HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1564

BYRepresentatives Dorn, Belcher, Haugen, Brough, Rasmussen, Gallagher, Ferguson, Miller, Hankins, P. King, Wineberry, Heavey, Vekich and Todd

Authorizing marine facility fees under certain conditions.

House Committe on Local Government

Majority Report:  Do pass with amendment.  (9)

      Signed by Representatives Cooper, Vice Chair; Ferguson, Ranking Republican Member; Horn, Nealey, Nutley, Phillips, Todd, Wolfe, and Wood.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (5)

      Signed by Representatives Haugen, Chair; Nelson, Raiter, Rayburn and Zellinsky.

House Staff:Steve Lundin (786-7127)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT MARCH 1, 1989

BACKGROUND:

Port districts are permitted to provide a variety of facilities and services, including moorage facilities.  Cities, towns, and park districts are authorized to provide a variety of facilities and services, including moorage facilities.

Port districts are authorized to impose a variety of nonvoter- approved property taxes that are above the constitutional 1 percent limitation on cumulative property tax rates.  Cities, towns, and park districts are authorized to impose regular property taxes that are subject to the constitutional 1 percent limitation on cumulative property tax rates.  Cities and towns are authorized to impose a variety of excise taxes.

Interest payments on many debt instruments issued by local government entities are not taxable income under federal income tax laws.

SUMMARY:

BILL AS AMENDED:  Recreational public moorage facilities that exist in markets which compete with private facilities must establish moorage and marine-related charges that include all costs, including capital assets and improvements, administration and overhead, debt service costs, lease payments, and other costs that normally are incurred by private enterprise in the provision of similar services or facilities.

Any moorage facility that is determined by the State Auditor to have violated this requirement is subject to civil damages and injunctive relief.

AMENDED BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The application of the act was restricted to recreational public moorage facilities.

Fiscal Note:      Not Requested.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Representative Dorn, Prime Sponsor; Eileen Ribary, West Bay Marina Private Marina Association; Grant Osberg, Anacortes Marina; Stu Maier, Narrows Marina; Margaret Freeman, Fremont Boat.

House Committee - Testified Against:      Steve Arbaugh, Puget Sound Gillnetters Association; Dave Hedged, South Kitsap Chamber of Commerce; Heber Kennedy, Port of Olympia.

House Committee - Testimony For:    Why should government compete unfairly with private enterprise?  Why should ports impose taxes on private marinas, and all other property in the district, and use these tax moneys to lower fees charged by the port for its moorage facilities? These are nonvoter-approved taxes.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      Life is not fair.  Why pick on recreational moorage facilities?  These facilities stimulate the economy.  The Port of Seattle raised its fees in response to objections by private marina operators.