Fire Readiness 'Tax' Approved

Whether it's called a fee, tax or penalty, St. Petersburg residents could soon be paying a newly approved fire readiness fee in St. Pete. 

On Thursday, City Council voted 5-3 on an ordinance and resolution that created the readiness fee for St. Petersburg, which could generate up to $10 million a year. 

"Call it a tax, call it a penalty," Mayor Bill Foster said. "I’m not justice Roberts, I’m not going to define what it is. When we use the money to fund a fire readiness function, it (allows) us to use other general revenue monies on something else." 

That $10 million generated from taxable parcels next year alone could nearly cover the city's fiscal year 2013 budget shortfall. Money generated from the readiness fee would be legally bound to pay for fire services. It could not go towards other operating expenses or capital projects. 

While its creation and process were approved, council at a later date will have to vote again on its official implementation to collect the fee for next year.

Foster said if Council votes down the fire readiness fee implementation in September during the public hearings for the 2013 budget, he would propose increasing the current 5.9125 millage rate to around 6.77 to generate enough funds to not further cut services. 

"This is a revenue source that is not in flux with changes in market conditions," Foster said Thursday about the readiness fee. "(It's) not impacted by the legislative changes and it is equitable. Everybody pays a little bit of something."

Churches and non-profits would not be exempt from the fee. For several residents and council members that spoke Thursday, that was precisely the issue. They called the fee a regressive tax that unfairly hurts the poor.

"I am uncomfortable with what I consider a regressive tax," Nurse said. However, "I'm going to vote to move it forward. Having said that, there is value is having a number of tax revenues so they don’t’ all oscillate at the same time." 

Council members Charlie Gerdes, Wengay Newton and Steve Kornell voted against the measure. 

"I’ve been a steady no on this," Kornell said. "I feel that it’s regressive and harms poor people on the front end and on the back end with non-profit and churches who also help poor people."

"I think that when it comes to funding the necessities of government, which certainly fire is, I still believe the least number of ways that we are able to reach into a constituents pocket is better," Gerdes said. "My policy would be to raise the millage rate. Use the mechanism that already exits."

The fire readiness/assessment fee would be paid in two tiers. According to the city, the special assessment for each tax parcel will equal the sum $0.23 per $1,000 of the value of improvements attributed to the tax parcel by the county property appraiser plus $75 per tax parcel. 

If you wish to look up what fee your property would pay, the city has created a website that you can enter your address to find out how much your fire readiness fee would be. 

Council member Jim Kennedy has long been a supporter of a readiness fee over a millage increase because he said that would hurt the city's real estate market. 

"I think it’s important to protect the millage rate," he said. "To increase the millage rate to almost 6.8 would have a chilling effect on the real estate market. I think one of the good things about this is, that it is sustainable."

According to city documents, the fire readiness fee does have "hardship" provisions for individuals unable to pay the fee. 

“(The City) may grant a hardship deferment, in which case the tax parcel in question will receive a deferral. The owner shall be required to execute a binding agreement encumbering the tax parcel and otherwise assure the city that payment in full of the assessment and any recording cost, plus interest at an estimate cost of city fund compounded annually, shall be due over a period of time or upon sale or transfer of the property … the City Council may determine to release such deferments in the future. However, all funding for such hardship deferment, or the consequences of the deferment or any future release, shall be from legally available funds other than direct proceeds of the assessments.”