|
|
|
|
What is the compensation paid to a hospital district commissioner for each meeting attended?
|
|
|
|
|
Each commissioner shall receive $104 for each day or portion of a day spent in actual attendance at official meetings of the district commission and for other similar activities (see RCW 70.44.050), not to exceed $9,984 per year, effective July 5, 2008. How the dollar threshold is determined, however, can be a bit confusing. The compensation is set by RCW 70.44.050, which, effective July 2007, set the dollar threshold at $90 per day, with compensation for each commissioner not to exceed $8,640 per year. RCW 70.44.050 also requires the state office of financial management (OFM) to adjust the dollar threshold for inflation every five years, beginning July 1, 2008, based upon the CPI during that period. OFM is required by RCW 70.44.050 to calculate the new threshold and transmit it to the office of the code reviser for publication in the Washington State Register at least one month before the new threshold is to take effect. Here, in accordance with RCW 70.44.050, and as explained in the Washington State Register at WSR 08-11-127, OFM submitted for publication the new threshold, which is $104 per day with a new annual compensation limit of $9,984. The new dollar threshold took effect July 5, 2008. WSR 08-11-127 also explains how the new threshold was calculated based upon the CPI from April 2003 to April 2008. As stated in RCW 70.44.050, OFM is required to adjust the threshold for inflation every five years, beginning July 1, 2008, meaning that a new threshold is scheduled to come into effect in July 2013.
|
|
|
Must a hospital district sell surplus real property by competitive bid?
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. The sale of real property by a hospital district is governed
by the procedures in RCW
70.44.300, and those procedures do not include a requirement that
the sale be by competitive bid.
|
|
|
Are there certain notice requirements for budget hearings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reference should be made to RCW
70.44.060(6) which provides in part:
(6) . . . The superintendent shall
prepare a proposed budget of the contemplated financial transactions
for the ensuing year and file the same in the records of the
commission on or before the first day of November. Notice of the
filing of said proposed budget and the date and place of hearing on
the same shall be published for at least two consecutive weeks, at
least one time each week, in a newspaper printed and of general
circulation in said county. On or before the fifteenth day of
November the commission shall hold a public hearing on said proposed
budget at which any taxpayer may appear and be heard against the
whole or any part of the proposed budget. Upon the conclusion of said
hearing, the commission shall, by resolution, adopt the budget as
finally determined and fix the final amount of expenditures for the
ensuing year. Taxes levied by the commission shall be certified to
and collected by the proper county officer of the county in which
such public hospital district is located in the same manner as is or
may be provided by law for the certification and collection of port
district taxes. The commission is authorized, prior to the receipt of
taxes raised by levy, to borrow money or issue warrants of the
district in anticipation of the revenue to be derived by such
district from the levy of taxes for the purpose of such district, and
such warrants shall be redeemed from the first money available from
such taxes when collected, and such warrants shall not exceed the
anticipated revenues of one year, and shall bear interest at a rate
or rates as authorized by the commission. (our emphasis)
So, published notice is required and a posted
notice is not. If the district chooses to also provide posted notice,
it certainly may do so, although there is no particular schedule that
must be met (assuming the required published notice has been given).
We suggest that the notice be posted several weeks in advance too,
allowing the public a greater opportunity to arrange their attendance
at the hearing, if they choose to attend.
|
|
|
May commissioners and superintendents of a hospital district attend a dinner sponsored by a private business and receive a free dinner?
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no problem with attending a meeting sponsored by a
private vendor to explain a service or product they want to sell. The
legal issue is raised by the provision of the free dinner for all
attendees.
RCW 42.23.070(2) provides that no municipal officer may receive,
directly or indirectly, any gift or gratuity from anyone except their
employing municipality for any matter connected with their official
services. Technically, a free dinner is a gift or gratuity that is
being provided by a private party and there is a potential violation
of this provision.
Having said that, a "de minimis" rule is usually
applied that allows a public official to accept something that has
very limited value. A banquet dinner normally would fall within this
"de minimis" rule. The state statutes on ethics that
apply to state officials actually contain an exemption for items or
gifts that have a value of less than $50, and we presume a dinner
would be less than this amount. See RCW
42.52.150. Unfortunately, there is not a similar provision in
the statute that relates to local government officials but the same
principle arguably could apply.
So there may be a technical violation but it is unlikely to be
significant enough to warrant any kind of finding or action by the
Office of the State Auditor. You are in a better position to judge
the political landscape as to whether this is likely to cause any
kind of public relations problem.
|
|
|
Whether a hospital is exempt from property taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonprofit hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by public
hospital districts are exempt from property taxes. RCW
84.36.040. There is an issue, however, as to whether that
exemption applies to property used for outpatient facilities. See
DOR "Property Tax Special Notice" on "Property
Tax Exemption for Nonprofit Hospitals, Proposed Revision of the
Washington Administrative Code 458-16-260" dated March 6,
2009. DOR’s rule limits the exemption to areas that are
exclusively used for inpatient care, while the Board of Tax Appeals
has ruled in two cases that specific areas used by outpatients in the
two hospitals were exempt. One case was appealed to superior court
and upheld. DOR is now proposing to amend its "rule to remove
the conflict between WAC 458-16-260 and the court’s decision
with regard to the inpatient/outpatient test."
|
|
|
If county-wide hospital district levies a 50 cent/$1000 assessed value tax under RCW 84.52.060 for emergency medical services, may the city levy one as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. RCW
84.52.069(6) provides in part:
No other taxing
district may levy a tax under this section if another taxing district
has levied a tax under this section within its boundaries ...
|
|
|
Whether a person can make a "standing request" for future public records.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Attorney General’s "Model Rules" regarding
the Public Records Act address this issue at WAC
44-14-04004(4)(a) as follows:
An agency must only provide access to
public records in existence at the time of the request. An agency is
not obligated to supplement responses. Therefore, if a public record
is created or comes into the possession of the agency after the
request is received by the agency, it is not responsive to the
request and need not be provided. A requestor must make a new request
to obtain subsequently created public records.
The reasoning is that a record that may be created in the future
is not a public record at the time of the request. Clearly, that
could place quite a burden on public agencies if they were required
to comply with such requests for records that may be created in the
future.
The best way to respond would be to say simply that the hospital district is
not required by the Public Records Act to comply with requests for
records that do not yet exist and that it would be too much of a
burden if it were to voluntarily do so.
|
© 2009 Municipal Research & Services
Center of Washington
|
|
|
