State and local homeless housing and affordable housing programs are supported in part through a $183 surcharge on certain documents recorded by county auditors. ?Once the $183 document recording surcharge is collected by the county auditor, revenues are distributed as follows:
?
Of the 30 percent retained by counties:
?
A city may elect to operate a local homeless housing program separate from the county program.? In counties where cities have chosen to exercise this option, the county must transmit funding from the 75 percent retained for implementation of its local homeless housing plan to each city that has elected to operate a separate program. ?Funding must be distributed in proportion to the city's local portion of the real estate excise tax collected by the county, without any deduction for county administrative costs. ?Of the funds received by the city, it may use up to 10 percent for administrative costs.
In counties where a city has not elected to operate its own homeless housing program, of the 30 percent portion of the $183 document recording surcharge retained by counties, the county may use up to 10 percent of funding for administrative costs and at least 75 percent of funding for costs to implement its local homeless housing plan.
?
In counties where a city has elected to operate its own homeless housing program, of the 30 percent portion of the $183 document recording surcharge retained by counties, the county must combine the 10 percent of funding retained for administrative costs and the 75 percent of funding retained for costs to implement its local homeless housing plan. ?From this combined amount, the county must make distributions to each city that has elected to operate its own homeless housing program. ?The distributions to cities must be a percentage of the surcharge retained by the county equal to the percentage of the city's local portion of the real estate excise tax. ?After required distributions to cities are made, counties and cities may use up to 10 percent of their share of the total funding retained or received out of the 30 percent portion of the $183 document recording surcharge?for administrative costs.
The substitute bill restructures the language related to the distribution of the 30 percent portion of the $183 housing and homelessness document recording surcharge retained by counties to differentiate the distribution process for counties where a city has elected to operate its own homeless housing program compared to counties where a city has not elected to do so.
(In support) The cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley have used the provision that allows for cities to operate their own local homeless housing program separate from the program administered by Spokane County. ?This option has allowed the city of Spokane Valley to solidify partnerships with local providers. ?There is ambiguity under the current statute about whether the county can collect the 10 percent for administrative costs before or after distributions to cities are made. ?This ambiguity was introduced when the Legislature consolidated several document recording fee statutes into one statute. ?As a result, the cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley receive less funding for their local homeless housing programs and for their own administrative costs. ?Adopting this bill will ensure that more funding goes to homeless services.
?
(Opposed) None.
?
(Other) The Washington Association of County Auditors proposes new language to avoid creating a circular formula for the distribution of document recording fee revenues. ?The new language accomplishes the same policy outcome, but will be simpler to administrate.? Previous efforts by the Legislature greatly simplified the collection and distribution of document recording fee revenues, making it less complex to administer. ?The county auditors wish to avoid creating new complexities and keep the process as simple as possible. ?The county auditors have no position on the underlying policy.
(In support) Ben Wick, City of Spokane Valley; Kelly Konkright, City of Spokane Valley; and Nick Federici, City of Spokane Valley.