King County Fire Protection District No. 16 Benefit Charge Continuation (April 2013)
|
|
|
A King County Fire Protection District No. 16 Benefit Charge proposition is on the April 23, 2013, election ballot in King County, which is in Washington.
If approved, this measure authorizes the King County Fire District No. 16 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]
Text of measure
Language on the ballot:
| “ | Shall King County Fire Protection District No. 16 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 |
” |
Explanatory statement
This is a statement provided by the King County elections office:
| “ | The Northshore Fire Department (King County Fire Protection District 16) is responsible for providing fire protection and emergency medical services in your community. For the last twenty-four years the Fire Department has funded these services primarily through a combination of property taxes and voter approved benefit charges.
Benefit charges are based on risk factors and the cost of providing fire protection services, unlike property taxes that relate to the value of property. Under state law, voters must approve the use of benefit charges every 6 years and the Elected Board of Commissioners is required to hold a public hearing each year to review and establish the amount of the benefit charge. Once established the aggregate amount of the charge is pro-rated to individual properties based on risk factors and collected by the county assessor, together with real estate taxes. The amount of any benefit charge imposed on any given property cannot exceed the measurable benefits of the services afforded to the property by the Fire Department and are subject to appeal. Under state law, fire districts which collect benefit charges authorized under Chapter 52.18 RCW have reduced taxing authority. Benefit charges can constitute no more than 60 percent of a district’s annual operating budget and the maximum property tax rate is reduced from $1.50 to $1.00 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. If approved, Proposition 1 would continue the current funding method of providing emergency medical and fire protection services for 6 more years.[1][2] |
” |
Support
Below are statements in support of this proposition:
| “ | Citizens of the Northshore Fire District have wholeheartedly supported the work of our fire department, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians. We have one of the finest departments in the Northwest. Its professional team of well-trained staff has proven itself repeatedly in the performance of its duties. For over two decades our citizens have voted to fund a benefit charge to support the department’s operating budget.
The combined assessment from property tax and the benefit charge for fire protection would continue to average approximately $1.50 per thousand. This is not a new tax, but it must be approved by voters every six years, and it is time to renew that commitment once again. By supporting this renewal, the taxation level for the fire district remains constant and provides a vital and reliable source of revenue for planning, equipment maintenance and replacement, and property protection. This is a crucial investment in our community, one which we will be glad we made in case our own family needs emergency assistance, or we face a natural disaster or public safety crisis. Join us in continuing the commitment to maintaining our excellent fire department. Please vote to approve this measure.[1][2] |
” |
These arguments were prepared and submitted by Marella Alejandrino, Kent Sturgis, and Jack Rogers.
206-367-7153
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
Footnotes
| ||||||||||
