HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 168
BYRepresentatives 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 REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT MARCH 3, 1987
BACKGROUND:
Fire protection districts are authorized to impose the following regular property tax levies to finance their activities: (1) $.50 per $1000 of assessed valuation, which is one of the highest status junior taxing district levies; (2) $.50 per $1000 of assessed valuation, which is one of the secondary status junior taxing district levies; (3) $.50 per $1000 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 $1000 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.
Fire protection districts additionally are authorized to impose excess, voter-approved, property tax levies for a single year for general district purposes, or over a number of years for general obligation (G.O.) bond retirement purposes. The required vote is a 60 percent/40 percent vote.
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 is 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. No fire district has attempted to impose these service charges.
SUMMARY:
SUBSTITUTE BILL: The service charges that a fire protection district may impose are changed as follows:
(1) The restriction limiting service charge receipts to no more than 60 percent of a district's budget is deleted.
(2) 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.
(3) The exemption of school property from these service charges is removed.
(4) The exemption of personal property used in farming from these service charges is clarified.
(5) Examples of how a service charge may be measured are expanded, including the need for specialized services.
(6) If a fire district imposes service charges, it cannot impose the third fifty cent per thousand dollars of assessed valuation property tax.
SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL: The 60 percent vote requirement was retained. Only one of the three 50 cent taxes is eliminated if a district imposes these charges instead of all three 50 cent taxes. A total limitation on the amount of revenue that could be generated was removed.
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.