Statesboro officials outline proposed fire service fee to cover about half the fire budget

At a public information session, Statesboro officials presented a proposal to levy a fire service fee intended to close an estimated $4 million funding gap for the Statesboro Fire Department.

Fire Chief Tim Grama opened the meeting and described the objective: "The purpose of tonight's meeting is to share information about the fire service fee, how we're looking at utilizing it to help fund fire services in Statesboro." He and a consultant explained the proposed structure, how rates were calculated and what property classes would pay.

The consultant, Ed De Tomaso of Goodman Mills, said the study used five years of call data and the county tax digest to allocate costs equitably across land-use types. "Our approach kinda combines the land use and the square footage and and put those into a hybrid methodology," he said, and described the proposed rates as "1¢ per square foot" for residential and "2¢ a square foot for commercial," with acreage charges and caps intended to limit costs for very large parcels.

Under the example scenarios presented, the average residential fee would be about $19 per month and 63% of residential parcels would be capped at the stated limit; a typical capped residential example showed a $20 monthly bill. Non-single-family residential properties (multifamily, dormitories, restaurants, commercial) had a higher average under the model — roughly $140 per month — with many larger commercial parcels approaching caps in the presented scenarios.

Officials said the proposed fee would be broadly applied. Chief Grama answered a direct question about large tax-exempt institutions: "Under the fire fee structure, all properties would be, subject to the fee including Georgia Southern." The consultants noted that one of the motivations for a fee is that certain tax-exempt properties (churches, schools, universities, city buildings) do not pay property tax but would be included under a user-fee model to distribute costs more evenly.

City Manager Charles Benny framed the practical choice facing the council: adopt the fee or raise millage. "The fire service fee, which if implemented, would be implemented in July, would be July 1," Benny said, adding that the alternative to a fee would be a roughly 3.8-mill increase in the property tax rate to raise a comparable amount. He told residents the council will have to decide how to fund the department before the summer and urged public input.

Officials and the consultant said the fee is projected to generate approximately $4,000,000 annually and would cover about 50% of the fire department’s budget; the remainder would continue to come from general-fund contributions and other sources. Presenters emphasized that the fee is not presented as a full replacement of ad valorem funding but as a hybrid approach to distribute costs differently across property types.

The session also covered credits and discounts. De Tomaso said the city is developing a credit manual that could reduce bills for property owners that take qualifying actions: commercial sprinkler systems and properly maintained life-safety systems were cited as examples; residential credits could include demonstrated functioning smoke detectors or carbon-monoxide devices. The city also plans preparedness and training programs that could provide relief options for tax-exempt entities.

Officials answered funding-constraint questions: Chief Grama described two recent budget pressures — a FEMA SAFER grant that funded 12 firefighter positions for a limited period (the presentation cited the grant at about $2.1 million over three years) and the loss of a county special service district that previously brought roughly $2.5–$2.75 million annually into the department. City Manager Benny later characterized the amount to replace as $3,200,000 in SAFER-related funds that will lapse this year; the difference in those figures reflects two separate references in the meeting and was presented as staff estimates during Q&A.

Presenters clarified that SPLOST (the special-purpose local option sales tax) is regularly used for capital purchases such as stations and apparatus but generally cannot be used to fund ongoing operations like payroll. Benny added that a recently approved floating local option sales tax (FLOSS) is expected to provide an estimated $3.5 million to the city in July 2027 but would require a millage rollback and not increase recurring discretionary revenue for operations.

Chief Grama also reviewed the department’s operational capacity and insurance-rating context: Statesboro is ISO class 2, which the chief said places the city among the top-performing departments and can affect insurance premiums differently across carriers because ISO data are sold to insurers rather than mandated adjustments.

Next steps: presenters said the city will hold additional public meetings, post a landing page and FAQs, meet with major customers, finalize a credit manual and accept written input for council consideration. The council must decide funding before the July 1 implementation date cited by the city manager if it proceeds with a fee.

The meeting closed with staff offering to answer individual questions after the session. No formal motion or council action occurred at the meeting; the presentation and public input were informational ahead of a future council decision.