Local Government Partnership Meeting September 29, 2010

1

Local Government Partnership Meeting

September 29, 2010

2

Welcome and Introductions

Cindi Holmstrom, DirectorDepartment of Revenue

3

Announcements & Housekeeping Items

Miki Gearhart, Local Government Partnership Facilitator

4

Non-Resident Exemption and Canadian Provinces

Gil Brewer, Assistant DirectorInterpretations and Technical Advice

5

Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigation for Local

GovernmentsDon Gutmann

Research Division

6

National Streamlined Sales Tax

Russ BrubakerExecutive Division

7

On July 1, 2010, the Act was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 5660).

The Act would allow Streamlined member states to assert collection authority over remote sellers without a physical in-state presence.

There is currently no companion Senate bill.

Efforts to pass legislation may intensify after the November elections.

National Streamlined Sales Tax: Main Street Fairness Act (the “Act”)

National Streamlined Sales Tax: Main Street Fairness Act, continued• Remaining issues:

– Vendor compensation.

– The small seller exception threshold.

– The Communications Task Force negotiations and simplification of other taxes on communication services.

•Indirect non-consumer paid taxes: cable franchise fees, right-of-way fees, and public education and government access fees, and municipal business and occupation and utility taxes.

•Direct consumer paid taxes: E911, telephone relay service, and telephone assistance taxes.

– Implementation.

8

National Streamlined SalesTax: Streamlined Agreement Amendments and Rules Update • Recently adopted amendments and rules:

– The Streamlined Agreement was amended to provide a toggle for “bottled water” under the definition of “food and food ingredients.”

– Rules 311.1 & 311.2 were adopted to clarify the sourcing of services on tangible personal property (TTP), e.g., repair of TPP.

• Proposed rules of interest:

– Draft rules 327.6 & 327.6.1 have been proposed to clarify the Streamlined definition of “candy.”

– Draft Rule 327.7 has been proposed to clarify that reductions in the sales price paid by employees for achieving specific performance goals and employee awards convertible to cash are not discounts excluded from the sale price.

9

National Streamlined Sales Tax: Annual Compliance Review

•The 2010 annual compliance review of Streamlined member states began in August.

–Of the first 13 member states reviewed, Washington was the only state to have no compliance issues.

–The Compliance Review and Interpretation Committee (CRIC) will schedule a meeting to discuss Washington’s compliance in October of 2010.

–Absent additional comments from the business community, we expect the CRIC will recommend Washington to be found in compliance with the Agreement.

10

National Streamlined Sales Tax

Questions?

11

Sales and Use Tax Collections from Candy and

Bottled WaterDon Gutmann

Research Division

12

Department of RevenueTaxpayer Account Administration

James Petit

Distribution CycleA two month lag from the end of the

reporting period to distribution of funds.

Sales taxes are collected in the reporting period by the seller.

Sales taxes are remitted the following month

Distribution follows the end of the following month after taxes are remitted

Example of Local Taxes DistributedBasic Local and Optional tax

Transportation Taxes

Lodging Taxes

Public Facilities District Taxes

State Shared – LRF, LIFT, Annexations

Criminal Justice Taxes

Sales tax is collected by taxpayer in July

July returns are remitted during the month of August

Example of a Distribution Cycle for the month of July

Accumulation begins, separating the taxes remitted into separate funds

Accumulation includes current returns and past due reported during the cycle

Distribution Cycle Example

Distribution Example ContinuedAccumulation includes adjustment to

accounts as result of review of returns and input from local jurisdictions

Funds can only be re-distributed from entity to entity within 6 months (per contract with local governments).

Local Sales Tax examiners review accumulation reports

Distribution Cut Off September 21st

Distribution Example Continued

Cut Off date is approximately 6 business days prior to the end of the month

Any returns and adjustments after this date are included in the next distribution cycle

Distribution Example Continued

Final Steps of Distribution ExampleSeptember 22, final review of accumulation

Distribution file is released to Office of State Treasurer

Final Steps of Distribution Example ContinuedSeptember 30, Office of State Treasure funds distribution

QuestionsDOR Contact:Bob PetteysTax Administration ManagerTelephone: (360) 902-7065E-mail: [email protected]

24

Andy Van Gerpen, September 29, 2010

Annexation Impacts and Processes

1. General Annexation Information (DOR administration)

2. Update on Annexation Services Tax

General Annexation Information

What annexation information should be included in notification?

• Annexation ordinance

• Legal description

• Map of annexation

What is the timeline for notification?

• 75 days in advance of effective date of annexation

• In addition to the requirement to notify OFM

Once notified, what will DOR update?

• Website GIS information

Address/tax rate search

Map search

• Downloadable databases

Where should the annexation information be sent?

Department of Revenue

Attn: Local Tax Manager

PO Box 47476

Olympia, WA 98504

Annexation Services Tax

• A local sales and use tax imposed by cities with qualifying annexations

• Used to provide, maintain, and operate municipal services for the annexation area

• Credited against the state sales/use tax

• Imposed city-wide

What is the Annexation Services Tax?

What cities may impose the Annexation Services Tax?

• Any city located in a county with a population greater than 600,000

SnohomishKingPierce

• Must annex a qualified annexation

What annexations will qualify?

• Population requirement – Single annexation with population greater than 10,000

• Cost requirement – Projected annual costs to provide municipal services greater than projected annual general revenue

• Timing Requirement – Annexation must be commenced before January 1, 2015

Population of annexation area

• Between 10,000 and 20,000 ….. 0.1%

• More than 20,000 .................... 0.2%

What determines the tax rates?

• Time period – 10 years (or less, if there is no longer a “gap” for that annexation area)

• Effective date• July 1st – must start on July 1• After annexation is effective

• Threshold limitation – difference (“gap”) between costs and revenue

Are there limitations?

• The city determines the new threshold (“gap”) amount each year

• Threshold is based on the difference between the city’s cost to provide, maintain, and operate municipal services for the annexation area and the general revenue that the city would otherwise expect to receive from the annexation during a year

• New threshold is provided to the Department of Revenue by March 1st of each year (once the tax is imposed)

How is the threshold limitation determined?

• July 1st -- Annexation tax can only be imposed on July 1st of a year

• December 31, 2014 -- To qualify, a city must commence annexation of a qualifying area no later than December 31, 2014 (before January 1, 2015)

• Before June 1st (at least 30 days before effective date of tax) – Send DOR a copy of adopted ordinance/resolution imposing the annexation, including first “gap” amount

• March 1st of each year – Send DOR new “gap” amount for upcoming state fiscal year

Important dates

What cities have imposed the tax?

• Auburn

• Burien

• Kent

• Lake Stevens

• Marysville

• Renton

Resources

Statute: RCW 82.14.415

DOR’s Local Government Web page:

dor.wa.gov/localgovernment

DOR contacts

Tax Account Administration Division

• Andy Van Gerpen (360) 902-7172 (Annexation Services Tax Credit)

• Bob Petteys (360) 902-7065 (General Annexation Questions)

• James Petit (360) 902-7037

Legislation and Policy Division• Miki Gearhart (360) 570-6127

42

Diana Tibbetts, September 29, 2010

City-County Assistance

43

• Established by the Legislature in 2005. ESSB 6050 was adopted and can now be found in RCW 43.08.290.

• Legislation redirected a portion of REET collections to a city-county assistance account to provide financial assistance to cities and counties.

• Distributions are made quarterly (April, July, October and January).

• Each quarter the account is divided in half. Half is distributed to cities and half to counties.

• The very first distribution was on Oct 1, 2005 . Yearly certification or data revisions were done by March 1 each year and the first distribution of the 4-quarter cycle was on April 1.

City-County Assistance

44

• In 2009, SB 5511 made some changes to the program. The amendments:

• Simplified the administration of the program and added a review period to the yearly certification process.

• Changed the certification date from March 1 to October 1 beginning in 2009 which moved the first distribution of the 4-quarter cycle to January 1.

• Fiscal Year data replaced Calendar Year data to provide the most recent data available for the calculations.

• SST Mitigation payments are added to the distribution formulas.

• Descriptions of both bills are on DOR local government webpage http://dor.wa.gov/content/doingbusiness/localgovernment.aspx

Changes to City-County Assistance

http://dor.wa.gov/content/doingbusiness/localgovernment.aspx

2011 City-County Assistance Distributions

•Certification for 2011 distributions is finalized and posted to the local government webpage.

•Quarterly estimates are based on the September 2010 REET forecast; cities and counties will not receive their certified amounts in 2011.

•2009 and 2010 distributions included a $5 million per year budget appropriation. This was a temporary addition to REET collections for city-county assistance.

•Spreadsheets are updated for each quarterly distribution and the most current REET forecast.

50

51

Total City-County Assistance Distributed by Year

1 Quarter

Questions?

360-570-6085

[email protected]

52

53

BREAK

54

Hot Topics in Property Tax:- Ballot measures- Annexations, boundary changes, and overlapping districts- Rate limits

Alice Ostdiek, [email protected], 206-447-4663 Kathy Beith, [email protected], 360-570-5868

Diann Locke, [email protected], 360-570-5885

mailto:[email protected]



New Ballot Measure Guide

• Ballot Measure Requirements for Voted Property Tax Levies

Contents

–Part 1: Voted regular levies, the levy limit, levy lid lifts, and general obligation bonds for port districts

–Part 2: Excess levies and general obligation bonds

–Part 3: Seeking voter approval

–Part 4: List of voter approved levies by taxing district type

–Part 5: References

• On the DOR website:http://dor.wa.gov/content/getaformorpublication/publicationbysubject/propertytax/ballotmeasures/#

56

Timing Issues

•When does an annexation or boundary change begin affecting my levy?

•When does a newly formed taxing district begin

collecting a levy?

Outstanding Debt

•What about the taxes needed to repay bonds after an annexation or boundary change?

Annexations and Boundary Changes

57

Overlapping Taxing District Issues

•Levy Rate Limitations

–Individual

–Aggregate

•101% Levy Lid

–Application to new taxing districts

–Application / effect in annexations and new

district formation

Property Tax Limitations

58

Questions?

Hot Topics in Property Tax

WASHINGTON STATEECONOMIC AND REVENUE FORECAST COUNCIL

Economic and Revenue Forecast

Presented to Local Government Partnership Meeting

Eric SwensonSenior Economist

September 29, 2010Olympia, Washington

Eric Swenson


Slide 60WASHINGTON STATE ECONOMIC AND REVENUE FORECAST COUNCIL

Summary

• The economic outlook has weakened since June

– The recovery is expected to be painfully slow

– Historical data has been revised downward

– Risk of double-dip is higher, but unlikely

• Mostly due to the weaker economic outlook, revenue collections for the current and next biennia have been reduced by a total of $1.44 billion

Eric Swenson



The worst recession since WW II ended in June 2009

RecessionPeak-to-trough decline

Recession DurationReal GDP Employment

percent percent months

1948-49 1.6 5.0 111953-54 2.5 3.4 101957-58 3.1 4.2 81960-61 0.5 2.3 101969-70 0.2 1.2 111973-75 3.2 1.9 161980 2.2 2.3 61981-82 2.6 3.1 161990-91 1.4 1.4 82001 0.7 1.7 8Average 1.8 2.6 102007-09 4.1 6.1 18

Source: NBER, ERFC

Eric Swenson



GDP growth took off in 2009Q4 and 2010Q1 but then slowed

Source: BEA, data through 2010 Q2

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

20

05

$Percent growth, SAAR

Real GDP Real Consumer Spending

Eric Swenson



The historical savings rate was revised up sharply, affecting our forecast

The saving rate for 2010Q1 was revised from 3.1% of disposable income to 5.5%.

Source: ERFC September 2010 forecast; actual through 2010 Q2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Perc

en

tPersonal Saving Rate

ERFC - June ERFC - September

Eric Swenson



Recovery in household net worth stalled in 2010Q2

Source: Federal Reserve; data through 2010 Q2

$18 trillion of wealth was lost in this recession

$6 trillion has been recovered so far

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

1998 2001 2004 2007 2010

$Tri

llio

ns

Household Net Worth

Eric Swenson



Consumer confidence remains uncertain

Source: University of Michigan; Conference Board, data through September 2010

25

50

75

100

125

150

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

I ndex Mich: 1966Q1 = 100, SAConf Board: 1985 =100, SA

U Mich Conf Board

Eric Swenson



Private sector job growth in WA mirrors the national pattern – weak and hesitant

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

2008 2009 2010

Net change in jobs, 000

Source: WA ESD, ERFC; data through August 2010

-10

-5

0

5

10

Private Public

Eric Swenson



Credit conditions for small business are improving, but remain tight

Source: National Federation of Independent Business; data through August 2010

-18

-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Availability of LoansNet Percent ("Easier" minus "Harder"), 3mma

Eric Swenson



Corporate profits are back up above pre-recession levels

Source: BEA; data through 2010 Q2

IVA: Inventory valuation adjustment

CCA:Capital consumptionAdjustment

With IVA & CCA, implies profits from current production

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

$B

illi

ons

After Tax Corporate Profits, with IVA and CCA

Eric Swenson



ISM indices for both services and manufacturing indicate moderating growth

An index greater than 50, implies growth

Source: Institute of Supply Management; data through August 2010

Eric Swenson



WA building permits grew briefly from federal tax credits but remain low

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; data through August 2010

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Th

ou

san

ds

Washington Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits, 3MMA, SAAR

Multiple Single

Eric Swenson



Real estate activity is on slow upward trend despite credit-related swings

Source: ERFC; monthly data through August 2010

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

$B

illi

on

sSeasonally Adjusted Taxable Real Estate Excise Activity

Eric Swenson



This is WA’s worst downturn in non-residential construction in 30 years

Source: McGraw-Hill Construction, data through August, 2010

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009

Perc

en

tNon-Residential Contract Value

Annual Percent Change

Eric Swenson



Automotive sales are treading water, after recovering from trough

Source: Autodata Corporation, WA DOL; data through August 2010

Cash for Clunkers effect removed

0

6

12

18

24

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008

WA

New

Vehic

le R

egis

trati

ons,

Thousands, 3 M

MA

, SA

Mil

lion U

nit

s, SA

AR

US Light Trucks US Cars WA New Vehicle Registrations

Eric Swenson



WA export growth is slowing, but will help state outperform in the recovery

Source: Wiser Trade Data; through 2010 Q2

Exports excluding transport equipment were up 15.6% y-o-y in Q2

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

ExportsPercent Change, year ago

Total Total excluding Transportation Equipment

Eric Swenson



WA employment lagged the nation in the downturn and will recover at about the same rate as the nation

Source: ERFC September 2010 forecast; actual through August 2010

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Percent change, year ago

Washington U.S.

Eric Swenson



The recovery in WA personal income growth, however is expected to be modestly better than the nation’s

Source: ERFC September 2010 forecast; actual data through 2010Q2

-3

0

3

6

9

12

15

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Percent change, year ago

Washington U.S.

Eric Swenson



WA aerospace and software sectors are expected to add $4 billion in wages through 2013

Source: ESD, ERFC September 2010 forecast; actual data through 2010Q2

Through 2013, WA aerospace and software industries will contribute 14% of wage growth, although they represent just 5% of the workforce

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

$B

illi

on

sWages, SA

Software Aerospace

Eric Swenson



Revenue Act collections are now trending upward, and likely to continue

Source: DOR and ERFC; monthly data through July 2010 activity; September 2010 forecast

* Adjusted for large one-time transactions, current definition of Revenue Act

Adjusted receipts were up 3.2% year-over-year in the August 11 - September 10 collection period – for July activity.

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

$millions SA

Revenue Act Revenue 3-Month Moving Average

Forecast

Eric Swenson



Revenue growth relative to income will improve sharply due to 2010 legislation

The growth rate for FY 2011 is accelerated by legislative additions to B&O and retail sales taxes

Source: DOR and ERFC; data through 2010Q2 estimated, September 2010 forecast

*Current definition of Revenue Act, includes effects of 2010 legislation

Forecast

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011

Y/ Y growth in net Revenue Act collections* minus growth in state personal income

Eric Swenson



4.5%

5.0%

5.5%

6.0%

6.5%

7.0%

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

FY 2010 General Fund revenue as a share of state personal income was at its lowest level in recent history

Source: DOR and ERFC; FY data through FY 2010; September 2010 forecast

*Current definition of General Fund-State. Shaded area indicates forecast.

General Fund-State* Revenue as Percentage of State Personal IncomeGeneral Fund revenue as a share of personal income has been trending downward for years.

Revenue-enhancing legislation from the 2010 session will increase the General Fund share above the downward trend in FY 2012 and 2013

Eric Swenson



Taxable sales make up a declining share of state personal income

Source: DOR and ERFC; FY data through FY 2010; September 2010 forecast

*Past tax base adjusted to represent current base. Shaded area indicates forecast.

30%

40%

50%

60%

1969 1975 1981 1987 1993 1999 2005 2011

Taxable Retail Sales as Percentage of State Personal IncomeThe September forecast only brings sales as a percentage of income up to its declining trend line by FY 2013

Eric Swenson



General Fund* forecast by fiscal year

(9.6%)(4.1 %)

10.0%

Source: ERFC forecast, September 2010; includes impact of legislative changes

* General Fund & Related Funds for FY 07, 08, and 09

General Fund – new definition, for FY 10-13

8.4%

6.3%

GF-State

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013

USD billions

Forecast

8.0% 1.2%

Eric Swenson



Forecast changes: General Fund State, 2009-2011 Biennium

September ‘10 Forecast

Collection Experience

Non-economic Change

Forecast Change Forecast

Total Change*

Dept. of Revenue

($189) ($5) ($552) $27,055 ($747)

All other agencies

($2) $0 ($21) $1,457 ($23)

Total GF-S ($192) ($5) ($573) $28,512 ($770)

USD Millions

* Detail may not add to total due to rounding

June Forecast:

$29,282 million

USD millions

Eric Swenson



Forecast revisions to the 2009-11 biennium$Millions

Source: ERFC; data through September 2010 forecast. Current definition of General Fund-State

The September forecast is $1.62 billion (5.4%) lower than the March 2009 forecast, which was the basis for the initial 2009-11 budget.

27,000

29,000

31,000

33,000

35,000

Feb-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Feb-10 Sep-10

34,158

28,512

158267

1,417

2,185297

231

760 118

558

770

Eric Swenson



Forecast changes: General Fund State, 2011-2013 Biennium

September ‘10 Forecast

June 2010 Forecast

Non-economic Change

Forecast Change Forecast

Total Change*

Dept. of Revenue

$32,433 ($10) ($611) $31,812 ($621)

All other agencies

$1,650 $0 ($48) $1,602 ($48)

Total GF-S $34,083 ($10) ($659) $33,414 ($669)

USD Millions

* Detail may not add to total due to rounding

USD millions

Eric Swenson



2009-11 Biennium alternative forecasts – cash basis

2009-11Biennium

Difference From the baseline

September 2010 Baseline (65%) $28,512

September 2010 Alternative Forecasts

Optimistic (10%) $28,888 $375

Pessimistic (25%) $28,078 ($435)

Probability Weighted Average $28,441 ($71)

GCEA* $28,575 $33

*Based on the Governor’s Council of Economic Advisors’ assumptions

$Millions

Eric Swenson



2011-13 Biennium alternative forecasts – cash basis

20011-13Biennium

Difference From the baseline

September 2010 Baseline (90%) $33,414

September 2010 Alternative Forecasts

Optimistic (5%) $35,845 $2,430

Pessimistic (5%) $30,597 ($2,817)

Probability Weighted Average $33,395 ($19)

GCEA* $33,319 ($95)

*Based on the Governor’s Council of Economic Advisors’ assumptions

$Millions

Eric Swenson



Conclusion

• The forecast for the 2009-11 Biennium is $770 million lower and the forecast for the 2011-13 Biennium is $669 due to a weaker economic outlook

• The economic recovery is going to be a slow painful slog, and it is difficult to see what is likely to cause growth to accelerate

• Both the downside risk to the forecast, as well as the level of uncertainty in the baseline is significantly higher than in June

Eric Swenson



Questions

Economic & Revenue Forecast Council1025 E. Union Avenue, Suite 544Olympia WA 98504-0912

www.erfc.wa.gov360-570-6100

Brokered Natural GasGil Brewer, James Petit, Shelia Gall

90

91

Mark Bohe, September 29, 2010

Community Solar Projects on Municipal Buildings

Renewable Energy Incentive Payments

• WAC 458-20-273 (Rule 273) explains the cost recovery incentive program for renewable energy systems.

• The Department has amended Rule 273 to recognize ESSB 6170 (chapter 469, Laws of 2009) and ESSB 6658 (chapter 202, Laws of 2010).

92

What does this legislation do?

• Increases the annual payment limitations to customers;

• Increases the limitations on incentive payments made by participating light and power businesses;

• Changes the formula used to determine payment amounts based on “economic development kilowatt-hours;”

• Extends the incentive program to community solar projects;

• Creates three types of community solar projects;

• Sets limitations on total payments for community solar projects; and

• Sets capacity generating restrictions on systems in community solar projects.

93

WAC 458-20-273 Renewable Energy System Cost Recovery

• This section explains the renewable energy system cost recovery program provided in RCW 82.16.110 through 82.16.140.

• This program authorizes a customer investment cost recovery incentive payment (incentive payment) to help offset the costs associated with the purchase and use of renewable energy systems located in Washington state that produce electricity.

94

Qualified renewable energy systems include:

• Solar energy systems;

• Wind generators; and

• Certain types of anaerobic digesters that process manure from livestock into biogas and dried manure using microorganisms in a closed oxygen-free container, in which the biogas (such as methane) fuels a generator that creates electricity.

95

Who may participate in the program?

Any individual, business, local government, or participant in a qualifying community solar project that purchases and uses or supports such a system may apply for an incentive payment from the light and power business that serves the property.

96

"Community solar project" means any one of the three definitions, below:

First, a solar energy system located in Washington state that is capable of generating up to seventy-five kilowatts of electricity and is owned by local individuals, households, nonprofit organizations, or nonutility businesses that is placed on the property owned in fee simple by a cooperating local governmental entity that is not in the light and power business or in the gas distribution business.

97


(continued)

Second, a utility-owned solar energy system located in Washington state that is capable of generating up to seventy-five kilowatts of electricity and that is voluntarily funded by the utility's ratepayers where, in exchange for their financial support, the utility gives contributors a payment or credit on their utility bill for their share of the value of the electricity generated by the solar energy system.

98


(continued)

Third, a solar energy system located in Washington state, placed on the property owned in fee simple by a cooperating local governmental entity that is not in the light and power business or in the gas distribution business, that is capable of generating up to seventy-five kilowatts of electricity, and that is owned by a company whose members are each eligible for an investment cost recovery incentive payment for the same customer-generated electricity.

99

More on Company-Owned Community Solar Projects

• The cooperating local governmental entity that owns the property on which the solar energy system is located may also be a member of the company.

• A member may hold an interest in the company constituting ownership of either a portion of the solar energy system or a portion of the value of the electricity generated by the solar energy system, or both.

100

Community Solar Projects on Municipal Land

• For a community solar project requiring the cooperation of a local governmental entity, the cooperating local governmental entity must own in fee simple the real property on which the solar energy system is located to qualify as "customer-generated electricity."

• A leasehold interest held by a cooperating local governmental entity will not qualify.

101

Municipal Land Leased to Qualifying Participant

• However, for nonutility community solar projects,

• a solar energy system located on land owned in fee simple by a cooperating local governmental entity

• that is leased to local individuals, households, nonprofit organizations, nonutility businesses or companies

• will qualify as "customer-generated electricity.“

102

Questions?

Contact me, Mark Bohe, at:

•(360) 570-6133

•[email protected]

103


Closing RemarksMark Craig, Assistant Director

Legislation & Policy Division

104

Local Government Partnership Meeting September 29, 2010

Documents

Transcript of Local Government Partnership Meeting September 29, 2010