Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire District 24 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to reconsider dissolving Fire District 24; council opens public hearing but refers matter to committee
Summary
Public comment raised concerns after King County staff flagged Fire District 24 as inactive; a resident offered to serve as commissioner and asked the council to reconsider dissolution and explore merger options; the council opened a hearing and referred the matter back to the Local Services Committee for further work.
Affected residents and a caller from Fire District 24 asked the council on Aug. 19 to reconsider plans to dissolve King County Fire Protection District No. 24. The clerk’s agenda included proposed Ordinance 2022-0297, a measure to determine District 24 inactive and move toward dissolution, but council action on the item was deferred to the Local Services Committee after member briefings and public comment.
James Hoff (on the Zoom account used by another signer) testified that he and his wife would volunteer to serve as district commissioners and asked the council to delay dissolution and instead explore options to secure fire and emergency services for residents. Councilmember Pete Quinn, who examined the district’s status, said he did not want to dissolve the district immediately and preferred to explore reconstitution of the District Board of Commissioners or a merger with neighboring District 37 (part of the Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority).
Quinn said county staff had mailed registered voters and property owners to seek volunteers to serve as commissioners and that his office planned a follow-up process. Council staff described administrative burdens associated with keeping inactive districts on the books but said they were not aware of immediate legal risks to delaying action. The council voted to open a public hearing on the district and then referred the district matter back to the Local Services Committee for further work and stakeholder engagement.
Action taken: No dissolution vote was taken on Aug. 19. The council opened the public hearing on the item and then referred the matter back to the Local Services Committee for further review and possible reconstitution, merger or other options.
Context: The item has been on the council’s agenda in prior years because the state auditor had found the district unauditable and county elections staff flagged inactivity. Council members emphasized continuity of life‑safety services and expressed interest in pursuing a merger with a neighboring district or appointing commissioners if local volunteers step forward.
