Woodinville Fire & Rescue District Benefit Charge Proposition (April 2013)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on Taxes
Taxes.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot

A Woodinville Fire & Rescue District Benefit Charge proposition was approved on the April 23, 2013, election ballot in King County, which is in Washington.

This measure authorized the Woodinville Fire & Rescue District to continue collecting benefit charges for six more years. Benefit charges are not based on the value of property but on the risk factors and cost of providing fire protection services to the property being charged the fee. See details below in the Explanatory statement.

This measure requires a 3/5ths (60%) majority approval rate to pass according to RCW 52.18.050(1).[1]

Election results

King County

Woodinville Fire & Rescue
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 5,881 88.16%
No79011.84%
These election results are from the King County elections office

Text of measure

Language on the ballot:

This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.

Shall Woodinville Fire & Rescue be authorized to continue voter-authorized benefit charges each year for six years, not to exceed an amount equal to sixty percent of its operating budget, and be prohibited from imposing an additional property tax under RCW 52.16.160?

Yes

No[1]

Explanatory statement

This is a statement provided by the King County elections office:

This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.

Woodinville Fire & Rescue is seeking reauthorization of the Benefit Charge. The Benefit Charge accounts for approximately 40 percent of Woodinville Fire & Rescue’s budget. It was first approved by voters for six years in 1989, and was renewed for an additional six years in 1995, 2001 and 2007. Voter approval is once again required in order to retain this revenue source. Renewal of the Benefit Charge for another six years will allow Woodinville Fire & Rescue to maintain response times and service levels, train personnel and purchase equipment.

The Benefit Charge is based on the occupancy type and square footage of improvements to real property, and reflects the service level (i.e., fire flow of water) needed to control a fire in a particular building. Each year, the elected Board of Fire Commissioners holds a public meeting to review the Benefit Charge and ensure fiscal responsibility for the coming year. The law allows for partial exemptions from the charge for senior citizens, buildings with fire sprinkler systems and some agriculture-related improvements.

With the Benefit Charge in effect, state law prohibits the imposition of the $.50 regular property tax for fire protection otherwise allowed by RCW 52.16.160.[1]

Support

Below are statements in support of this proposition:

This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.

Woodinville Fire & Rescue (WF&R) provides a wide range of essential public safety services to the citizens of Woodinville and the surrounding community. In addition to fire suppression services, District firefighters respond to emergency medical incidents, motor vehicle accidents, technical rescues, hazardous materials incidents and other requests for assistance.

The benefit service charge that is up for renewal currently provides approximately 40% of the District’s operating revenue. Continuing the support for the benefit service charge allows the District to maintain current levels of service including providing funding for training of firefighters, purchasing of essential equipment, and other needs to ensure our community remains safe.

WF&R is NOT asking for a tax increase or a new tax. It is asking to continue its current funding model to ensure that it maintains the ability to quickly and effectively respond to emergency situations to help those in need.

Please join us in voting yes to keep our community safe.[1]

These arguments were prepared and submitted by Andrew deBoer and Stacie Martyn.

Opposition

No statement was submitted in opposition to this proposition. If you have an argument that you would like posted here please email editor@ballotpedia.org.

See also

External links

References