My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2020/02/26 Council Agenda Packet
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2020
>
2020/02/26 Council Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/3/2020 9:14:56 AM
Creation date
3/3/2020 9:11:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Agenda Packet
Date
2/26/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
110
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Create Grassroots Org. <br /> Develop Governance <br /> Develop Messaging Plan <br /> Identify Levy Rate <br /> Market MPD <br /> Vote <br /> Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 44 Jan <br /> 2020 2021 2022 <br /> Snohomish County Parks Ballot Measure History 2011-2018—There were eight ballot measures between <br /> 2011 and 2018 that sought additional funding for Parks in Snohomish County—three were Parks specific and <br /> five were combined measures that included other services, such as public safety, criminal justice, and <br /> transportation. Below is the pass/failure data. The full history is provided in the Appendix of this report. <br /> Ballot Measure Pass Fail Total <br /> Park& Rec Specific 0 3 3 <br /> Multiple Services Including Park& Rec 2 3 5 <br /> Total 2 6 8 <br /> Of the 52 Park& Rec ballot measures that were brought before voters between 2011 and 2018, eight were in <br /> Snohomish County—two of which passed and six failed. <br /> Impact on Median Value Property Homeowner—The cost to a median value residential property owner would <br /> depend on the MPD's levy amount. A table showing the incremental cost increases a median value residential <br /> property is provided on page 9. <br /> Recommendation—Establishing an MPD has potential to mitigate a portion of the structural deficit and <br /> provide additional funding for Parks. However, based on the sample timeline, it would not be in place to <br /> help balance the 2021 budget, nor would it eliminate the deficit entirely. Therefore, it is recommended <br /> that the City focus its efforts in 2020 on an option that provides a more immediate and complete result. <br /> Regional Fire Authority (RFA) <br /> Creating an RFA funded by property tax would require simple majority voter approval. <br /> Creating an RFA funded by a combination of property tax and a fire benefit charge would require super <br /> majority voter approval. <br /> Fire Benefit Charge—A Fire Benefit Charge (FBC) is an alternative funding mechanism for an RFA that can <br /> cover up to 60%of its operating costs. The FBC is a fee (not a tax)that only applies to the structural <br /> improvements on properties according to the property use and size of structure. The formula for allocating <br /> the FBC is designed so that those who benefit more from fire protection services(e.g. large structures and <br /> high fire-risk structures) pay more for fire services. <br /> EMS & Fire Marshall's Office— If an RFA were formed,the EMS levy,transport fees, and associated costs <br /> would shift entirely to the RFA. However,the City would retain financial responsibility for Fire Marshall <br /> services,which could be contracted out to the RFA. <br /> MINI <br /> LI Alternative Service Delivery/Funding Models Wage <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.