CK Fire Chief: November Election on New Taxing System Possible

Josh Farley wrote the following after attending Central Kitsap Fire and Rescue’s regular fire commission meeting Monday afternoon.

There was discussion about the implementation of a new tax structure known as a “fire service benefit charge.”

In short, CK Chief Ken Burdette believes that if the fire commission likes the benefit charge, they could conceivably take it to voters in November.

The benefit charge wouldn’t tax residents by the value of their properties but rather the size of the structures on them. For more information about it, click here to see our full story.

Burdette was given the go-ahead by the board to pay up to $8,000 from CK fire’s elections budget to have a consultant run the numbers on what a fire service benefit charge would generate. That information will be presented at an upcoming commission study session.

6 thoughts on “CK Fire Chief: November Election on New Taxing System Possible

  1. I wonder how this will affect any potential merger of the fire districts? Will this tax drive Bremerton fire district to South Kitsap? Will this cause Bremerton to merge with Central and then force South Kitsap taxpayers into the new tax structure?

    Brings out a few questions. Is this the start of the fire districts drive to change how they are funded? Will the taxpayers go for another funding source for fire districts? How much will this actually cost the taxpayers?

    Hopefully more news to follow.

    Roger Gay
    South Kitsap

  2. Who this type of taxing structure hurts the most is businesses. They generally have the larger structures in any given area, and while they are generally out numbered by residential units, I would be suprised if the numbers don’t show that they are paying more then their fair share of the tax burden. Especially when most of the fire departments call are to homes and not businesses. Silverdale beware!!

  3. Ray is partly right businesses with large buildings will pay more. Generally those charges are reduced for sprinklers in all facilities. The benefit charge is based on the amount of “effort” it would take to fight a fire. It does not address EMS services.
    Fair share? That is difficult to determine. Bigger buildings require more personnel and equipment to fight fires. Many businesses have hazrdous materials that would increase the equipment needed to fight a fire. Fair share? How about greater risk?

  4. This is a way to get more money from businesses in a time that creating jobs is a priority to revive our economic engine, this is not a time to grow governemnt.

  5. The citizens of CK paid for this study already with WSFR…what the answer wasn’t good enough so we pay for another study that says what the chief wants to hear? We have trusted you with yes votes and you think that means you can just keep asking for more money…this is typical arrogance from government, you will be crushed by this one!

  6. CKFR Ken writes “Fair share? How about greater risk?” You attempt to deceive by what you choose to not say, how about acceptable risk? how about frequency of real fires? how about more money from our pockets NOT less? how about reductions for sprinklers mean others pay more to compensate for that? how about you have no real plan except “give me more”? how about the business community is hurting and your proposal is an insult to injury? Get real dude!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Before you post, please complete the prompt below.

Enter the word yellow here: