Decisions remain before final approval
BY MARK J. CRAWFORD
Constituents and commissioners alike still had a lot of questions during the second public hearing on an ordinance establishing the process for enacting a fire assessment.
Commissioners came under fire for spending in other areas while proposing a new fee to pay for the county fire department. They heard pleas on behalf of those who would find it difficult to afford an additional assessment.
In the end, commissioners voted 3-2 on final approval of the ordinance, which does not establish the fee, but allows the commission to move forward with the process.
Jeff Rackley with consulting firm Stantec joined Bradford County Fire Rescue Chief Ben Carter from a remote office to answer some of the lingering questions and explain the commission’s options.
Stantec updated a study from 2018 and 2019 which placed the 100% budget recovery cost per residential dwelling unit at more than $300 a year (20 cents per square foot for nonresidential buildings). Unlikely to approve the full amount needed cover the fire department budget, county commissioners could approve a lower amount and look for other sources of revenue or budget cuts.
Among the misinformation right out of the gate was the charge that residents would be charged $200 or $300 a month. That is not the case. Like the special assessment paid for solid waste, a fire assessment would be an annual fee added to property tax bills.
Much of the hearing was spent trying to reach an understanding of what was being considered and how each of the commission’s choices could impact the county.
Public comment
“We have retired elderly people on fixed incomes here in Braford County, I just don’t think people are going to be able to afford that,” Anita Baker said of the assessment. In addition to questioning spending in other areas, she also advocated using volunteers to lower fire department costs.
“I just think we should be looking at other areas to make this work,” she said.
Lloyd Donnelly said while residents do need a firefighting crew stationed in Speedville, they do not need “these taxes that they’re going to put on us.”
“Taxes down there is outrageous as it is,” he said. “Biggest people down that way live on a fixed income. They cannot afford no more taxes than we already have.”
Donnelly asked commissioners to think hard before acting, and Paul Still also urged them to slow down. Still said the commission should delay action until next year so there is time to understand “what all the moving parts are and how to make it work.”
Still also suggested capping the residential assessment at $50 in recognition that those who live in mobile homes or older homes would not receive the same benefit as those living in more modern housing. The former residents would likely lose their homes before firefighters arrived.
“I think that’s the part that went wrong in the assessment process; you didn’t look at all the options that you have available to actually set the assessment.,” Still said. “If you want to do it this year, set people’s mind at ease, so that they know that the most that they’re going to have to pay is $50 for a home and not this potential 300 and whatever it is.”
“Anytime you start making the poor pay for the rich, you’re asking for trouble,” said Tommy Tatum, who said it was still unclear if the pole barns on his family company’s property would be assessed the same as the sawmill itself. Assessments not based on the value of the property represent a “tax against the poor” in his opinion.
“We’re in a poor county,” Tatum said. “I can’t hear no position to fight the fire department, because we need the fire department, but the fairer we get it, the more people are going to be satisfied with it.”
Kate Ellison pointed out that people are still unsure of the method of assessment, and she too believed the amount paid should be based on the value of the building being protected.
“If you are going to assess commercial property on the basis of the square foot of the building, then it’s not logical that you can’t do that for personal houses, for personal property,” she said. “You know, it just makes sense that those who can afford to live in a much bigger house would pay more for saving it.”
Vyunda Strong said she would swap the fire assessment for what she pays for the solid waste assessment, saying she doesn’t produce enough garbage to warrant paying that fee. She also wanted to see the cost burden for firefighting shifted to insurance companies and large timberland owners who won’t pay an assessment on their unimproved agricultural properties regardless of the wildfire danger.
Answering questions
Chief Carter was given the floor, and he and Rackley attempted to offer clarity and options in the face of questions from the public and commission.
“Emotions run high when we talk about money and people’s livelihoods, and so I appreciate everybody coming here tonight to voice opinions. But, you know, taking some time to just, everybody, take a breath and let’s work on this collectively as a group and try and find something that’s acceptable to everybody,” he said.
As to the methodology of the study and apportioning the cost of the assessment, Rackley said they used information from the county property appraiser to determine assessable properties and historic call data to determine from where most calls of service originate.
Most properties are residential dwelling units, and those dwellings generate the most calls for service. Nonresidential properties and vacant properties are also assessed. For the commercial properties, the “primary buildings” only are assessed. If there is some question about what a primary building is, the county could have an appeals process for property owners.
Government-owned properties are exempt by law, as are agricultural properties, although residential dwelling units on agriculturally zoned land would pay the assessment.
“The methodology that we’ve used here is a methodology that’s been around for 30-plus years. It’s the most widely adopted fire assessment methodology in the state. It’s been through the courts. It’s been tested. It’s generally the most straightforward methodology, the most easy to understand and maintain. But, with that being said, there are other approaches even within this particular methodology,” Rackley said.
The commission has the option of creating additional exemptions for faith-based and other nonprofits, as well as for exemptions based on income, veteran status, etc.
As suggested, Rackley said residential properties could be assessed based on size (square footage) just like nonresidential properties. Doing so adds a layer of complexity, including the need to exempt ancillary structures on the residential property. The methodology is less common because of the administrative burden. It would, however, result in larger dwellings paying more money.
Rackley said there are also methodologies based on property value that would capture the value of exempt agricultural properties, as well as a methodology that classify properties based on hazard.
Along the way, specific scenarios were thrown out. What if there are multiple dwelling units on a property but some were uninhabitable? Would those be assessed? Not if the county employed an appeals process that would look at each case and make adjustments, just as there is a process to appeal a property’s taxable value. The raw data from the property appraiser, however, don’t show whether a dwelling is occupied or livable.
On the other hand, those unoccupied structures could still represent a significant risk that would require resources in case of a fire, Rackley said.
As discussions with the board continued along the lines of assessed versus exempt properties, Carter said the board’s decision on which properties to assess — and how much to charge — is decided later. The ordinance before the commission for final reading July 18 only put that process in place.
Before the end of that process — which will need to take place prior to Sept. 15 if the assessment it to appear on this year’s tax bill — the commission will need to decide what the assessment amounts will be and what exemptions will apply.
Split vote
“Our community needs to know that we’re not without compassion,” said Commission Chairwoman Carolyn Spooner, sharing a personal anecdote about her aunt living on a fixed income. “We sitting up here may be able to pay that fee, but there are people out in the community who can’t. So, we have to look objectively, yes, but also we have to maintain our compassion and understanding for the needs in our community.”
Commissioner Diane Andrews expressed her discomfort over language in the ordinance referring to penalties for unpaid assessments. She said the last thing the commission wants is for someone to lose their property because of the fire assessment.
Rackley said the same process of liens and potential foreclosure applies as with unpaid property taxes. He said has seen hardship programs, such as exempting those how live below the poverty line. Not many people qualify, in his experience, because impoverished households generally don’t own the property where they live.
“There could be a potential there to exempt those folks. The challenge would be trying to figure out exactly what guidelines you want to use,” he said.
According to Rackley, an initial resolution needs to be adopted in early August setting the preliminary amount of the fees and who is to be assessed. Each affected property owner would be mailed that information along with a date for a public hearing to take place before the final approval of a fire assessment fee. After the public has been heard, the commission would meet in September to finalize the assessment details and vote on approval.
“Nothing is final until that final meeting in early September, and that’s when you’ll know exactly what the assessments are and if they’re going to be implemented at all for this year,” he said.
Carter said the commission could not move toward the final steps without adopting the procedural ordinance in front of them.
Spooner, however, said she was not aware the intention was to place the assessment on this year’s tax bill. Commissioner Kenny Thompson agreed, saying neither the commission nor the public knows enough at this point to move forward.
Even though adopting the procedural ordinance did not require the county to move forward with the assessment this year, Spooner and Thompson voted against it. The ordinance was still approved 3-2.
Rackley did caution that if the board did not move forward with the timeline for approving the assessment this year, it should make that decision before proceeding to the costly process of mailing each impacted property owner.
The commission’s next opportunity to discuss the assessment is its Aug. 6 meeting at 9:30 a.m.
