05/20/2026
Over the past several months, our BOCC has been carefully evaluating two different approaches for calculating our fire assessment methodology for areas outside of The Villages©: the “Hazardous Availability” model and the “Demand Availability” model. Both approaches are legally accepted in Florida, and every Commissioner approached this decision with the same goal, ensuring our fire and emergency services remain properly funded while being as fair to the taxpayers as possible.
The key difference between the two models comes down to how costs are distributed. The Demand Availability Methodology provided (in my opinion) the most balanced, equitable, and economically responsible approach to funding fire and emergency services in Sumter County. It ensured that all properties contributed fairly to emergency readiness while avoiding disproportionate financial burdens on businesses and homeowners with higher property values.
Under the more aggressive hazard-based model, larger homes or larger facilities, can have dramatic fee increases regardless of actual emergency demand. The Demand-Availability approach avoids creating those disincentives. The Hazardous Availability model places greater emphasis on the potential fire risk or hazard associated with a property type. Under that approach, assessments are more heavily influenced by factors such as square footage, structure type, and assumed fire risk. The Demand Availability model, which I supported, focused more on the actual demand that properties place on fire and EMS services based on historical call data and service usage patterns. In other words, one model is more focused on “potential risk,” while the other is more focused on “actual service demand.”
Why does that matter to taxpayers? Under a Hazardous Availability model, which was favored by the other members of the BOCC, many homeowners, particularly owners of larger or higher-value homes, will end up paying significantly more; even if their properties generate relatively low demand for emergency services. At the same time, some properties that generate higher service demand may not see their assessments increase proportionally. I believe the Demand model created a more balanced distribution by better aligning assessments with how emergency services are actually utilized across residential, commercial, and other property types. I also believe that it provided businesses with a more predictable and data-driven assessment structure tied to measurable demand rather than broader hazard assumptions.
Although I was on the losing side of the vote, I fully respect the decision reached by the Board and the thoughtful discussion that led to it. County Administrator Bradley Arnold and Sumter County Fire Chief Rob Hanson did an outstanding job presenting and explaining the two methodologies and their differences. These are complex issues with no perfect solution, and reasonable people can disagree on the best path forward. My position was about advocating for what I believed was the fairest and most transparent approach for residents, businesses, and taxpayers alike. I will continue working to ensure our community receives excellent emergency services while also protecting taxpayers through responsible and equitable policy decisions.