Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 911 Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spokane County commissioners vote 3-2 to oppose 911 excise-tax bill as written
Summary
The Board of County Commissioners voted 3-2 to formally oppose House Bill 1258, which would apportion certain 911-related excise tax revenues by 911 call volume. Commissioners said the bill's call-volume distribution would shift county tax revenues to the city of Spokane and raise equity and technical concerns.
Spokane County commissioners voted 3-2 Jan. 21 to oppose House Bill 1258 in its current form, citing concerns that the bill would allocate 911 excise-tax revenues by call volume rather than by a clearer, more equitable driver such as tax origination or population.
The motion to oppose the measure was moved by Speaker 3 and seconded by Speaker 14; the board recorded a 3-2 vote in favor of formal opposition. The county attorney opened a public-comment call for members of the public; no speakers came forward before the commissioners voted.
Why it matters: HB1258, sponsored locally, would change the distribution method for a narrow excise tax collected for emergency communications. Commissioners who opposed it said the proposal would divert funds to a municipality that already receives a disproportionate share of 911-related activity, and that basing distribution on call volume risks producing arbitrary and unstable allocations.
Commissioners who spoke against the bill argued call volumes reflect local policy and activity patterns rather than the tax base — for example, where people gather and shop — and would therefore shift money away from unincorporated areas even though county residents generate much of the sales and phone-tax revenue. "This is the only bill ... that will take it from basically a more normal population based split to a call volume split," Speaker 1 said during the briefing.
Supporters of keeping the bill's basic objective said city-level PSAPs that take over dispatching should be able to receive revenues generated inside their jurisdictions; county staff suggested facilitating dialogue between the city, Sheriff Knowles, and the bill sponsor to negotiate distribution details.
The board directed staff to monitor the bill's scheduling in the legislature and to work with the county's legislative delegation. County staff warned that the finance committee could schedule hearings quickly; commissioner supporters of the motion said they wanted to leave the door open to an amended formula that ties revenues to the actual tax drivers such as sales-tax origination or excise-tax bases (phones/lines), not call volume.
Votes at a glance - Motion: "That we take a position of opposition to the current bill and that we look forward to considering other formulas." (as stated on the record) - Mover: Speaker 3 - Second: Speaker 14 - Outcome: approved - Tally: 3 in favor, 2 opposed (no roll-call names recorded in the public vote segment)
What happens next: Staff will continue monitoring the bill and seek to open negotiations on a formula that correlates revenues with the actual tax drivers. County staff said they would contact members of the delegation and the bill sponsor if the hearing is scheduled.
Ending: The board's action registers formal opposition to HB1258 as written while preserving the option to consider alternative distribution formulas if the bill is amended.
