The Jupiter Town Council voted unanimously Tuesday to oppose a proposed Palm Beach County local bill that would restructure how fire-rescue taxes are collected following municipal annexations, calling the legislation “harmful,” “confusing,” and an “affront to home rule.”
The legislation centers on the county’s Fire-Rescue Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) and would require municipalities like Jupiter to pay the county directly for fire-rescue taxes lost when newly annexed properties are removed from the MSTU.
Under current law, when a property annexes into a city that provides its own fire-rescue services, the property leaves the county MSTU and begins paying municipal fire-rescue millage instead. The proposed bill would shift financial responsibility back onto the municipality.
“If Jupiter annexed five houses or 500 houses, the county would send us the bill,” said Town Manager Matt Benoit. “That’s double taxation in practice. Our residents would be paying twice.”
Council Members Say Bill Threatens Annexation and Self-Governance
The bill’s most controversial component reads:
“The municipality shall pay the county the amount that would have been levied on the annexed area.”
Council members warned that the change undermines home rule and discourages annexation, an important planning tool that cities and counties have relied on for decades.
Mayor Jim Kuretski described the proposal as “completely wrong,” adding:
“For years we’ve worked with the county to ensure zoning continuity and orderly planning. This bill creates chaos. It forces cities to think twice before annexing anything, even when annexation benefits both the town and the county.”
Kuretski also pointed out the irony of the county’s position: Jupiter has offered to provide fire-rescue coverage to the county-run Burt Reynolds Park station area – where the county reportedly has fewer than one call per day, at no cost, and the county has declined.
A Bill Introduced Without Municipal Consultation
Council members criticized the bill’s rollout, noting that municipalities learned about it late in the process and were not consulted.
“The process started badly,” Councilor Cheryl Sundstrom said. “If the county wants to fix long-term funding issues, the answer is collaboration, not legislation that limits municipal authority.”
She also cited the county’s own annexation report showing that annexations are actually declining, calling into question the bill’s stated rationale.
Legislators Urged to Reject or Rewrite the Proposal
The council passed Resolution 133-25, formally urging the Palm Beach County Legislative Delegation to reject the bill. Members of the public and several other municipalities voiced strong opposition at a recent delegation meeting.
The town will share its resolution with state legislators, the Palm Beach County League of Cities, and other local governments.
“This cannot stand,” Councilor Pam Toy said. “We absolutely oppose it. It’s confusing, it’s inequitable, and it’s unconstitutional in spirit if not in letter.”
Uncertain Future for the Bill
Though the bill has been revised, it is still evolving. The council expressed hope that legislators will either withdraw it or replace it with a cooperative framework negotiated with cities.
“We share the goal of sustainable fire-rescue funding,” Sundstrom said. “We just believe the solution should be built together, not imposed.”
Please Note: Some automation was used to create this article, please contact us for any corrections or changes.