Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conservation District Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conservation districts press for local control over rates and charges; treasurers warn against cap
Summary
House Bill 1488 would remove the maximum per-parcel cap for conservation district rates and charges and would limit county treasurers’ collections to the lesser of actual cost or 1% of the total collected; conservation district leaders urged passage while treasurers warned of operational impacts.
House Bill 1488, concerning conservation districts and their funding via rates and charges, drew extended testimony from conservation district leaders across the state and opposition from county treasurers and county associations concerned about a proposed cap on treasurer collection fees.
Rochelle Harris, committee staff, summarized current law and the changes proposed in the bill: under current statute, a conservation district may use a system of rates and charges collected with property taxes; the maximum annual per-acre rate is 10 cents and the maximum per-parcel rate ranges from $5 to $15 depending on population. "House Bill 14 88 makes 2 changes to the rates and charges systems for conservation districts," Harris said: it "eliminates the maximum per parcel rate" and it "adjusts the amount that can be collected by a county treasurer such that it is the lesser of actual costs of the work or 1% of the total amount collected." Harris noted fiscal impacts are dependent on county choices.
Multiple conservation district leaders described the programs funded by rates and charges and urged passage. Sarah Moorhead, executive director of the Thurston Conservation District, said her district "for every $1 of rates and charges that is collected, we use it to bring in $10 of competitive state and federal funds" and described long waiting lists for services. Dana Coggan of Pierce Conservation District described the districts as an "economic engine" and said Spokane Conservation District turns about $2 million in local rates and charges into $14 million annually in grant and program funds.
County treasurers, represented by Jackie Brunson (Skagit County treasurer and legislative chair for the Washington State Association of County Treasurers), opposed the component of the bill that would cap treasurer collection at 1%, saying treasurer fees are set after cost analysis and many treasurer offices are understaffed. Paul Jewell, representing the Washington Association of Counties, said his members "support removing the cap" on per-parcel rates but view the 1% limitation on treasurer collection as "an arbitrary limitation" that deserves further negotiation; he indicated the association is working with sponsors on possible language changes.
Several conservation district witnesses and other stakeholders said they were working with counties and expected to bring forward an amendment to address collection and administrative concerns; the sponsor said the bill came from a local conservation district and intended to give districts local flexibility to set parcel rates responsive to local needs.
