property owners and developers are contributing fairly, and whether the city had exhausted internal savings or could phase increases over time. Several callers asked whether impact fees, development agreements or county revenue could be used instead of a recurring assessment.
After public comment and extensive commissioner discussion, the commission voted to adopt the fire assessment for the coming fiscal year at the staff‑recommended level and directed staff to return with alternative funding scenarios and implementation steps—potentially including establishing a dedicated fire fund, restructuring how police and fire are funded, phased increases, or other options—by the Sept. 30 budget deadline. Staff stressed the action funds fire protection but excludes EMS transport costs from the assessment.
