Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Assessment Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners direct consultants to pursue hazardous‑class fire assessment; ask for parcel examples and MSTU scenarios
Summary
After debate over fairness and revenue, a majority of Sumter County commissioners directed consultants to prepare a formal study using a hazardous‑class (square‑footage) fire assessment methodology, with staff to present examples at a 25% target and a 35% maximum rate for legal notice and public hearings.
Sumter County commissioners on Tuesday signaled a majority preference to pursue a hazardous‑class (square‑footage) methodology for a proposed fire assessment and to use MSTU millage to cover remaining revenue gaps.
Corey, a consultant from Accenture (S8), and consultant Sandra Newbar (Sandy Newbar, S10) presented two approaches the board had asked the firm to analyze: (1) a demand/availability method and (2) a hazardous‑class method that assigns fire‑protection units and rates by building type and square‑footage tiers.
The consultants used the county’s current assessment revenue (roughly $10,000,003 in the slide deck) as a benchmark and ran illustrative scenarios at different percentages of the maximum legally defensible rate under each method. Corey described how vacant land, nonprofit status and agricultural classification are treated differently depending on the chosen methodology.
County Attorney Jennifer Ray (S11) clarified a statutory constraint: agricultural land classified as such is exempt and cannot be included in a fire assessment. "Agricultural land cannot be assessed by statute," she said, explaining part of the differences the consultants showed between methods.
Under the demand/availability scenarios, consultants showed the assessment could be set at different shares of a maximum allowable rate (for example a 49% case) but would still leave a revenue shortfall the county would address through an MSTU millage increase. Consultants flagged that vacant parcels and some nonresidential square‑footage treatments produce different distributional impacts under each methodology.
The hazardous‑class approach applies tiers within a cost/risk classification (for example, the consultants’ class 7 covers most residential uses and breaks residential properties into multiple square‑footage bands). At higher shares of the hazardous‑class maximum, the assessment yields more revenue and shifts a larger share of the assessment burden to larger or higher‑square‑foot‑age properties.
Commissioners debated equity tradeoffs. Several argued demand/availability spreads cost more evenly; others said hazardous classification better aligns charges to relative fire risk and structure size. After discussion, the board gave the consultant direction to finalize the hazardous‑class study exhibits and to prepare property‑level examples showing how the assessment would affect parcels in different tiers and to pair those examples with MSTU millage scenarios.
Chair and staff said the board’s working intent is to display example notices at a 25% assessment target for the upcoming fiscal year while advertising a higher maximum of 35% in the initial assessment resolution (the maximum that would be noticed to property owners), so the board preserves flexibility but avoids excessive "sticker shock" in the mailed notices. The consultant and county staff were asked to return with parcel examples (single‑building and multi‑structure parcels, RV/park examples and sample tax notices) and with MSTU millage impacts before the May 26 agenda and public hearings in July.
Legal and procedural note: County Attorney Jennifer Ray and the consultants emphasized that the initial resolution must state a maximum rate that will be noticed; the board may adopt a lower final rate after public hearings but cannot raise the assessment above the noticed maximum without conducting a new notice process.
