Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel approves permissive county excise tax option to fund local economic development
Summary
The committee approved a committee substitute for Senate Bill 546, a permissive measure allowing county commissions to enact an additional excise transfer tax (up to a statutory maximum) to fund economic development authority operations and projects; testimony emphasized the benefit for rural counties and that the measure is discretionary.
Senate Bill 546 would permit county commissions to impose an additional county excise tax on real‑estate transfers to fund economic development authority operations, programs or activities. Counsel told the committee that counties already collect a $1.10 per $500 excise tax that is retained locally and that some counties with farmland protection programs impose an additional excise for easement purchases; SB546 would create a permissive option for counties to adopt an additional excise for economic development purposes.
Senator Sarah Morse, who described herself as a county economic‑development director, told the committee counties seek stable funding for recruitment, retention, industrial park development, infrastructure (water, sewer, broadband) and workforce development. “It was thought if a county chooses to do so, this is permissive, it’s not required,” Morse said. She and David Leving of the West Virginia Economic Development Council said the proposal is targeted at counties that currently lack a reliable local funding stream; Leving said some rural counties would see the most benefit.
Committee counsel and members discussed the mechanics and incidence of the transferstamp tax; counsel said transfer stamps are an excise generally assessed on conveyance and that the seller typically pays the transfer stamps under standard contracts, although that practice is negotiable. One senator opposed the bill on principle, citing a pledge not to increase fees or taxes and raising concerns about placing additional closing‑time costs on property sellers, especially residents on fixed incomes.
The committee adopted a committee substitute to clarify language, voted to report the substitute to the full Senate with the recommendation that it do pass, and referred the substitute to the Committee on Finance under the original double committee reference.
