HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1010

BYRepresentatives Holm, C. Smith, Chandler, Unsoeld, Moyer, Walk, Rasmussen, D. Sommers, Madsen, Belcher, Brooks, Grant and Winsley

Financing the provision of fire protection services for state-owned buildings.

House Committe on State Government

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (8)

      Signed by Representatives H. Sommers, Chair; Anderson, Vice Chair; Baugher, Chandler, Hankins, Peery, Taylor and Walk.

House Staff:Ken Conte (786-7135)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON STATE GOVERNMENT JANUARY 15, 1988

BACKGROUND:

State-owned property is not routinely assessed for value and does not generate property tax revenue to support the jurisdictions responsible for providing fire protection services to that property.  Consequently, there are three statutes which provide for state reimbursement of cities and towns, and fire protection districts for fire protection of state-owned buildings and equipment.

The Department of Community Development (DCD) is required to include in their budget, funds sufficient to fund fire protection contracts made between state agencies and local communities.  The rate of reimbursement is calculated by dividing the total state-owned square-footage into the appropriation granted by the legislature.  For FY 1987-88, the total annual cost of the program was $437,200, with 91 cities participating.  This translates into 1.2 cents per square foot, although there is a minimum payment of $100.

If a community and the contracting state agency agree that the amount provided by DCD is inadequate, they may negotiate a separate contract for supplemental reimbursement for fire protection.  Six cities negotiate additional contracts which are funded through the agencies' budgets.

For those state agencies and local school districts with equipment or buildings located outside city limits, a contract must be negotiated with the appropriate fire protection district.  There is no centrally administered program for fire protection district contracts, and the amounts negotiated are paid from the agencies' budgets, not through a third party like DCD.  State agencies use very different approaches when determining the amount to be paid to their fire protection districts.

In addition, the six institutions of higher education do not all use the same method of reimbursing the jurisdictions in which they are located for fire protection.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  The Office of Financial Management is directed to study the methods used by the state in reimbursing communities and fire protection districts for fire protection of state-owned buildings.  The study shall make recommendations to improve the consistency of payments.  Under the recommended method, consideration may be given to the type of facility being protected, and payments below a recommended minimum are to be eliminated.

The study will be submitted to the Ways and Means Committees of both the Senate and the House, as well as the Governmental Operations Committee of the Senate and the State Government Committee of the House by December 1, 1988.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  Instead of appropriating $250,000 for supplemental fire protection reimbursement to certain communities, the Office of Financial Management is directed to study the methods used by the state in reimbursing both communities and fire protection districts for fire protection of state-owned buildings.  The study will recommend ways to improve the consistency of payments, and will be submitted for legislative review by December 1, 1988.

Fiscal Note:      Not Requested.

Effective Date:The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect immediately.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    (on substitute bill) Stan Finkelstein, Association of Washington Cities; Victor Moore, Office of Financial Management.

House Committee - Testified Against:      None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:    State-owned property is not uniformly distributed between local jurisdictions.  Some communities have been disproportionately burdened for providing fire protection services.  There is a need to try to devise both an equitable system and an appropriate level of reimbursement for fire protection services.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      None Presented.