SENATE BILL REPORT

SB 6182

BYSenators McCaslin, Madsen and Conner

Changing the ballot title for fire protection district service charge authorizations.

Senate Committee on Governmental Operations

Senate Hearing Date(s):January 16, 1990; January 18, 1990

Majority Report:  That Substitute Senate Bill No. 6182 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass.

      Signed by Senators McCaslin, Chairman; Thorsness, Vice Chairman; DeJarnatt, Patrick, Sutherland.

Senate Staff:Rod McAulay (786-7754); Eugene Green (786-7405)

                  January 22, 1990

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS, JANUARY 18, 1990

BACKGROUND:

Fire protection districts are authorized to impose service charges based on the benefit to personal property and improvements to real property which are located within the fire district.

In order to impose such a service charge, the fire protection district must obtain approval of 60 percent of the voters in the district voting at a special or general election.  The current law provides that such voter approval may be for a period of up to six years and prescribes the ballot form which must state that the district "be authorized to impose service charges each year for up to a six-year period."  Confusion results when the fire district seeks approval for a time period of less than six years, but the ballot contains the above language.

SUMMARY:

The prescribed ballot form for approval of fire protection district service fees is amended to permit the ballot to reflect the intent of the fire protection district with respect to the duration of the service fee.

EFFECT OF PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE:

Additional Background:  This authority was not used until the past two years when nine districts sought voter approval and six were successful.  Other districts intend to seek approval in 1990.  The experience of the districts which have obtained approval has revealed a variety of problems with the existing legislation which the proposed amendments address.

The districts believe that the term "service charge" creates the misimpression that charges will be made for individual responses to emergencies and that this has caused confusion among voters when authority to make the charges has been sought.

Problems with regard to identifying and excluding property upon which charges may be based are as follows:

(1) Under the current law, improvements and personal property which may not receive benefit from fire protection must still be included in determining the charge.  For example, swimming pools, tennis courts and concrete piers are included.

(2) The current law provides that charges include farming equipment or property "ordinarily housed or stored in a building or structure."  This provision creates considerable administrative difficulty in determining what a farmer keeps inside the barn and what is left out.

(3) The current law excludes from charges all property "subject to RCW 52.30.020."  This refers to property of public agencies located within a fire district.  The agencies are directed to contract with the fire district for protection of their property.  Some agencies have failed to enter such contracts and the current statute does not allow the fire district to make service charges against this property where no contract exists.

Technical and procedural problems including adjusting annual hearing dates and fixing charges to correspond with existing county tax collection schedules, and deleting erroneous, nonsubstantive terminology need to be corrected.

With regard to protection of the rate payers' interest, current law does not provide for any notice to owners of the amount of the charge prior to the appeal process.  There are no deductions or exemptions for senior citizens with limited income as is provided under the property tax laws.

Summary:  The term "service charge" is changed to "benefit charge" throughout the statute.  Fire protection district commissioners are granted the authority to determine that certain property is not receiving measurable benefit and may be excluded in calculating charges.  Farming equipment, whether in the barn or out, is excluded from the definition of personal property.  Property of public agencies situated in the fire district is excluded only when it is under contract or for which the district is receiving payments.  Reference to the county assessor is deleted when defining property assessed by both the assessor and the state Department of Revenue.  The date is changed by which the district must contract with the county for collection services from the "effective date of a resolution imposing" charges to the date of imposition of the charges.  The date by which hearings on the following year's charges must be held is changed from October 15 to November 15 and the date by which charges must be transmitted to the county for collection is changed from October 31 to November 30.  Notice is required to be sent to property owners of charges and appeals hearings will be scheduled after such notice.  A senior citizen exemption schedule is provided of 25, 50 and 75 percent of the charges based upon the three tiers of exemptions for property taxes.

Appropriation:    none

Revenue:    none

Fiscal Note:      none requested

Senate Committee - Testified: Pete Spiller, Fire Commissioners (pro); Mike Peters, Thurston Fire District No. 9 (pro); Jim Davis, King County Fire District No. 36 (pro)