Fire Protection Assessment Fee Increase

Commented on the history of the fire fee since 2014, questioned general fund budgeting practices, and asked about accountability and the evaluation of the city manager.

Questioned why fire assessment revenue is projected to increase by $4.7 million while general fund public safety spending decreased by $1.8 million in the proposed budget.

Argued that fire assessments should be based on actual square footage rather than an average equivalent dwelling unit that penalizes smaller homes.

Expressed concern over the 70% maximum cap and the burden placed on fixed-income residents.

Inquired whether the fire fee is set in stone, whether future increases are expected, and if refunds will be issued to residents selling their homes.

Argued that the 1 EDU baseline of 2,423 square feet is a fallacy that overtaxes smaller homes at double the cost while failing to account for larger properties.

Criticized the fire fee as a shell game used to avoid raising millage rates, noted that fire assessments cannot be deducted on federal income taxes, and warned that landlords will pass costs to renters.

Expressed concern as a retiree on a fixed income living in a small home regarding the burden of the assessment and questioned its tie to Amendment 3.

Questioned how a 45% to 70% increase can be considered proportional when inflation is low, and asked whether independent audits were conducted to reduce expenditures.

Objected to a nearly 189% increase in his assessment since 2025, presented charts comparing assessment growth to inflation and wages, and requested detailed financial justifications.

Shared her personal struggles with terminal illness and fixed income, stating she cannot afford the fee and avoided EMS transport due to copay costs.

Stated she is on social security disability and cannot afford the tax increase, which may force her to sell her home.

Warned that fee increases on rental properties housing disabled tenants on fixed incomes will lead to homelessness.

Inquired where general fund revenue previously covering two-thirds of the fire budget is being redirected now that assessment fees cover almost the entire budget.

Questioned why stormwater assessments use square footage while fire assessments do not, and urged the city to establish an equitable square footage methodology.

Expressed opposition as a disabled resident on a fixed income living in a small home, stating she cannot afford the increase.

Noted his assessment increased from $274 last year to $383, representing a 33% increase, and questioned where the money is going.

Spoke on behalf of commercial property owners, arguing that a blanket assessment ignores private investments in state-of-the-art sprinkler systems and requested commercial fee credits.

Argued that flat fire assessments across different home sizes are unfair and criticized municipal expenditures such as take-home police vehicles for out-of-town officers.

Read excerpts from a 2013 Orlando Sentinel article highlighting identical debates over fire assessments 13 years prior.

Asked detailed questions about the proportion of fire funding from property taxes versus assessments, justification of amounts, and calculation methods.

Expressed opposition as a disabled fixed-income resident living in a 704-square-foot unit within a 199-unit community.

Criticized scheduling the hearing on primary election night, pointed out commercial growth and new revenues, and questioned fiscal responsibility.

Stated she is disabled, pays high property taxes and medical expenses, and cannot afford rising municipal fees.

Highlighted state-level reports on county audits finding waste and fraud, suggesting local budget reviews.

Commended civic participation, suggested scrutinizing county tax allocations and uncollected water fees, and urged residents to engage with county and state governments.

Stated she is a new homeowner working two jobs, requested square footage equity in fees, and suggested prioritizing fire department funding over minor municipal services.