SENATE BILL REPORT
SB 6066
As Passed Senate, February 13, 2002
Title: An act relating to impact fees for fire protection facilities in urban growth areas not contiguous to a city or town.
Brief Description: Revising the definition of "public facilities" with regard to imposition of impact fees.
Sponsors: Senators Spanel and Haugen.
Brief History:
Committee Activity: State & Local Government: 1/16/02, 1/31/02. [DP, DNP]
Passed Senate: 2/13/02, 28-19.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Majority Report: Do pass.
Signed by Senators Gardner, Chair; Fairley, Vice Chair; Haugen, Keiser, Kline and Swecker.
Minority Report: Do not pass.
Signed by Senators Hale, Horn and McCaslin.
Staff: Eugene Green (786-7405)
Background: An impact fee is a payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development approval to pay for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development, and that is reasonably related to the new development that creates additional demand and need for public facilities. Counties, cities, and towns that are required or choose to plan under the Growth Management Act are authorized to impose impact fees on development activity as part of the financing for public facilities, provided that the system improvements to serve new development provide a balance between impact fees and other sources of public funds and cannot rely solely on impact fees. Impact fees may only be imposed upon development to pay for the following public facilities: Public streets and roads; publicly owned parks, open space, and recreational facilities; school facilities; and fire protection facilities in jurisdictions that are not part of a fire district.
Summary of Bill: The definition of "public facilities" is expanded to allow an impact fee to be imposed upon development to pay for fire protection facilities of that portion of a fire district within an urban growth area if such urban growth area is not contiguous to the boundary of any city or town.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Not requested.
Effective Date: Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
Testimony For: The Bayview Ridge area is an urban growth area that is noncontiguous to the city of Burlington. This will allow urban growth and development to occur and will facilitate the Growth Management Act's concurrency requirements. We need urban levels of fire service in order to grow. The bill has limited application and is supported by a majority of private and public landowners in the Bayview Ridge urban growth area.
Testimony Against: This just adds another fee to an already economically distressed county. There are other funding sources available. This will have enormous adverse effects statewide.
Testified: Jerry Heller, P of SC; Jon Sirkin, attorney representing private landowners; David Day, attorney representing Skagit Fire Dist #6 (pro); Roger Ferris, WA Fire Commissioners Assn. (pro); Trent Matson, BIAW (con).