2025 City Legislative Priorities – Outcomes
Cities and towns are home to 65% of Washington’s residents, drive the state’s economy, and provide the most accessible form of government. The success of our cities and towns depends on adequate resources and community-based decision-making to best meet the unique needs of our communities.
The 2025 legislative session addressed many of AWC’s priorities. Here are some selected pros and cons for cities.
|
|
Fiscal sustainability
Revise the property tax cap to tie it to inflation, up to 3%, so local elected officials can adjust the property tax rate to better serve their communities. Maintain state-shared revenues and provide additional funding tools.
Pro: Maintained state-shared revenues for cities in the final budget.
Con: Did not revise the outdated property tax cap.
|
|
|
Behavioral health treatment capacity
Expand funding for grants to establish and support ongoing funding for local behavioral health crisis co-responder programs. Support continued expansion of continuum of treatment capacity, from crisis stabilization to inpatient to outpatient and continued expansion of forensic behavioral health treatment capacity.
Pro: Provided $4 million in grants to fund start-up costs for city co-response programs.
Pro: Passed HB 1811 to develop training for co-response training academy and provide supports for co-responders.
|
|
|
Housing supply
Dedicate current funding and explore new funding options to address needs across the housing continuum, including home ownership, senior, workforce, affordable, and permanent supportive housing.
Pro: Significant capital budget investments in housing and homelessness, including continued funding of Connecting Housing to Infrastructure Program (CHIP) and investments in manufactured home park acquisition and preservation.
Con: Did not pass local option short-term rental tax (SB 5576) or dedicate revenues from closing the storage tax loophole to housing (HB 1907/ SB 5711).
|
|
|
Public safety
Provide more resources and tools to cities and towns to address public safety and criminal justice challenges.
Pro: Passed HB 2015 creating a new state grant program and new councilmanic local sales tax option for funding public safety programs. Legislature budgeted $100 million to fund grants.
Pro: Increased funding to cities for public defense by $2.7 million in Office of Public Defense (OPD) grants in addition to $900,000 in existing grants.
Con: Maintained 25% cost shift to local governments for the cost of the Basic Law Enforcement Academy.
Con: Did not pass HB 1428, which would have increased direct Municipal Criminal Justice Assistance Account distributions by $25 million per biennium.
|
|
|
Infrastructure investment
Protect and expand direct and meaningful investments in traditional local infrastructure for needed expansion and ongoing operations and maintenance of aging systems, including reliable funding for the crucial Public Works Assistance Account. Support sustainable state transportation revenue that includes funding for local preservation, maintenance, and operations.
Pro: Maintained the Public Works Assistance Account’s dedicated funding streams into the future.
Pro: Dedicated 2.5% of the 6-cent gas tax increase to cities; the 6-cent add-on will grow by 2% annually to account for inflation.
Con: Diverted $288 million from the Public Works Assistance Account to the state general fund, with $100 million in bond backfill for infrastructure investment.
Con: Did not adopt a sustainable transportation revenue source with funding for local preservation, maintenance, and operations.
|
Other significant city issues
Cities identified several other significant policies to work on during the 2025 session.
Pro: Passed an implementable version of the lot-splitting bill (HB 1096) and unit lot subdivision bill (SB 5559).
Pro: Addressed condominium insurance issues (HB 1403).
Pro: Harmonized uses of local real estate excises taxes (REET), and extended authority for operations and maintenance and housing (HB 1791).
Pro: Adopted the Recycling Reform Act, creating extended producer responsibility for packaging (SB 5284).
Pro: Dedicated $32.5 million to the Brian Abbott Fish Barrier Removal Board for local culvert corrections.
Pro: Created expanded alcohol service areas allowing cities and towns to establish ‘Libation Zones’ in their communities (HB 1515).
Pro: Extended clean energy retrofit dollars dedicated to grants for energy audits of city-owned Tier 1 and 2 buildings into FY 2026.
Pro: Stopped proposal to introduce new vague requirements on city ordinances dealing with camping in public (HB 1380).
Con: Restricted city authority to regulate parking (SB 5184).
Con: Adopted unemployment benefits for striking workers without addressing impacts for public employers (SB 5041).
AWC’s advocacy is guided by the following core principles from our Statement of Policy:
- Community-based decision-making
- Strong collaborative partnerships
- Resources for resilience and sustainability
- Equity and opportunity
- Nonpartisan analysis and decision-making
Legislative priority process
The AWC Legislative Priorities Committee meets multiple times per year to identify and recommend to the AWC Board of Directors which city issues should be legislative priorities. The committee comprises approximately 25 city officials from throughout the state. The AWC Board of Directors adopts the next year's legislative priorities at its fall meeting.
Federal priorities
The AWC Federal Legislative Priorities Committee is responsible for developing AWC’s federal priorities to recommend to the AWC Board of Directors. The health and vitality of local economies are critical to a robust and dynamic national economy. Federal fiscal policies should enhance the ability of local elected officials to respond to needs at the local level.
Visit AWC's federal legislative priorities webpage and check out our federal fact sheets.
Other significant city issues
In addition to the adopted priorities above, the AWC Board of Directors adopted a full slate of issues in the full AWC 2025 Legislative Agenda for the 2025 legislative session. The list includes issues that are significant to cities as well as those that cities are supporting and monitoring.