
By Erica C. Barnett
Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson and the City Council are discussing whether to close a nearly $150 million budget shortfall by moving much of the Seattle Fire Department’s budget out of the city’s general fund by creating a special fire district, which—if approved by voters—could levy additional property taxes, freeing up hundreds of millions of general budget dollars for other purposes.
Wilson’s office confirmed that they are working with the fire department on a potential fire district, saying the city can no longer rely on the usual budget tricks or cuts alone to address a $175 million deficit next year, which amounts to about 10 percent of the city’s general fund. “The gap is far too large to address with the kinds of temporary fixes that have been used in the past, and closing this deficit with cuts alone would require reductions in critical services and substantial layoffs across departments,” a spokesperson for Wilson’s office said. “Half of the general fund goes to public safety and human services, so there are no easy solutions here.”
A fire district would also be a way to raise revenues while steering clear of a state-imposed cap on local property tax levies that limits local levies to $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value. The city is quickly running up against that limit.
In a press release Wednesday night, the Seattle Firefighters Union said the union “is currently evaluating the mayor’s plan.” Union president Kenny Stuart did not return a call seeking comment.
The spokesperson called a fire district one “potential path forward to stabilize SFD resources while also protecting other public services. … We have been working closely with SFD Chief Scoggins as well as the leadership of Local 27 to see if we can find a path forward that balances varying needs around revenue, public safety, and good governance.”
Prior to this year, Seattle had the authority to set up its own fire district, but there was no benefit to doing so: Any taxes the district levied would have to be offset by a reduction in other property taxes. The state legislature changed the law governing fire districts this year to give Seattle the authority to levy taxes (or a fee called a “benefit charge”) outside the existing property tax cap—meaning that the city could increase taxes without bumping up against the $3.60 limit.
“It’s just additional revenue flexibility and authority,” said Candice Bock, government relations director for the Association of Washington Cities, which supported the legislation. “Cities have to fund everything within their existing property tax levy authority, and this … creates more capacity.”
Wilson has asked all city departments, including the Seattle Police Department, to come up with potential cuts ranging from 3 to 5 percent of their budgets to close a deficit created in part by “structural issues”—costs, including labor, are growing faster than city revenues—and in part by her predecessor Bruce Harrell’s decision (supported by the city council) to pile on tens of millions in new spending every year, including a $100 million spree in the 2025 budget.
The fire department’s budget is around $350 million. Moving even half that amount into a new fire district would close next year’s budget deficit. However, that would also mean that funding for some of the city’s most basic public safety services—protecting residents from fires and responding to emergency calls—would be put to a periodic public vote. Seattle already uses local levies to fund its libraries, parks, and transportation system, but putting fire services up to a public vote would put the city on a potentially risky limb.
“Cities will have to continue to figure out a way to fund it if voters don’t like this option,” Bock said.
If the city puts the fire district plan on the ballot this year and it passes, the district will be a separate government entity under the direct control of the city council, which would act as its board of directors—similar to the way the council serves as the governing board for the city’s Park District, which oversees parks levy spending.

This article suggests two things: First, City Council sees taking fire off-budget will free up space under the property tax levy, when the reality is it simply shifts the property tax levy from the City to a fire district. Second, it assumes part of the fire department budget under the fire district model would open a new revenue stream called a benefit service charge. But a benefit service charge has to bear a relationship between the assessment and the fire service provided. Most of SFD’s work involves medical emergencies, which are funded under the King County EMS levy and cross-subsidized by the fire department general fund budget. Changing the funding mechanism will not change the reality that fire service funding is not fit-for-purpose and is not properly matched to account for an respond to the real drivers in service demand growth.
Might want to read the City Charter on this one. Because the fire department falls under “public safety”, and public safety is the #1 priority in the City Charter and what the General Fund is *SUPPOSED* to pay for.
Just read through the city charter, and “public safety” isn’t even mentioned. Lying is disgraceful, even for a shameless stooge like yourself.
A better idea would be to reverse the drunken spending spree the previous council drag our city through. Doesn’t the city spend 40% of its discretionary budget on policing, surveillance, and related costs? Remove the bloat of the police state dreamers first, then we can talk about raising taxes.
More property taxes! Yeah, that’s gonna solve all of our problems. For a couple of years. Maybe. What budget trick will we pull at that time?