Coming into the 2019 session, AWC knew there would be a heightened focus on housing issues. Housing costs and lack of supply across the state had reached a critical level. A growing number of legislators were determined to make progress on the issue. After making significant strides on homelessness funding the previous session, we expected that the Legislature would turn their attention to housing on a broader scale. Large coalitions formed around the general concept of increasing supply—with the Washington REALTORS and Master Builders joining forces with elements of the non-profit housing community to urge the Legislature to increase supply, even by usurping local land use control if necessary. Meanwhile, AWC and others were gearing up for another push for an historic state and local revenue sharing proposal that died just short of the finish line last year (HB 1406).

We approached the session with a plan to be very engaged and supportive of efforts that would truly result in more affordable housing being built in our communities. Critical to that plan included to assertively educating legislators about where cities could play a role in helping bring affordable housing to reality, and to correct myths out there that city regulatory decisions were a major constraining factor.

On the policy front, we saw more bills on housing issues this year than in recent memory. And the range of ideas was considerable: tiny homes, mandatory density, plat processing timelines, accessory dwelling units, urban density, and condo liability reform were areas where we were most engaged. Reforms to the state’s complex liability statutes for condo developers was a critical priority for some cities and was a surprisingly smooth process that never hit any major stumbling blocks. On the key issue of local control this session, we found a solid bedrock of support for the premise that these were complex issues and local decision-making needed to be preserved. The mandatory density proposals died off quickly; and while the ADU and density bills (SB 5812 and HB 1923) at various points contained troubling mandates, neither chamber ultimately passed preemptory versions of those bills. With the help of city planning staff who went above and beyond in reviewing countless iterations of these bills, we were able to successfully show the Legislature the depth of effort that cities were already undertaking – as well as the inherently local and complex nature of the development market.

Regarding resources, it was a very successful session. As mentioned above, HB 1406’s passage represents a landmark investment from the state in local housing needs. All told, over a twenty-year commitment, the state will be sharing over $500 million with local governments, with broad latitude on how it can be invested – so long as it serves people making less than 60% of Area Median Income. The Legislature also made a $175 million investment in the Housing Trust Fund and authorized local governments to use REET revenues for housing. Unfortunately, we were not able to convince the House to extend to the smallest cities the ability to use the multifamily tax exemption program to incentivize apartment construction. While that was a disappointment, overall this was a very successful year on housing issues for cities.

The conversation on homelessness was a little less intense than in the last few years. There was a brief flurry of activity and concern as the House took up a “homeless bill of rights” that would have created a new cause of action for homeless individuals to sue the police for harassment or pestering, and created a new right to camp in public if other accommodations were not available. Although the bill advanced out of its policy committee, it did not move any further. We expect that there will be future conversations on this proposal.

A long running debate about the rights of religious institutions to host the homeless and the rights of cities to regulate those encampments was re-engaged this year. While there was progress towards an agreement that allowed grandfathering for cities who had related ordinances in place, a dispute about the rights of fire officials to require sprinklers in facilities that host encampments ultimately lead to the bill dying in the House. This perennial issue will likely come forward again.

City priorities – Outcomes

PRO – Invested $175 million in the Housing Trust Fund, a significant increase from the previous biennium for this critical housing program.

PRO – Created a $26 million annual local government revenue sharing tool (HB 1406).

PRO – Passed HB 1923, a voluntary and incentive-based proposal to promote urban density and infill.

PRO – Extended local authority to use REET for affordable housing (HB 1219).

PRO – Passed SB 5334, condominium liability reform to remove barriers to this housing option.

PRO – Funded a study of shared housing opportunities.

CON – Failed to pass a $1.5 million annual sales tax reinvestment program for multifamily housing (HB 1938).

CON – Failed to authorize smaller cities to use the multifamily tax exemption program (SB 5366).

Affordable housing bills

Homelessness & human services bills