Salisbury backtracks on 'fire fee' after public outcry at council meeting
It was an eventful Salisbury City Council meeting Monday evening as residents sounded off on the proposed Life and Safety Fee of up to $300.
When the controversial fee was announced last week, the city said in a statement it "would increase funding to the Salisbury Fire Department by a total of over $4.5 million, and allow the department to ensure that the apparatus, equipment and stations are the most up to date and are maintained in proper working order to best serve the residents of the Salisbury Fire District."
Yet that did not stop more than 20 individuals from packing council chambers to add their input during public comments. A meeting called by the city to discuss the fees originally scheduled for 11 a.m. on Tuesday, April 25, was promptly canceled that morning following the outcry to council.
"We all support fire and safety, but there's a real material impact to these increases on the citizens of Salisbury," said Brett Hopkins, president of the Salisbury Area Property Owners Association. "These aren't trivial, and when you add it up, it can impact a person's bottom line, which could impact the local economy. The $300 added to the property tax is, in effect, $25 more per month."
Combined with a proposed 12% water and sewer rate increase and a 6% inflation rate across the country, Hopkins explained that would add up to an estimated additional $100 monthly for Salisbury families.
More on the safety fee controversy Salisbury proposes 'life and safety fee' of up to $300 for residents: What to know
'What about my tenants?'
Richard Insley, the owners of rental properties in the city, underscored the concerns of those "bearing the brunt of the fees" and asked the council consider their increased financial plight.
"This (fee) isn't going to bankrupt me, but what about my customers? My customers are tenants and for them, that's not the case. The people bearing the brunt of this are the homeowners and tenants in this city. So I hope you'll think twice before you approve this fee," Insley said.
Other residents echoed those sentiments, citing increased inflation.
Residents including Dan Rice added concerns that the funds raised by the fee would be deviated elsewhere. While addressing council members, he recalled the state funds raised by legal gambling initiatives that were slated to go to Maryland educators. Later, a portion of that money was redirected to other programs.
"If you ask me to help the fire department with $25, I would say ok, but $300 is too much," Rice said. "When I was a teacher, a state amendment for gambling said all money will go to education. I never saw that money because it was taken and put in other places. Is that going to happen with the fire department?"
Rice was among many who asked if the sum could be lowered to something more manageable. The fact that it was a flat rate for homeowners also raised questions.
Would 'fire fee' set a dangerous precedent?
The long list of property owners and rental property managers who spoke also included James Littlefield of Adams Housing LLC, who noted that he saw the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on renters. He characterized the fee as setting a dangerous precedent if the city can simply add a fee for any public service in the future.
"It renders government agencies fiscally unaccountable to their constituents to work within the budget provided by the taxpayers," Littlefield said.
District 5 Councilmember Angela Blake noted the public's input has been heard, with the council apparently interested in revisiting the fee.
More on Little Salisbury Did you know Ocean City has a Little Salisbury? Bayside neighborhood with colorful history
"I think this has made an impact and I think there will be some revisiting and fine tuning of things from my perspective," Blake said.
This article originally appeared on Salisbury Daily Times: Salisbury will reconsider 'fire fee' proposal after public outcry
