AN ACT Relating to modifying certain funding and exemptions related to providing and maintaining affordable housing and related services;
SB 6027 revises Washington’s local funding tools for affordable housing and related services. The bill expands and modifies authority for counties and cities to impose local sales and use taxes, with voter approval in some cases and direct legislative action in others, to fund affordable housing, behavioral health-related facilities, housing-related services, rental assistance, and homelessness programs. It also creates detailed rules for how participating jurisdictions may structure the tax, including timing, rate limits, interlocal agreements, reporting requirements, and a 20-year expiration for the tax authority.
The bill also updates several tax exemptions and surcharges tied to housing and homelessness programs. It exempts certain nonprofit-owned emergency, transitional, and recovery housing property from property taxation, and it adjusts document recording fee surcharges that support the home security fund, affordable housing account, and landlord mitigation program account. Revenue from these sources is directed to specific state accounts and local uses, with limits on administrative costs and requirements that funds be used for eligible housing, shelter, supportive services, and rental assistance activities.
The bill amends multiple sections of Washington law, including RCW provisions governing local sales and use taxes, property tax exemptions for nonprofit housing providers, and document recording fee surcharges. It gives counties and cities broader and more detailed authority to levy dedicated taxes for affordable housing and homelessness-related purposes, while also imposing eligibility, reporting, and spending restrictions. State agencies, especially the Department of Commerce, receive new or expanded responsibilities to administer grant programs, distribute funds, and report on the use of revenues.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable but not unanimous support. It advanced through Senate and House committees with solid majorities and passed both chambers, though floor votes show meaningful opposition, especially in the House. The pattern suggests broad agreement on the need for more affordable housing and homelessness funding, alongside concerns about the scope, structure, and local tax authority created by the measure.
The main points of contention appear to be the expansion of local taxing authority, the use of sales and use taxes and recording fee surcharges, and the degree of state oversight versus local discretion. Some lawmakers likely objected to the new or broadened tax burdens and the complexity of the funding structure, while supporters emphasized dedicated revenue for affordable housing, supportive services, and homelessness response. The bill’s detailed allocation rules, income targeting, and interlocal coordination requirements also suggest concern about ensuring funds are used for intended purposes and that cities and counties share revenues fairly.