Document Recording Fees.
State and local homeless housing programs receive funding from surcharges collected by each county auditor when certain documents are recorded. County auditors collect and distribute the following surcharges:
The Homeless Housing and Assistance Surcharge.
Of the $62 Local Homeless Housing and Assistance surcharge, 2 percent is retained by the county auditor collecting the fee and $10 dollars is distributed to the county for the purpose of implementing local homeless housing programs and plans. The remainder of the $62 surcharge is distributed as follows:
"Private rental housing" is defined as housing owned by a private landlord and includes housing owned by a nonprofit housing entity.
Documents exempt from the $62 surcharge include:
Home Security Fund Account.
The state's share of the $62 Local Homeless Housing and Assistance surcharge is deposited into the HSF, which is an appropriated account and may be used only for homeless housing programs. The Office of Financial Management (OFM) must secure an independent expenditure review of state homeless assistance and housing surcharge funds received and deposited into the HSF on a biennial basis. The purpose of the expenditure review is to assess the consistency in achieving policy priorities within the private market rental housing segment for persons experiencing homelessness.
The Homeless Housing and Assistance Surcharge.
The 45 percent set aside of the state's portion of the $62 Local Homeless Housing and Assistance surcharge for private rental housing payments is removed, and private rental housing assistance is added to the uses for the state portion of surcharge funds.
Home Security Fund.
The requirement that the OFM secure a biennial-independent expenditure review of the state portion of the $62 Local Homeless Housing and Assistance surcharge funds received and deposited into the HSF is removed.
(In support) At one time, the Legislature wanted to ensure private for-profit landlords received a portion of document recording fees. The Legislature subsequently removed this explicit set-aside although private landlords continue to get more than 45 percent of the funds since most housing is for-profit. Removing the set-aside reduced unnecessary paperwork, but unnecessary accounting continues to be required and wastes $90,000 each biennium. The current requirement does not impact who gets served or where they are housed. The review just no longer makes sense and wastes time and money.
(Opposed) None.