Sumter County weighs hazardous‑class alternative to blunt square‑foot fire assessment amid legal risk

Sumter County officials spent the March 31 workshop debating how to remake the county's fire special assessment after the board directed a new study in the wake of legal challenges to the prior Benesh study. County staff said the goal is to present defensible methodologies that meet the legal test that an assessment 'funds a service that benefits property' and is 'fair and reasonably apportioned.

"The board had ultimately selected a center for the project, got them under contract and this is the first opportunity to share the methodology that's been reviewed," a county staff member said, explaining that the current study team is constrained by litigation and by the consultant's obligation to defend its work. The staff member noted the study shows residential charges would likely rise under some approaches and that vacant land, currently uncharged, could be assessed.

The county attorney told the board the legal framework for special assessments rests on two principles: the assessment must fund a property benefit (for example, fire protection) and the apportionment must be fair and reasonable. "By virtue of court interpretation, the court has concluded the ordinary expected services of a fire department . . . require that the assessment be fair and reasonably apportioned," the attorney said, cautioning that options without clear case law create greater exposure to lawsuits.

Commissioners pressed why a uniform cents‑per‑square‑foot charge for residential properties could not be offered. One commissioner summarized the concern: ''We measure square footage and put a value to that 'so how is it not possible that an ad valorem or rate per square foot is used?'' The county attorney and staff answered that case law does not uniformly support a single cents‑per‑square‑foot approach across all land uses and that how the fire department staffs and equips for dwellings versus commercial structures affects what is legally defensible.

Accenture consultant Sandra "Sandy" New Barth presented a hazardous‑class methodology that maps National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) hazard classes to "fire protection units." Under the approach, each building is assigned a hazard class (for example, class 7 for many residential uses) and then credited with fire protection units based on square footage tiers; one sample shown by the consultant assigned one unit per 1,199 square feet for certain residential tiers. Sandy said the hazardous‑class approach brings the square‑foot objective closer to the board's direction while offering a defensible line of reasoning, but she acknowledged the method is complicated to explain to property owners.

"This is one that the consultant attorney feels is defensible," the consultant said, adding that the model requires more data and one‑on‑one explanations for some property owners because of variable tiers and credits (for example, sprinkler credits for commercial properties).

Board members asked the consultant to prepare both the recommended demand‑availability model and the hazardous‑class model with sample rate sheets and comparisons so the board can review concrete numbers. Staff said the consultant is prepared to return in late May (a May 26 workshop date was cited) with full studies and sample rates, and that the county could use the municipal service taxing unit (MSTU) to make up revenue differences if the board chooses not to adopt the full recommended rate.

Public comment at the start of the meeting included a resident's sharp criticism that the county was using firefighters as a "pity bank" to justify revenue changes; the board acknowledged the comment and noted that public education about rate impacts would be necessary if the board moves forward.

Next steps: the consultant will provide developed sample rates for the two recommended methodologies and the county will hold a follow‑up workshop in late May to help commissioners choose a course and reconcile any MSTU/millage implications.