HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 1232
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 the use of local government real estate excise tax proceeds for the acquisition of equipment and software related to business applications.
Brief Description: Clarifying that certain local government real estate excise tax proceeds may be used for the acquisition of equipment and software related to business applications.
Sponsors: Representatives Hunt, Alexander, Curtis, Simpson, Chandler, Armstrong and Appleton.
Brief History:
Local Government: 1/23/07, 2/23/07 [DPS].
Brief Summary of Substitute Bill |
|
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill 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: Ethan Moreno (786-7386).
Background:
County legislative authorities may impose an excise tax on each sale of real property in
unincorporated areas of the county. Similarly, city legislative authorities also may impose an
excise tax on each sale of real property within the city's corporate limits. The rate of these
real estate excise taxes (REET) may not exceed 0.25 percent of the selling price.
Cities and counties with 5,000 or fewer residents and cities and counties that do not fully plan
under the Growth Management Act (GMA) may use local REET revenues only for capital
purposes identified in a capital improvements plan and for local capital improvements.
Counties with more than 5,000 residents and cities with more than 5,000 residents that fully
plan under the GMA may use local REET revenues only for financing qualifying capital
projects, as that term is defined in statute, and for housing relocation assistance. Exceptions
to these expenditure limits are specified in statute for projects that use revenues pledged or
committed by counties and cities prior to April 30, 1992.
"Capital project" means public works projects of a local government for planning,
acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement
of specific infrastructure, including:
Summary of Substitute Bill:
"Capital projects" for which locally imposed REET revenues may be used include equipment
items that may contain and employ a software element necessary for initial installation and
operation that may be included in the capital expenditure on a one-time basis during initial
acquisition by a jurisdiction in the regular course of business in connection with associated
capital improvements. These expenditures must be capitalized with a lifetime of at least five
years and must be tied directly to the dollar amount used solely for the economic
development value of an existing or planned capital improvement. Proceeds from a locally
imposed REET may not be used for daily operations or upgrading the original capital
investment.
The definition of "capital project" is modified, in part, to specify that these projects include
equipment that may contain and employ software elements necessary for initial installation
and operation that may be included in the capital budget expenditure on a one-time basis
during the initial acquisition by a jurisdiction in the regular course of business in connection
with associated capital improvements. These capital expenditures must be capitalized with a
lifetime of at least five years and must be tied directly to the dollar amount used solely for the
economic development value of an existing or planned capital improvement. Proceeds from
a locally imposed REET may not be used for daily operation, maintenance, or upgrading of
the original capital investment.
Expenditures made by counties, cities, and towns using local REET proceeds for qualifying
capital purposes, local capital improvements, and capital projects on or before the effective
date of the act are declared valid.
Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill:
Descriptions of "capital purpose" and "local capital improvements" are deleted and replaced
with a description of "capital projects." Expenditure limitations are established specifying, in
part, that these capital project expenditures must be capitalized with a lifetime of at least five
years, and that proceeds from a locally imposed REET may not be used for daily operations
or upgrading the original capital investment. A description of "capital project" within the
definition of "capital project" is modified. Expenditure limitations generally comparable to
those previously described are established. Expenditures made by counties, cities, and towns
using local REET proceeds for qualifying capital purposes, local capital improvements, and
capital projects on or before the effective date of the act are validated. The intent section is
deleted.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Not requested.
Effective Date of Substitute Bill: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
(In support) Funding is needed for information technology projects, and this bill is a
clarification of issues raised by the State Auditor (Auditor). This bill clarifies, but does not
expand, the use of local REET revenues for business applications. The bill aligns
expenditure authorizations with legislative intent. In 2005, the Auditor raised questions
about computer expenditures made by Thurston County. The Auditor did not believe that
REET revenues, under current law, should be used for computer software purchases,
although hardware purchases were acceptable. The Auditor recommended that the county
seek legislative clarification. This bill addresses only the first one-quarter percent of REET.
Information technology and services have become integral to business operations and they are
linked together during facility construction. The Legislature needs to make it clear that these
integrated expenses are proper uses for REET revenues. Counties are trying to provide
full-service to residents, and integrated systems are part of this service effort.
(Opposed) This bill siphons revenue away from infrastructure when more funds, not less, are
needed for infrastructure. The lack of infrastructure has contributed to rising housing costs.
This bill also authorizes a retroactive use of REET revenues.
Persons Testifying: (In support) Representative Hunt, prime sponsor; Representative
Alexander; Julie Murray, Washington Association of Counties; and Kim Wyman,
Washington Association of County Auditors.
(Opposed) Bill Riley, Realtors.