SENATE BILL REPORT

                   SB 6423

              As Reported By Senate Committee On:

          State & Local Government, February 3, 2000

Title:  An act relating to funding for implementation of capital facilities plans by counties and cities under the growth management act.

Brief Description:  Providing funds for local capital facilities plans.

Sponsors:  Senators Patterson, Gardner, Costa, Winsley, Spanel, Hale, Sellar, Shin, Haugen, and Wojahn.

Brief History:

Committee Activity:  State & Local Government:  1/17/2000, 2/3/2000 [DPS-WM, DNPS].

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Majority Report:  That Substitute Senate Bill No. 6423 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass and be referred to Committee on Ways & Means.

  Signed by Senators Patterson, Chair; Gardner, Vice Chair; Haugen and Kline.

Minority Report:  Do not pass substitute.

  Signed by Senators Horn and McCaslin.

Staff:  Eugene Green (786-7405)

Background:  The comprehensive plan of a county or city that is required or chooses to plan under the Growth Management Act must consist of a map or maps, and descriptive text covering objectives, principles, and standards used to develop the comprehensive plan.  The plan must be an internally consistent document and all elements must be consistent with the future land use map.  Each comprehensive plan must be adopted and amended with public participation and each comprehensive plan must include a plan, scheme or design for each of the following:  (1) a land use element; (2) a housing element; (3) a capital facilities plan element; (4) a utilities element; and (5) counties must adopt a rural element.

The capital facilities plan element consists of (a) an inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities; (b) a forecast of future needs for capital facilities; (c) proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; (d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and (e) a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs.

Summary of Substitute Bill:  The legislative body of a county or city, through ordinance or resolution may impose a sales and use tax for collection on the sale of or charge made for new construction.  The tax is deducted from the state sales and use tax and the rate of tax must not exceed 1 percent of the selling price or value.  ANew construction@ is defined.

A county or city may impose this tax if it meets the following conditions:  (a) the county or city is planning under the Growth Management Act and is in compliance with all deadlines; (b) the county or city is not under an order of noncompliance; (c) the county or city has adopted a capital facilities plan consistent with its comprehensive plan, or if the county does not plan under the Growth Management Act, it has adopted a capital facilities plan that substantially meets the requirements of those plans required under the Growth Management Act; and (d) the county or city files with the Department of Revenue a statement that it meets these conditions.

Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill:  In the substitute bill, all cities and counties are eligible to participate; and Anew construction@ is defined.

Appropriation:  None.

Fiscal Note:  Available as SB 6156.

Effective Date:  Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.

Testimony For:  This will not increase taxes and will substantially help cities and counties meet a portion of their unfunded infrastructure obligations.  The Growth Management Act mandates concurrency and without some new infusion of revenue for infrastructure, a lot of development may come to a halt.

Testimony Against:  None.

Testified:  PRO:  Stan Finkelstein, AWC; Doug Levy; Mark O. Brown, City of Vancouver; Phil Watkins, City of Kennewick; Trent Matson, BIAW; Bill Vogler.