In Your Corner

A few weeks ago we became aware of a plan proposed by Fire/Rescue and “work-shopped” by the County Commission. What is being advocated is a method to tie the cost of Fire protection to the risk of a property rather than its taxable value. Currently all County Fire/Rescue services are funded by property taxes assessed annually by the Commission. Municipalities within the County use a similar system. As with many suggestions to fund government programs, the concept is a common sense approach, but complicated to execute - and can provide political cover for the rising cost of an already expensive service.

We like simple solutions, especially those that tie the cost of a service to those that need it. However, the devil is in the details and there are many in this scheme. The first is that to assess the risk someone has to be paid to look at every piece of property in the County, quantify its risk and calculate the “assessment”. Another complication is that the Florida Courts have determined that governments cannot use an assessment to fund EMS services. Since Martin County multi-tasks our Fire/EMS personnel and use ambulances as well as fire equipment for EMS response, the cost for these functions have to be separated. A consultant advocating the approach has performed a three-year look-back that has determined fire coverage is about 60% of their total budget. According to our estimate that currently amounts to as much as $26 million, but this would have to be validated “every few years or when major changes are made.” With at least a 10 to 1 ratio of EMS to Fire responses, keeping this a legally defensible calculation will be totally dependent on continued analysis and credibility of the consultant firm. They contend that no county using this methodology has ever been sued. However, this is Martin County and filing lawsuits with even less reason are already a favorite pastime – and very expensive for our County to defend.

Since this assessment will drastically raise the amount some property owners pay for fire service, the allocation of cost will not be easy or without controversy. For example, a single family homesteaded property built in the 1990s pays a much lower property tax than an identical home owned by a part-time resident, or one built in the mid-2000s boom. Under this plan all three properties would pay exactly the same fire assessment. Two of these properties would probably end up paying less, so the difference has to be made up elsewhere. Currently a large percentage of Martin County properties are taxed as “agricultural” and subject to a much lower tax rate than those designated as industrial, commercial or residential. The Fire/Rescue service also rates agricultural land as the most expensive fire risk – brush fires – so the current tax would be replaced with a drastically increased assessment. Also, churches, hospitals, schools, non-profits, the disabled, veterans and other tax reduced/exempt properties would not be exempt from an assessment.

Conceptually we like the inherent fairness, but the execution is hard/expensive to do and will put some in financial hardship. It will involve creating a new bureaucracy, recurring consultant fees, “taxing” struggling non-profits and churches, open up new legal liabilities and – the most important – will probably be used to placate voters and obfuscate the true cost of our excellent but overpriced Fire/Rescue Service. As we go to press the Fire Fighter union has announced that their members will give up their contractual 5+% pay raise for 2010. We thank them for the decision to help an operation that will still be spending over 95% on personnel costs.