Guest Commentary in the Orlando Sentinel on April 22, 2026.
Most people who live inside city limits are double paying for law enforcement services. It’s not fair, and everyone knows it, especially the legislators in Tallahassee who are trying their darndest to find a way to deliver property tax relief. State politicians seem to want to force a paradigm shift with local governments, and I think Seminole County should be the first to lean in and give them what they want. We can lead the way in government transparency by implementing a law enforcement fee to make sure there is a rational nexus between who is paying for law enforcement services and who is receiving them.
Here’s the status quo: Right now, all Seminole County residents pay property tax to the County, and the County Commission determines what size budget it will give to the Sheriff. The Sheriff then turns around and uses this money to provide one set of services to 100% of county residents, and a different and elevated level of service to residents who live outside of cities (about 50% of residents). You heard that right. Everyone pays the same tax rate, but not everyone gets the same services.
This is because the cities have, foolishly perhaps, asked the Sheriff not to provide a whole slew of services inside their boundaries. Being on a limited budget controlled by the County Commission and with no taxing authority of his own, the Sheriff sensibly and rationally agrees to allow cities to provide and pay for those services. To fund city-provided alternative services, city-dwellers pay additional city taxes (on top of their county taxes) to fund a police department that provides the services that county residents currently get at no additional cost.
To make things fair, county residents need to begin paying something to cover the cost of deputies conducting traffic enforcement and responding to 911 calls, just like city residents pay for police officers to do those things inside city limits. What it costs to provide these services to county residents is knowable and can be put into a spreadsheet, and that cost can – and should – be covered by those who get the services.
Once implemented, the County would collect part of its law enforcement budget via property taxes and a portion via an easily scalable fee. All residents in the county would pay the property tax portion, and residents who live in unincorporated areas would also pay the fee.
And here is why this is so important: if any meaningful property tax relief happens, cities like Oviedo will not be able to collect enough in property taxes to cover the cost of paying police and fire salaries. I’m not happy about it, yet it is true no matter how sad it makes me.
So how do I, as mayor of a city that has a first-rate police department, make sure that the residents of my city will continue to have access to top-quality law enforcement no matter which way the political wind blows? By cheering on the County Commission to create a math-based, data-driven method of funding the Sheriff’s budget that will automatically kick in and scale if and when the Sheriff finds himself in a position to need to take over policing operations for any city that can no longer fund its police department.
This ensures county residents pay their fair share for services now, and that if city residents lose access to a way to fully fund their own city police departments, they will pay their fair share to the County if the Sheriff begins to provide additional law enforcement services later.
Recall that the cities cannot charge or collect a law enforcement fee. It is not possible for cities to implement this idea on their own – only the County can do it. Transparency and fairness are going to prove critical benchmarks as we navigate budgets in the years to come, and I look forward to vigorous discussion on how we can work together to keep our law enforcement budgets fully, efficiently, and reliably funded.