Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Ballot Measure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pattonville Fire District briefed council on Proposition F, a 1% sales-tax ballot option to offset property tax
Summary
Pattonville Fire Protection District Chief Jim Ussery presented Proposition F (April ballot), outlining coverage area, 2025 call volume and an estimated $7.5–8 million annual collection if voters approve a 1% sales tax; he said roughly half would reduce property taxes and half would fund operations and development.
Get email alerts on the Tax Ballot Measure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chief Jim Ussery of the Pattonville Fire Protection District briefed the Bridgeton City Council on March 18 about Proposition F, a ballot question asking voters to authorize a 1% sales tax option to fund fire and EMS services.
Ussery said the district covers roughly 28 square miles, responded to about 6,300 calls in 2025, and estimates $7.5–8 million in annual collections from the proposed 1% sales tax in its coverage area. He explained the proposed distribution would allocate 50% of revenue to offset real and personal property taxes and 50% to district operating expenses and future service development.
Council members asked whether the district would consider opting out of prior local tax arrangements (SB 870 was mentioned during questioning) and whether the sales tax revenue would be new or additive to existing funding. Ussery said those are board-level and intergovernmental decisions and emphasized the measure’s purpose as an alternative funding method; he asked for more discussion with the district board and the city if the initiative proceeds.
Why it matters: If approved by voters in April, Proposition F would shift some fire/EMS funding from property taxes to a sales-tax mechanism, potentially reducing property tax bills for residents in the district but creating new sales-tax collections that affect purchasers in the coverage area.
What happens next: Ussery encouraged voters to weigh the funding option; no formal council action was taken on the ballot measure at the meeting.

