Bremerton chief seeks 48¢ levy lid lift to shore up fire staffing and apparatus; council agrees to draft ballot language

Bremerton Fire Chief McGahnney asked the City Council on March 4 to advance a proposal for a 48-cent property-tax levy lid lift to stabilize staffing, replace aging apparatus and address facility needs.

"The 48¢ lid lift would specifically address structural gaps between raising service demands and restricted property growth," McGahnney told the council, citing operational needs, vehicle replacement schedules and a projected funding gap if the city waits for a broader revenue strategy. He said the fire department represents about 22.3% of the city's general-fund expenditures and that the EMS levy currently brings in roughly $3.1 million.

McGahnney said the lift would provide predictable, voter-dedicated revenue for fire operations — staffing, apparatus replacement and facility maintenance — and argued that relying on bonds or delaying replacements raises maintenance costs and operational risk. He described a 20-year useful lifespan for apparatus in the department's practice and noted parts shortages affecting older reserve vehicles.

Council members asked about tax impacts, ballot timing and alternatives. Several members urged moving forward with legal review and drafting language to put the option to voters, while others asked for more time to consider an overall city revenue strategy. Council member Michael Goodnow said he supported advancing the request to legal and continuing discussion: "I still support moving this forward, but we might have to roll up our sleeves and really look at some other stuff." Council president and other members expressed concern about timing and the size of the increase, noting competing priorities such as police, roads and shelter services.

The chief did not request immediate council adoption; instead, council appeared to give general direction to allow the fire department and the legal department to develop ballot language and for staff to refine fiscal details with finance, leaving final decisions and exact ballot timing to future council action. McGahnney and council discussed whether to place the measure on the May or November ballot and the trade-offs of competing countywide measures.

Next steps recorded in the March 4 discussion: staff will continue fiscal analysis, legal will draft levy language for council review and the council will return in later meetings to consider formal placement on a ballot. The council did not take a binding vote at the March 4 meeting.