City leaders in Oldsmar and Safety Harbor have launched a formal effort to change how residents pay for fire protection. In separate meetings, officials authorized hiring outside experts to study a “fire assessment fee,” a move designed to shield local emergency services from a potential multimillion-dollar budget crisis.
Property owners currently pay for fire stations and firefighters through their standard property taxes. The new proposal would separate those costs into a dedicated charge.
The shift is a direct response to proposed changes forming in the state Legislature.
In Oldsmar, City Manager Felicia Donnelly warned the City Council on March 3 that proposed state amendments to property tax laws could slash the city’s budget by an estimated $2.7 million. The changes threaten to reduce or eliminate ad valorem taxes — those based on the assessed value of a home or business — that currently fund most city services.
To protect the fire department from those cuts, Oldsmar is looking to separate fire funding from the general tax pool and lock it into a dedicated assessment fee that would be reserved solely for fire and rescue services, regardless of what happens to property tax laws at the state level.
During the meeting, some council members asked whether the city could save money by copying the data and formulas used by the 175 other Florida cities that already have fire fees.
Donnelly rejected the idea, calling it a potential “legal disaster.” Because the charge is a special assessment rather than a tax, Florida law requires the city to prove that every dollar charged provides a specific benefit to the property being billed. A consultant is necessary to analyze local emergency call volumes and property data to ensure the fee can withstand a legal challenge, she said.
The council voted 5-0 to move forward with the research, authorizing staff to find a consultant who can build the fee model.
Safety Harbor officials reached a similar conclusion last month, voting 5-0 to begin their own one-year study.
City Manager Josh Stefancic said rising costs of personnel and equipment are already beginning to outpace the city’s current revenue. He described the study as a necessary step to ensure long-term sustainability for critical infrastructure.
The proposal was met with caution from the City Commission. Mayor Joe Ayoub agreed to the study but said the fee itself should be a “last resort option.”
Commissioner Andy Steingold led a discussion on the risks of dual taxation, saying he would only support the fee if it replaced lost property tax revenue rather than being added on top of it. Steingold said he would rather address rising costs through the millage rate than by creating a new, separate fee.
Commissioner Nancy Besore expressed similar concerns, worried that once a separate fee is created, it could grow unchecked.
Despite the reservations, the commission agreed the city must be prepared.
City Attorney Sarah Allen pointed out that the city cannot legally implement a fee in a hurry and that the cost analysis must be done well in advance. Commissioner Jacob Burnett added that having the data now serves as an “insurance policy” and an educational tool, allowing the city to tell residents exactly what a yes vote on state tax cuts would mean for their local fire assessment bill.
If eventually approved, the fee would represent a fundamental change for taxpayers. While property taxes are based on the value of a home, a fire assessment is based on the demand a property places on the fire department. A consultant would evaluate whether a commercial warehouse, a gas station or a small home generates more fire calls and set the rates accordingly.
Neither city has implemented the fee. The votes only allow city managers to start the research phase, which is expected to take nine months to a year. Both cities have promised that any final findings, including exactly how much residents would be charged, will be presented at future public meetings before any action is taken.