HB 1498 creates a domestic violence co-responder grant program in Washington state and establishes a dedicated account in the state treasury to receive related fee revenue. The program is administered by the Office of Crime Victims Advocacy and is intended to award matching grants to cities and counties to start or operate co-responder programs, provide technical assistance and training through an experienced service provider, and help grantees bill health insurance for co-responder services. The bill defines co-responder programs as those using domestic violence victim advocates who are summoned by law enforcement to domestic violence scenes and who provide whole-family support, resource connection, and care navigation for victims.
The bill also amends court fee and recording-fee statutes to generate funding for the new account and related victim-services purposes. It reworks portions of RCW fee schedules for county auditors/recording officers, including fees for recording instruments, copies, acknowledgments, marriage licenses, plats, and other recording services, and directs a specified additional fee from marriage licenses into the domestic violence co-responder account. The legislation states that money in the new account may be spent only after appropriation and only for the grant program and, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026, other domestic violence programs and services.
Overall, the bill’s impact is to create a new state grant and funding structure for local domestic violence response services while adjusting existing fee statutes to support it. It affects state treasury accounting, the Office of Crime Victims Advocacy, county recording offices, and local governments that may apply for grants. It also links the program to insurance billing support, suggesting an effort to make co-responder services more financially sustainable.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history appears favorable, with the bill advancing through both chambers by comfortable margins. It passed the House Appropriations Committee 25-2, the House floor 67-29, the Senate Ways & Means Committee 14-1, the Senate floor 38-10, and the House concurrence vote 70-28. The absence of committee transcripts limits direct insight into debate, but the recorded votes suggest broad support with a meaningful minority of opposition.
The main points of contention likely centered on the use of fee increases and the creation of a new dedicated account, as well as the scope of state involvement in local domestic violence response programs. Opposition may also have reflected concerns about expanding fees on recording and marriage-related transactions, or about whether the grant program and associated administrative structure were the best way to fund victim services. Supporters, by contrast, appear to have favored expanding coordinated domestic violence response, local grant funding, and technical assistance for victim-centered services.
The bill amends Washington fee statutes and chapter 43.24 RCW-related provisions to create a domestic violence co-responder account in the state treasury, redirect certain fee revenue into that account, and authorize appropriations for a new grant program administered by the Office of Crime Victims Advocacy. It affects county auditors and recording officers by revising recording-related fees and affects applicants such as cities and counties that may receive matching grants for domestic violence co-responder programs. It also establishes a funding mechanism for domestic violence services and related administrative support, including insurance billing assistance.
The bill appears to have enjoyed generally favorable support in both chambers, as shown by repeated majority votes at committee and floor stages. The margins were solid but not unanimous, indicating bipartisan backing with some reservations. The lack of transcript material prevents a detailed read on floor debate, but the vote pattern suggests the bill was viewed as a significant domestic violence services measure rather than a highly divisive one.
Likely areas of contention were the new and revised fees used to finance the program, especially the additional charges tied to recording services and marriage licenses, and the creation of a dedicated state account. Some legislators may have questioned whether the state should expand fee-based funding for local co-responder programs or whether the Office of Crime Victims Advocacy should administer the grants. The opposition reflected in floor votes suggests concerns about cost, fee burden, or program design, while supporters likely emphasized victim safety, local flexibility, and improved domestic violence response.