HB 2224 and SB 6037 allow a single city to establish and fund a fire protection district (by voter approval) for fire and emergency medical services (EMS).

AWC has been working with legislators to clarify what the bills do, which is to allow a city to retain its own property tax levy when establishing a new fire district as currently allowed by RCW 52.02.160. As it works currently, a city making one of these citywide districts needs to fund it by lowering its own tax levy dollar-for-dollar. We’d like the bill to allow cities to keep their levy authority and instead reduce their statutory maximum levy rate. This is how regional fire districts are currently funded.

The bills provide a small technical fix but have been ensnared by some confusion about what they do and don’t do. Currently, single-city fire districts can be governed by either a city’s legislative authority or a separately elected fire commission, which is flexibility that cities would like to retain.

Both bills have inched through the process and need to be added to the calendar for a floor vote before the Tuesday, February 17, cutoff. If your city would take advantage of this funding opportunity, reach out to your senators and representatives to let them know why as soon as you can. You can use the following talking points with your legislators, alongside your local story.

Talking points

• Cities already have this authority.
• We want this small technical change so that we don’t lose funding for other important city services while funding fire service with this voter-approved authority.
• We’d like to maintain the current governance structure options so that voters can make the decision about what works best.

Single-city fire protection bills may need some help

February 6, 2026

AWC has been working in support of legislation that offers an alternative funding tool for city fire and emergency service.

Cities have had the authority to form a single-city fire district since 2017, but because of how it was structured, in order to create a new district, a city needs to reduce its own levy dollar-for-dollar. Because of this, no cities have taken it up thus far.

HB 2224 and SB 6037 would allow a single-city authority to become equivalent to regional fire authorities, where a city does not need to lower its own actual levy in order to fund the fire service. Instead, like a regional fire authority, the city would reduce its statutory maximum levy rate.

We support these bills and are working to clarify any misconceptions. We urge legislators to keep the bills alive so that we can continue our work on them together. If your city could benefit from this funding for a new fire district, reach out to us and your legislators with your support.

Two AWC-supported single-city fire protection bills are alive and well

February 2, 2026

Two good little local option bills are passing legislative hurdles.

HB 2224 and SB 6037 are technical bills with a simple premise to align taxing authority for single-city districts similar to existing fire districts. The bills allow the voter-approved creation of single-city fire districts to be more like already-existing fire protection districts in their funding mechanisms.

The amended bills give the option to move 25 cents for the levy outside of the statutory $5.90 limit, like existing fire district authority. This additional amendment is intended to help other junior taxing districts that were concerned about possible impacts from the $5.90 limit. This allows cities the ability to access more funding for fire service.

We like these bills, we are heavily engaged on them, and we encourage you to reach out to us or your legislators. If your city needs more funding for fire service, this is a good option for your city.

Dates to remember

SB 6037 is scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Ways & Means Committee on Tuesday, February 3, at 4 pm.

HB 2224 is scheduled for public hearing in the House Finance Committee on Thursday, February 5, at 8 am.

AWC-supported single-city fire protection district bills are on the move

January 26, 2026

We are pleased to see early legislative action on a set of bills that would allow cities more fiscal tools to fund critical fire services.

HB 2224 and SB 6037 allow a single city or town to establish and fund a new citywide fire protection district (by voter approval) for fire and emergency medical services (EMS).

While these bills are technical in the nature of the tax fix they provide, the goal is to allow cities to establish these districts without giving up (or transferring) their existing revenue dollar for dollar in order to do so.

With that came a technical amendment adopted by each committee making the tax authority similar to other fire districts and regional fire authorities, where the city’s maximum levy rate is reduced by the levy rate of the new single-city fire district without an actual revenue loss. It also makes technical amendments addressing issues around the statutory $5.90 limit. These amendments improve the bills to help other junior taxing districts that were concerned about possible impacts.

This will be most helpful for cities where a regional fire authority or other regional partnership isn’t feasible. If your city is interested in the ability to set up its own voter-approved single-city fire district authority, reach out to your legislators to tell them you support these bills. You can use your city’s local story alongside the talking points in last week’s article below.

Voter-approved single-city fire protection district bills are gaining momentum

January 16, 2026

Two bills are getting traction in the Legislature as they gain hearings in their respective committees.

HB 2224 and SB 6037 allow a single city or town to establish and fund a new citywide fire protection district (by voter approval) for fire and emergency medical services (EMS).

Importantly, the bills do not require a city to give up existing tax revenue when forming a new district, allowing for more local funding to go toward fire service while not impacting funding available for other city services.

Watch AWC’s testimony on the Senate bill last week. There have been some questions raised about how the proposal could impact the $5.90 property tax limit, and AWC is developing amendment language to address that issue to minimize impact on junior property tax levies.

If your city is interested in the ability to set up its own voter-approved single-city fire district authority, reach out to your legislators to tell them you support these bills. You can use your city’s local story alongside the talking points below.

Talking points

This bill offers cities a more reliable and cost-effective way to maintain fire protection, reducing risk and administrative strain while ultimately saving money, because it:

• Creates a local option: The bill establishes a local, voter-approved option for delivering city fire and EMS services.
• Provides an alternative to RFAs: This single-city solution may be an option in situations where a multi-jurisdictional regional fire authority (RFA) isn’t currently feasible. However, it doesn’t preclude the ability to form an RFA in the future.
• Preserves local taxing authority: Cities do not need to give up or transfer their taxing authority.
• Maintains future flexibility: This bill preserves flexibility to pursue RFA service models in the future if desired.

Washington cities currently provide fire services through city departments, fire districts, regional fire authorities, or contracts. These bills simply add another flexible option to the menu via this voter-approved single-city fire district proposal.

Dates to remember

HB 2224 is scheduled for a public hearing in the House Local Government Committee on Tuesday, January 20, at 10:30 am.

HB 2224 is scheduled for a committee vote in the House Local Government Committee on Friday, January 23, at 10:30 am.

New AWC-supported bills allow creation of a single-city fire protection district

January 9, 2026

HB 2224 and SB 6037 allow a single city or town to establish and fund a new citywide fire protection district (by voter approval) for fire and emergency medical services (EMS). The bills also adjust property tax levy rules and clarify how those reductions affect future tax limits.

The companion bills, sponsored by Rep. David Stuebe (R-Washougal) and Sen. Adrian Cortes (D-Battle Ground), also set clear rules for how existing fire services, property taxes, and assets are transferred to the new single-city district. AWC supports this proposal because it allows cities the flexibility and option of having a new tool in its financial toolbox to fund critical city services, such as fire and EMS.

Key bill provisions include:

• Single-city fire district creation: allows a city or town to form a fire protection district with the same boundaries as the city, subject to simple majority vote (or 60% majority if using a benefit charge)
• Financing plan: requires a city to create a detailed financing plan that discloses the proposed fire district taxes or benefit charges, the first-year levy amount, and the estimated impact to property owners
• Property tax levy rate: stipulates that cities or towns forming a district after July 1, 2026, do not need to reduce their general property tax levy by the amount levied by the new fire protection district
• Transfer of powers: outlines the transfer of powers and operations of any existing fire departments, assets, contracts, and employees (including existing pay, benefits, and bargaining rights) to the new district
• Governance: allows for the new fire district to be governed by the city council or for the election of an independent fire commission

Talking points

This bill offers cities a more reliable and cost-effective way to maintain fire protection, reducing risk and administrative strain while ultimately saving money, because it:

• Creates a local option: The bill establishes a local, voter-approved option for delivering city fire and EMS services.
• Provides an alternative to RFAs: This single-city solution may be an option in situations where a multi-jurisdictional regional fire authority (RFA) isn’t currently feasible. However, it doesn’t preclude the ability to form an RFA in the future.
• Preserves local taxing authority: Cities do not need to give up or transfer their taxing authority.
• Maintains future flexibility: This bill preserves flexibility to pursue RFA service models in the future if desired.

Washington cities currently provide fire services through city departments, fire districts, regional fire authorities, or contracts. These bills simply add another flexible option to the menu via this voter-approved single-city fire district proposal.

Dates to remember

SB 6037 is scheduled for a public hearing in the Senate Local Government Committee on Thursday, January 15, at 1:30 pm.