HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 2161
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in
their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a
statement of legislative intent.
As Reported by House Committee On:
Local Government
Title: An act relating to providing for consistency between code cities and noncode cities in the apportionment of investment funds.
Brief Description: Providing for consistency between code cities and noncode cities in the apportionment of investment funds.
Sponsors: Representatives Simpson, Curtis, Eddy and Ormsby.
Brief History:
Local Government: 2/22/07, 2/26/07 [DP].
Brief Summary of Bill |
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Majority Report: Do pass. Signed by 7 members: Representatives Simpson, Chair; Eddy, Vice Chair; Curtis, Ranking Minority Member; Schindler, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Ross, B. Sullivan and Takko.
Staff: Jessica Nowakowski (786-7291) and Ethan Moreno (786-7386).
Background:
Cities may be classified as code cites or non-code cities and towns. Code cities have broad
statutory home rule authority in matters of local concern. Code cities and non-code cities and
towns have separate statutory requirements for governance and operation.
Excess and inactive funds in the treasury of a code or non-code city may be invested
according to provisions prescribed in statute. Funds may be invested in:
(1) U.S. bonds or certificates of indebtedness;
(2) bonds or warrants of the state;
(3) general obligation or utility revenue bonds or warrants;
(4) bonds or warrants of a local improvement district; or
(5) other investments authorized by law for any other taxing district.
The responsibility for determining the amount of money available in each fund for
investment purposes in code cities must be made by the department, division, or board
responsible for the administration of such funds. Unless otherwise restricted, moneys
determined available may be invested on an individual fund basis or may be commingled
within one common investment portfolio for the mutual benefit of all participating funds. If
moneys are commingled in a common investment portfolio, all income subsequently derived
must be apportioned among the various participating funds in direct proportion to the amount
of money invested by each.
Any excess or inactive funds of a non-code city not invested for the specific benefit of any
particular fund may be invested by the city treasurer for the benefit of the general or current
expense fund.
All investments must be approved by the council or legislative body of the code or non-code
city.
Summary of Bill:
Code cities must apportion any income derived from a common investment portfolio among
the general or current expense fund as determined by ordinance or resolution.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Not requested.
Effective Date: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
(In support) There is a discrepancy in how investment income is allocated between code and
non-code cities. Code cities would like the same authority as non-code cities to allocate
investment income. Any investment must be done at the city council level by ordinance or
resolution.
(Opposed) None.
Persons Testifying: Jim Justin, Association of Washington Cities.