Does a Washington fire protection district have to provide fire and emergency services on a tribal reservation, and how are fees set?

Plain-English summary

Representative Debra Lekanoff (District 40) asked Attorney General Bob Ferguson four questions about how Washington fire protection districts interact with federally recognized Indian tribes whose reservations sit inside or across district boundaries. The setup: gaming compacts often cover fire-service costs through impact fee provisions, but tribes that do not run gaming operations may have no contractual arrangement at all, leaving everyone unsure who pays for what.

The AG's answers, in plain English:

1. A district cannot refuse to serve reservation land that is within its boundaries. Once the county legislative authority approves a fire protection district and sets its boundaries, RCW 52.02.020(1) and RCW 52.02.060 require the district to provide service to everyone and everything inside, regardless of property tax status, residency, or tribal sovereignty. Withholding service is not an authorized remedy for non-payment.

2. There is no statutory cap on fees, but no statutory minimum either. The legislature has not set a reasonableness standard for fees a district may charge a tribe. RCW 52.30.080(1) authorizes a district to "contract with the tribe for compensation for providing fire protection services in an amount and under such terms as are mutually agreed upon." That is a negotiation, not a price schedule.

3. The district cannot unilaterally impose a fee. A tribe is not obligated to enter into an agreement on terms it considers unreasonable. The recourse for a tribe that thinks a district is asking too much is the negotiation itself, the terms of any agreement that does get signed (which can include withdrawal clauses), or the structural option in RCW 52.08.011 of having the territory withdrawn from the district so the tribe can establish its own service or contract with a different provider.

4. A tribe split between two districts can consolidate service if everyone agrees. The options the AG identifies include: a contract among the tribe and both districts under RCW 52.12.031(4) and the Interlocal Cooperation Act (RCW 39.34); formation of a regional fire protection service authority under RCW 52.26 (which expressly allows a tribe to participate, RCW 52.26.020(3)); annexation of reservation territory by one district under RCW 52.04 or RCW 52.26.300; or withdrawal of territory from one district under RCW 52.08.011 followed by another arrangement.

The throughline: districts have a hard legal duty to serve, tribes have sovereignty and no statutory obligation to pay, and the legislature has built in mutual incentives, not mandates. Service certainty for the tribe and funding certainty for the district both come from a negotiated contract.

What this means for you

This opinion is from 2021. The bones of the analysis (statutory duty to serve, no statutory fee cap, contract-based compensation) should still hold, but verify any specific RCW citation against current Washington law before acting on it. Treat the framing below as a starting point, not a final word.

For tribal government officials and tribal counsel

Your tribe's use in fire-service negotiations starts with the fact that a district inside whose boundaries your reservation sits has to provide service whether or not you pay. The district cannot withhold engines, refuse a structure fire response, or condition coverage on signing an agreement. That is a statutory duty under RCW 52.02.020(1) as construed by this opinion.

What the district can do: negotiate a contract with you for compensation tied to the cost of serving tax-exempt tribal property (RCW 52.30.080), and, separately, follow statutory procedures to withdraw territory from the district. Withdrawal is a real option for the district, not just a bargaining stance, so a reservation that is paying nothing toward fire services through a gaming compact or otherwise should expect periodic pressure to enter into a contract.

If your reservation sits across two districts and that creates response-time or coordination problems, the consolidation paths in the opinion (single-district contract, regional fire protection service authority under RCW 52.26, annexation, withdrawal) are all on the table. RCW 52.26.020(3) explicitly lets a tribe participate as a partner in forming a regional authority, which can be useful if the tribe wants a seat at the governance table rather than just paying invoices.

For fire protection district commissioners and chiefs

The opinion is unambiguous that you cannot decline to serve reservation property within your boundaries, even if you have no compensation agreement and the property is tax-exempt. If your district is currently providing uncompensated service, your statutory tools to address that are: (a) negotiate a contract under RCW 52.30.080(1), (b) initiate withdrawal of the reservation territory under RCW 52.04.056 or RCW 52.08.011, or (c) explore consolidation through a regional authority or merger.

You do not have authority to impose a fee unilaterally. Sending invoices that have not been agreed to, or threatening to suspend service for non-payment, runs against the statutory duty to serve.

For county legislative authorities and city governments

When you are setting or modifying a district's boundaries, this opinion is the reminder that any reservation land you include creates a service obligation that cannot later be carved out without going through the statutory withdrawal or merger procedures. Conversely, if your county is helping a tribe stand up an alternative arrangement (its own fire department, a contract with a neighboring district, or a regional authority), the territorial procedures in RCW 52.04, RCW 52.06, RCW 52.08, RCW 52.10, and RCW 52.26 are the structural tools.

For state policymakers

The opinion identifies the statutory gap (no reasonableness standard or default fee schedule for tribal-district fire service compensation outside the gaming-compact context) but does not recommend filling it. If the legislature wanted to provide more certainty, the levers would be a default formula, an arbitration mechanism, or an explicit reasonableness standard tied to the cost of service.

Common questions

Q: Can a fire protection district refuse to roll out to a fire on tribal land if the tribe has not paid?
A: No. The opinion is direct on this: a district that has reservation land within its boundaries has a statutory duty to provide service, regardless of property tax status or compensation arrangements. RCW 52.02.020(1); RCW 52.02.060.

Q: Can the district just send the tribe a bill?
A: No. The opinion concludes that fire protection districts do not have authority to unilaterally impose fees on a tribe. Compensation has to come from a contract negotiated under RCW 52.30.080(1) or, alternatively, an Interlocal Cooperation Act agreement under RCW 39.34 invoking RCW 52.12.031(4). Tribes have no obligation to sign on to terms they consider unreasonable.

Q: What property is covered by RCW 52.30.080?
A: Tribal property that is exempt from state property tax under RCW 84.36.010(1). The tribal property tax exemption applies to property "belonging exclusively to" a federally recognized tribe located in the state and "used exclusively for essential government services," which RCW 84.36.010(2)(b) defines to include tribal administration, public facilities, fire, police, public health, education, sewer, water, environmental and land use, transportation, utility services, and economic development. RCW 84.36.010(2)(c) defines "economic development" broadly to include commercial activity that creates or retains jobs or improves economic health of tribal communities.

Q: What incentives push the parties toward an agreement?
A: For the district, the duty to serve regardless of payment is the main pressure point: free service to large tax-exempt parcels eats into the district's budget. For the tribe, the district's authority to withdraw reservation territory from the service area (RCW 52.04.056 or RCW 52.08.011) creates the risk of losing access to the district's resources entirely. Both parties also benefit from contractual certainty about service levels.

Q: A reservation straddles two fire protection districts. Can the tribe pick one?
A: With the agreement of both districts, yes. The opinion lists several paths: a tri-party contract with both districts under RCW 52.12.031(4) and the Interlocal Cooperation Act (RCW 39.34); formation of a regional fire protection service authority under RCW 52.26 with the tribe as a participating jurisdiction (RCW 52.26.020(3)); annexation of the reservation by one district under RCW 52.04 or merger of part of one district into the other under RCW 52.06.090; or withdrawal of territory from one district under RCW 52.08.011 followed by annexation into the other under RCW 52.26.300.

Q: Can the tribe just run its own fire department?
A: The opinion expressly recognizes tribal sovereignty in this area. "Tribes are sovereign nations and do not need the permission or authorization of the state or entities created under state law to provide services to their members and within their reservations." The questions presented assumed the tribe wanted to use a fire protection district, so that is what the opinion analyzed, but a tribal fire department is always an option.

Q: Does the county fire protection statute, RCW 36.32.470, affect this analysis?
A: The opinion notes that counties also have authority to provide fire protection services, and so do municipalities under RCW 52.08.025 and RCW 52.08.021, but the questions focused on fire protection districts specifically. The duty-to-serve and negotiated-fee analysis is district-specific.

Background and statutory framework

Washington divides responsibility for fire and emergency services across multiple government structures. Cities and towns generally provide fire protection within their incorporated areas (RCW 52.08.025, RCW 52.08.021). Counties have authority to provide fire protection (RCW 36.32.470). Tribes can stand up their own fire departments. And fire protection districts, organized under RCW Title 52, are municipal corporations (RCW 52.12.011) created to provide "fire prevention services, fire suppression services, emergency medical services, and for the protection of life and property" within geographically defined boundaries (RCW 52.02.020(1)).

A fire protection district is formed under RCW 52.02 by action of the county legislative authority, which approves the district's boundaries. Once those boundaries are set, RCW 52.02.060 prohibits the district from carving out land that is inside them. The boundaries can change, but only through statutory mechanisms: annexation (RCW 52.04), merger with another district (RCW 52.06), withdrawal of territory (RCW 52.04.056 or RCW 52.08.011), or dissolution of the entire district (RCW 52.10.010).

The opinion's reasoning on the duty-to-serve point combines the statutory framework with the common-law tradition described in McQuillin's The Law of Municipal Corporations: fire protection "constitutes one of the oldest functions of American local government," and "it not only is within the power, but it is the duty of municipalities to adopt proper and reasonable regulations for the protection of the lives and safety of persons, as well as the protection of property, against the danger of . . . fire." Combined with the absence of any statutory authorization for districts to refuse service or use service withdrawal as a remedy for non-payment, the AG read RCW 52.02.020(1) and RCW 52.02.060 to require service to all properties within district boundaries, including tax-exempt tribal property.

The compensation analysis turns on RCW 52.30.080, which authorizes (but does not require) a fire protection district to "contract with the tribe for compensation for providing fire protection services in an amount and under such terms as are mutually agreed upon." Critically, this statute applies to tax-exempt tribal property, defined by reference to RCW 84.36.010(1) (property tax exemption for tribal property "used exclusively for essential government services"). RCW 84.36.010(2)(b) defines essential government services to include fire and many other functions; RCW 84.36.010(2)(c) defines economic development broadly. The legislature did not impose a fee cap, a reasonableness standard, or a default formula on the contracts authorized by RCW 52.30.080. Districts also have authority to contract with tribes through the Interlocal Cooperation Act (RCW 39.34), invoking RCW 52.12.031(4) for fire and emergency services purposes, again without statutory financial limits.

The third-party / multi-district consolidation analysis pulls together several existing pathways. A regional fire protection service authority under RCW 52.26 is a municipal corporation whose boundaries cover two or more participating fire protection jurisdictions; RCW 52.26.020(3) lists fire districts, regional fire authorities, cities, towns, port districts, municipal airports, and tribes as eligible participants. RCW 52.26 sets the procedures for forming an authority, defining its scope of services, and funding it. Districts can also merge or transfer territory to one another under RCW 52.06.090, and territory can be withdrawn from a district under RCW 52.08.011 and annexed into another under RCW 52.26.300.

The opinion relies on prior AG opinions for the contracting framework: AGO 55-57 No. 180 established that districts have a statutory duty to serve persons and properties within their boundaries; AGO 1989 No. 6 addressed cross-district contracting authority. A 2015 informal letter opinion from Assistant Attorney General Charles Zalesky confirmed that fire protection districts have no implied power to exclude buildings from general fire prevention and suppression services.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- RCW 52.02, 52.02.020(1), 52.02.060 (formation, duties, no exclusion of land)
- RCW 52.04, 52.04.056 (annexation, withdrawal)
- RCW 52.06, 52.06.090 (merger, transfer of territory)
- RCW 52.08, 52.08.011, 52.08.021, 52.08.025 (withdrawal, services in incorporated/unincorporated areas)
- RCW 52.10, 52.10.010 (dissolution)
- RCW 52.12.011, 52.12.031(4) (district as municipal corporation; contracting authority)
- RCW 52.26, 52.26.020(3), 52.26.020(6), 52.26.300 (regional fire protection service authorities)
- RCW 52.30.020, 52.30.080, 52.30.080(1) (cross-agency contracts; tribal property compensation)
- RCW 36.32.470 (county fire protection)
- RCW 39.34 (Interlocal Cooperation Act)
- RCW 84.36.010(1), (2)(b), (2)(c) (tribal property tax exemption)

Prior AG opinions referenced:
- AGO 55-57 No. 180 (statutory duty to serve)
- AGO 1989 No. 6 (cross-district contracting authority)
- Letter from Charles Zalesky, AAG, to Bruce Chandler & David Taylor (Sept. 14, 2015)

Treatise:
- 7A Eugene McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 24:457 (3d ed. & Suppl. Aug. 2020)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/provision-fire-and-emergency-services-persons-and-property-within-reservation-federally

Original opinion text

Attorney General Bob Ferguson

INDIANS—TRIBAL/STATE COMPACT—FIRE PROTECTION/FIRE CODE—Provision Of Fire And Emergency Services To Persons And Property Within The Reservation Of A Federally Recognized Indian Tribe

1. A fire protection district may not refuse to provide fire and emergency services to persons or property within the reservation of a federally recognized Indian tribe.

2. The fees charged by a fire protection district for providing services relating to untaxed property within the reservation of a federally recognized Indian tribe may be negotiated between the tribe and the fire protection district.

3. Fire protection districts lack the authority to unilaterally impose fees upon tribes, but incentives exist for both sides to reach agreement.

4. Where property within reservation boundaries is divided between or among more than one fire protection district, fire and emergency services may be provided by a single fire protection district by mutual agreement.

July 8, 2021

The Honorable Debra Lekanoff

State Representative, District 40

PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Cite As:

AGO 2021 No. 3

Dear Representative Lekanoff:

By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested our opinion on four questions, which we paraphrase as follows:

1. May a fire protection district refuse to provide fire and emergency services to persons or property within the reservation of a federally recognized Indian tribe within Washington State?

2. Are the fees that a fire protection district may charge a federally recognized Indian tribe for fire and emergency services on a reservation within Washington State subject to any financial limits or reasonableness standards?

3. What recourse, if any, does a federally recognized Indian tribe have if it believes that a fee for fire and emergency services charged by a fire protection district is unreasonable or punitive?

[original page 2]

4. If two fire protection districts' service areas include the reservation of a federally recognized Indian tribe in Washington State, may the tribe and fire protection districts agree that only one of the fire protection districts will provide fire and emergency services for the entire reservation?

BRIEF ANSWERS

1. No. Under current law, including RCW 52.02.020(1), once a fire protection district establishes its boundaries, it must provide fire and emergency services to persons and property within those boundaries. This is the case regardless of whether the persons benefitted are residents within the district or visitors, and regardless of whether the property is within the borders of a federally recognized tribe's reservation.

2. No. The legislature has not established financial limits or a reasonableness standard for fees paid for fire and emergency services. While there are no statutory limitations or standards, incentives exist for fire protection districts and tribes to reach agreement as to the compensation amount. In the absence of agreement on payment, fire protection districts must still provide services to all persons and property within the district service area, even to tax exempt properties, but may also withdraw territory from the district service area.

3. Fire protection districts do not have the authority to unilaterally impose a fee for fire and emergency services on a tribe. Instead, tribes and fire protection districts negotiate the fees charged for fire and emergency services. Tribes have no obligation to enter an agreement on terms they deem unreasonable. The individual agreements entered into by fire protection districts and tribes may provide recourse for resolving disputes, including providing for withdrawal from the agreement.

4. Yes, if both fire protection districts agree. Under current law, fire protection districts can provide services within another district by a number of methods, which generally require the agreement of both districts. For example, tribes may participate in the creation of a regional fire protection service authority with both districts under RCW 52.26 or contract with both fire protection districts. In addition, one of the fire protection districts may annex the reservation area or withdraw from the area, in which case services could be provided by other methods such as forming a regional fire protection service authority or annexing into the other district.

BACKGROUND

In Washington, a number of different entities provide fire and emergency services. The questions posed to us focus on fire protection districts formed under RCW Title 52. We recognize that municipalities provide fire protection services within incorporated areas unless an arrangement is in place for another entity to provide the service. See RCW 52.08.025, .021. In addition, counties can provide fire protection services. RCW 36.32.470. Tribes may also provide

[original page 3]

fire protection services. Because the questions here focus on the duties and structures of fire protection districts, we limit our response to those entities.

Fire protection districts are municipal corporations. RCW 52.12.011. RCW 52.02 sets forth the process to establish fire protection districts. These districts exist to provide "fire prevention services, fire suppression services, emergency medical services, and for the protection of life and property[.]" RCW 52.02.020(1). In this opinion, we use the phrase "fire and emergency services" to cover these services provided by a fire protection district. A district generally provides services within the unincorporated areas within its boundaries. See RCW 52.08.025, .021.

Your letter describes situations where tribes may not have established financial arrangements with local governments that define how much the tribe pays for fire and emergency services. Gaming compacts between a tribe and the state often address fire protection costs and relationships with fire protection districts by negotiating payment of impact fees to local governments. But tribes that do not engage in gaming may not have contractual arrangements that address fire protection costs. You have asked about the duties of fire protection districts with respect to such tribes and the extent of any limitations on fees for fire protection services within a tribe's reservation.

We also recognize that land ownership within the boundaries of most reservations is varied. Land and structures may be owned by tribal members as well as non-members. The tribe itself may own land in fee and land may be held in trust for the tribe. The tribe may be engaging in a variety of governmental, service, conservation, economic development, and business functions on the tribe's trust and fee lands. We do not address questions of the specific ownership, use, or taxability of individual properties within a reservation in this opinion.

ANALYSIS

1. May a fire protection district refuse to provide fire and emergency services to persons or property within the reservation of a federally recognized Indian tribe within Washington State?

Fire protection districts are formed specifically to provide fire and emergency services within the prescribed boundaries of the district. RCW 52.02.020(1). Fire protection "constitutes one of the oldest functions of American local government," and "[i]t not only is within the power, but it is the duty of municipalities to adopt proper and reasonable regulations for the protection of the lives and safety of persons, as well as the protection of property, against the danger of . . . fire." 7A Eugene McQullin, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 24:457, Westlaw (3d ed. & Suppl. Aug. 2020). The boundaries of fire protection districts are established under RCW 52.02 and may include areas within the reservation of a federally recognized Indian tribe. Once a county legislative authority approves the creation of a fire protection district and establishes its boundaries, state law prohibits the fire protection district from excluding land within those boundaries from the district. RCW 52.02.060. Such boundaries cannot be changed without following a statutory process such as annexation of additional territory (RCW 52.04), merger with

[original page 4]

another district (RCW 52.06), withdrawal of territory from the district (RCW 52.08; RCW 52.04), or dissolution of the district (RCW 52.10).

While the level of service provided is a matter of policy of each jurisdiction, districts may not refuse to provide service to persons or properties located in the district. We have previously opined that a fire protection district has the statutory duty to serve persons and properties within its boundaries. AGO 55-57 No. 180, at. 2; see also RCW 52.02.060. As we concluded in an informal opinion, fire protection districts have no "implied power to exclude certain buildings or structures from general fire prevention and suppression services." Letter from Charles Zalesky, Assistant Attorney General, State of Washington, to Bruce Chandler & David Taylor, Washington State Representatives (Sept. 14, 2015), at 3 (copy attached). The legislature did not provide that fire protection districts can withhold services as a remedy for an individual owner's failure to pay property tax levies, nor may districts withhold services from properties exempt from taxation. When tax-exempt tribal property is located within a fire protection district, the district is authorized to enter into an agreement with the tribe to address fire protection services funding. RCW 52.30.080. That statute makes no reference to declining services as an alternative. RCW 52.30.080. Additionally, RCW 52.30.020 provides that state agencies and municipal corporations must contract with a fire protection district for needed fire and emergency services, but does not explicitly authorize the district to simply refuse to provide services.

Without that authorization to refuse to provide services, we conclude that fire protection districts have the responsibility to provide services to all land within their boundaries. Thus, we answer your question in the negative. When district boundaries include the reservation of a federally recognized Indian tribe, fire protection districts cannot refuse to provide services to persons or property within the reservation.

2. Are the fees that a fire protection district may charge a federally recognized Indian tribe for fire and emergency services on a reservation within Washington State subject to any financial limits or reasonableness standards?

While no statute specifically requires tribes to reimburse fire protection districts for fire and emergency services, fire protection districts have statutory authority to enter into contracts with tribes to compensate districts for providing fire protection services. RCW 52.30.080. The statute provides:

When exempt tribal property is located within the boundaries of a fire protection district or a regional fire protection service authority, the fire protection district or authority is authorized to contract with the tribe for compensation for providing fire protection services in an amount and under such terms as are mutually agreed upon by the fire protection district or authority and the tribe.

RCW 52.30.080(1).

[original page 5]

This statute applies with respect to certain tribal property exempt from property taxes and located within the boundaries of a fire protection district or a regional fire protection service authority. All property belonging exclusively to any federally recognized Indian tribe is exempt from property taxes under RCW 84.36.010(1) if: "(a) the tribe is located in the state, and (b) the property is used exclusively for essential government services[.]" "Essential government services" means "services such as tribal administration, public facilities, fire, police, public health, education, sewer, water, environmental and land use, transportation, utility services, and economic development." RCW 84.36.010(2)(b). "Economic development" means "commercial activities, including those that facilitate the creation or retention of business or jobs, or that improve the standard of living or economic health of tribal communities." RCW 84.36.010(2)(c).

In authorizing contracts for fire and emergency services, the legislature provided that the compensation amount and terms would be "mutually agreed upon by the fire protection district or authority and the tribe." RCW 52.30.080(1). Thus, the legislature did not establish financial limits or a reasonableness standard beyond those upon which the parties can reach agreement. In addition, fire protection districts also have authority to contract with tribes pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, RCW 39.34, to "consolidate, provide, or cooperate for fire prevention protection, fire suppression, investigation, and emergency medical purposes." RCW 52.12.031(4). That statute likewise does not establish financial limitations or a reasonableness standard with respect to the terms of such agreements.

While the legislature included no specific statutory limitations or standards, incentives exist for fire protection districts and tribes to reach agreement as to the compensation amount. An incentive for fire protection districts stems from the conclusion above that they are obligated to provide fire protection and suppression services with respect to buildings and other structures located within their districts regardless of whether the property is subject to property taxes. An incentive for tribes to agree comes from the fire protection districts' authority to withdraw territory from their service areas by following the procedures established in RCW 52.04.056 or RCW 52.08.011. Another incentive may be simply that by entering into such an agreement, a tribe may contract for a specific quality or nature of services. In short, when tribes and fire protection districts reach agreements on compensation, tribes gain certainty on services and fire protection districts gain certainty on funding for those services.

3. What recourse, if any, does a federally recognized Indian tribe have if it believes that a fee for fire and emergency services charged by a fire protection district is unreasonable or punitive?

Fire protection districts do not have the authority to unilaterally impose a fee for fire and emergency services on a tribe. Instead, the two parties typically negotiate an agreement for provision of services. Tribes have no obligation to enter an agreement on terms they deem unreasonable. As described above, both parties have incentives to agree on terms that they believe are fair and reasonable. Those agreed-upon terms control the recourse available to each party.

[original page 6]

In addition, pursuant to RCW 52.08.011, the territory could be withdrawn from the fire protection district, and the tribe could enter into an agreement with another fire protection district or establish its own fire protection services.

4. If two fire protection districts' service areas include the reservation of a federally recognized Indian tribe in Washington State, may the tribe and fire protection districts agree that only one of the fire protection districts will provide fire and emergency services for the entire reservation?

You ask about a situation in which different parts of a reservation are served by two different fire protection districts. There are a number of ways for a single district to serve the entire reservation in this scenario, if this is the objective. We recognize that tribes are sovereign nations and do not need the permission or authorization of the state or entities created under state law to provide services to their members and within their reservations. We assume for this analysis that the tribe wishes to have a fire protection district provide fire and emergency services on the reservation rather than establishing its own independent service. Thus, the methods we list below assume that a fire protection district formed under state law will provide the fire and emergency services. We also recognize that this is not an exhaustive list and there are likely other ways to accomplish this goal.

Under current law, fire protection districts can provide services within another district, but generally this must happen with the agreement of both existing fire protection districts. The most straightforward way that a fire protection district can provide services within the boundaries of another fire protection district is for both districts to enter into a contract for that purpose. RCW 52.12.031(4) provides that districts may "contract with any governmental entity under RCW 39.34 or private person or entity to consolidate, provide, or cooperate for fire prevention protection, fire suppression, investigation, and emergency medical purposes." We have previously opined that districts have wide latitude to contract to provide fire and emergency services, but when the contract includes services within the boundaries of a different established fire protection district, the contract must be made between the two districts. AGO 55-57 No. 180, at. 2. A tribe may also be a party to the contract and/or involved in the negotiations of the contract between the two districts. That contract can address the funding mechanisms for fire and emergency services. Reservations typically include a mix of land ownership. Some properties will be tax exempt as described above and others may be subject to existing property tax levies assessed to fund the fire protection districts. Similar to the impact fees negotiated for fire and emergency services in the context of gaming compacts, a contract between fire districts and tribes can address whether the tribe will provide additional funding for service to the reservation, subject to the mutual incentives described in response to your second question, above.

Tribes may negotiate with fire protection districts not only for fire and emergency services generally within the boundaries of the reservation but also specifically with respect to tax-exempt tribal property. As discussed above, under RCW 52.30.080(1), fire protection districts and regional authorities may contract with tribes for compensation when exempt tribal property is located within the boundaries of a fire protection district or a regional fire protection service authority.

[original page 7]

This provision provides authority for a district to enter such a contract but does not require a district to do so. Further, the provision explicitly states that the terms of such a contract must be mutually agreeable. The questions asked of us assume a broader focus than the tribe's tax-exempt property, but we raise this provision as an option for consideration.

Formation of a regional fire protection service authority is another option that allows fire and emergency services to be provided across district boundaries. A regional fire protection service authority is defined as "a municipal corporation . . . whose boundaries are coextensive with two or more fire protection jurisdictions located within reasonable proximity and that has been created by a vote of the people under this chapter to implement a regional fire protection service authority plan." RCW 52.26.020(6). The fire protection jurisdictions allowed to form a regional authority include fire districts, regional fire protection service authorities, cities, towns, port districts, municipal airports, and tribes. RCW 52.26.020(3). Thus, in the scenario presented here, the tribe and one or both of the fire protection districts serving the tribe's reservation may form the regional authority. RCW 52.26 provides details and procedures for forming such an authority, determining the scope of services provided, and funding the authority.

In addition to these options, fire protection districts may change their boundaries in various ways. Fire protection districts are not static. Districts can annex or withdraw areas from the districts. Districts can merge or dissolve. Other entities, such as a municipal fire department, can assume the duties of the fire protection district. RCW 52.06.090 provides that one district can transfer part of its district to another district. "A part of one district may be transferred and merged with a district located within reasonable proximity if the area can be better served by the merged district." RCW 52.06.090. This option would provide for the permanent service of the merged area by a new fire protection district. In addition, areas can be withdrawn from a fire protection district (RCW 52.08.011) or a district can be dissolved (RCW 52.10.010). Once no longer within a district's boundaries, another fire protection district can provide services to the area by contract (RCW 52.12.031(4); see also AGO 55-57 No. 180, at 2; AGO 1989 No. 6, at 7-8) or the area can be annexed into another district (RCW 52.26.300).

We trust that the foregoing will be useful to you.

ROBERT W. FERGUSON

Attorney General

s/ Kristin Mitchell

KRISTEN MITCHELL

Deputy Attorney General

s/ Jessica Fogel

JESSICA FOGEL

Assistant Attorney General

wro

attachment