Superficially, this may sound like a good idea. But it's the modern day equivalent of a speed trap, gussied up to look like a "tax cut" for city property tax payers. And it's pregnant with unintended consequences.
You can read the entire ordinance here [pdf warning]. One of many problems with the ordinance is that it exempts city residents. Section 18-140 specifies that --
residents of the City of Gulf Breeze shall not be charged a PESR fee... or be liable... to others for the payment of all or any portion of a PESR fee.In other words, all other things being equal, if you live in Gulf Breeze nothing changes; you're still covered by the state's uniform laws and "comparative negligence" laws. No additional PESR can be assessed against you by the City of Gulf Breeze.
But if you reside anywhere else in world you can be singled out to bear the entire cost of a Gulf Breeze emergency service call merely on the say-so of an investigating police or EMT agent who deems you "responsible."
Out-of-area tourists and Pensacola Beach residents will be hardest hit by the new PESR. Indeed, by the very terms of the ordinance they are the only ones to be hit.
Now let's see how that works. Gulf Breeze police officer investigates an auto accident. One driver is a city resident -- say, someone who pays monthly rent. The other driver is from Hoboken, New Jersey. Hmmm. Who to pin the blame on? The driver who is exempt from reimbursing the cop's employer or the out of state guy who isn't?
Tourists are free to avoid Gulf Breeze, of course. And they likely will, once the city's reputation as a speed trap spreads. But Pensacola Beach residents have no such choice. Right now, the only way to come or go to their homes is through Gulf Breeze.
It won't take lawyers very long to figure out that the ordinance likely violates the federal constitutional right to equal protection, due process of law, and freedom of travel. However much revenue the City of Gulf Breeze hopes to generate with "PESR" assessments against out-of-towners, we expect the City will wind up paying many times that much to defend this constitutionally dubious ordinance in federal court.