HOUSE BILL REPORT
ESHB 168
BYHouse Committee on Local Government (originally sponsored by Representatives Madsen, Brough, Haugen, May, Unsoeld, Sayan, Grant, Nutley, L. Smith, Ferguson, Holm, Todd, Belcher, Basich, Hargrove, Spanel, Leonard, Cooper and Hine)
Revising provisions on fire service district service charges.
House Committe on Local Government
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. (11)
Signed by Representatives Haugen, Chair; Cooper, Vice Chair; Ferguson, Hine, Madsen, Nealey, Nelson, Nutley, Rayburn, L. Smith and Zellinsky.
Minority Report: Do not pass. (1)
Signed by Representative Bumgarner.
House Staff:Steve Lundin (786-7127)
AS PASSED HOUSE MARCH 19, 1987
BACKGROUND:
Fire protection districts are authorized to impose the following regular property tax levies to finance their activities: (1) $.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, which is one of the highest status junior taxing district levies; (2) $.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, which is one of the secondary status junior taxing district levies; (3) $.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, if the fire district has at least one full- time employee, which is one of the secondary status junior taxing district levies, and was only recently authorized for most of the eligible fire districts; and (4) an emergency medical service (EMS) levy of up to $.25 per $1,000 of assessed valuation for six years if authorized by a 60 percent/40 percent vote of the voters, which is above the $9.15 limit.
A fire protection district additionally may finance its operations by imposing service charges on personal property and improvements to real property located in the district, that benefit or will benefit from the fire protection provided by the district. Service charges may only be imposed for a three-year period if a ballot proposition authorizing the service charges were approved by a 60 percent majority vote of the district voters. Service charges cannot generate more than 60 percent of a fire district's budget. Public property, religious property, and public and private schools and institutions of higher education are exempted from these service charges. No fire district has attempted to impose these service charges.
SUMMARY:
The service charges that a fire protection district may impose are changed as follows:
(1) The benefit by which a service charge is apportioned relates to the services provided by the district instead of just the fire protection provided by the district.
(2) Examples of how a service charge may be measured are expanded, including the need for specialized services.
(3) The exemption from service charges for religious property does not include higher education facilities nor profit-making facilities, but does include kindergarten, primary and secondary schools.
(4) The exemption from these service charges is removed for any private institution of higher education, and for private schools not associated with a religion.
(5) If a fire district imposes service charges, it cannot impose the third fifty cent per thousand dollars of assessed valuation property tax.
EFFECT OF SENATE AMENDMENT(S): Service charges could not be imposed upon institutions of higher education run by religious entities.
Fiscal Note: Not Requested.
House Committee ‑ Testified For: Pete Spiller, Washington Fire Commissioners Association.
House Committee - Testified Against: Nels Hanson, Washington Farm Forestry Association; and Mary Jo Lavin, Department of Natural Resources.
House Committee - Testimony For: This clarifies how service charges are measured. Fire districts are losing money due to prorationing under the $9.15 limitation. Voters still have to approve the service charges.
House Committee - Testimony Against: There are no limits to the amount of revenue that could be generated.
VOTE ON FINAL PASSAGE:
Yeas 93; Nays 3; Absent 0; Excused 4
Voting Nay: Representatives Betrozoff, Bumgarner and J. Williams
Excused: Representatives Moyer, Pruitt, Todd and B. Williams