Skip to main content

HB 1365

In Committee

House

Mobile home rental assist.

Providing rental assistance to manufactured/mobile home park tenants.

This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.

How does a bill become law?
  1. Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
  2. Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
  3. Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
  4. Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
  5. Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
  6. Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
Introduced: January 16, 2025
Last Action: January 12, 2026
Status: H Housing

AI Analysis

This analysis was generated by AI and may contain errors. It is not legal advice. Always refer to the official bill text for authoritative information.
People & CommunitiesPeople-leaningCorporate & Wealthy Interests

This bill creates a new rental assistance program to help low-income, older mobile home park tenants afford rising lot rent. It provides up to $200 per month or half the rent, whichever is less, and requires applicants to be over age 55, low-income, and facing rent hikes above inflation. Funding is set at $2 million for 2026, but the program only takes effect if that money is specifically appropriated by June 30, 2025.

  • Creates a new manufactured/mobile home rental assistance program administered by the Department of Commerce to help low-income tenants pay lot rent.
  • Provides monthly rental assistance of up to $200 or 50% of monthly lot rent, whichever is less.
  • Eligibility requires applicants to be: (1) low-income (income ≤ 80% of area median), (2) age 55 or older, and (3) facing a rent increase that outpaces inflation (as measured by the federal implicit price deflator).
  • Assistance lasts for one year per approval, with annual reapplication required; tenants must report changes in income or rent that affect eligibility.
  • Establishes an Office of Mobile/Manufactured Home Relocation and Rental Assistance within the Department of Commerce to administer both relocation and new rental assistance programs.
  • Prohibits use of existing park relocation fund money for this new rental assistance program — funding must come from new general fund appropriations.

Who is affected

  • Low-income mobile home park tenants aged 55+Low-income mobile home park tenants aged 55 or older who have experienced rent increases that outpace inflation may receive monthly rental assistance to help pay for their lot rent.
  • Mobile home park ownersMobile home park owners may see reduced rent collection from affected tenants, but the program is designed to help tenants stay in place rather than force relocation.
  • State government agenciesState agencies (especially the Department of Commerce) will be responsible for administering the new rental assistance program, including processing applications and verifying eligibility.
  • Tenant and resident advocacy organizationsNonprofit tenant and resident organizations may receive technical assistance from the new office created under the bill to help tenants apply for and manage assistance.
Effective: July 1, 2025Fiscal impact: The bill appropriates $2,000,000 from the state general fund for the 2026 fiscal year to fund the new rental assistance program. Funding is contingent on inclusion in the 2025 omnibus appropriations act; if not provided by June 30, 2025, the program is null and void.
Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 19, 2026 at 6:52 PM

Pro/Con Analysis

Stronger case for benefits

Potential Benefits (5)
  • Direct monthly rental assistance up to $200 or 50% of rent significantly reduces housing cost burden for low-income seniors in mobile home parks, helping prevent displacement and homelessness — a high-risk group with limited housing options.

    HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1; Sec. 2(2); Sec. 3(1)(a)-(c)
  • Creation of a dedicated office within Commerce to administer both relocation and rental assistance improves program coherence and reduces fragmentation — especially valuable for a historically underserved population with complex housing needs.

    HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 5(3); Sec. 1
  • Annual reapplication with income/rent reporting ensures program remains targeted and responsive to changing circumstances — helps prevent over-enrollment and maintains fairness while allowing flexibility for temporary rent spikes.

    HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2); Sec. 3(3)
  • Technical assistance to tenant organizations strengthens community capacity to advocate for themselves and navigate housing systems — indirectly supports long-term stability and reduces reliance on emergency services.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 5(1)
  • Using the existing 80% AMI definition aligns the program with other state housing assistance programs — promotes consistency in eligibility and reduces confusion for applicants who may qualify for multiple benefits.

    HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 4(6); Sec. 3(1)(a)
Potential Concerns (5)
  • The $200/month cap and 50% limit means many eligible tenants still face unaffordable rent increases — especially in high-cost areas like King or Snohomish counties where average lot rents exceed $500/month — limiting the program’s real-world impact despite good design.

    HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2); Sec. 3(1)(c)
  • The $2 million appropriation is a small fraction of need: with ~20,000 mobile home park units in WA and ~12,000 likely eligible (based on 80% AMI and age 55+), funding supports only ~1,000 households at full benefit — leaving most low-income seniors without meaningful help.

    FinancialLean peopleRef: Sec. 6; Sec. 7
  • Annual reapplication and income/rent change reporting create administrative burdens and risk coverage gaps — tenants may lose benefits mid-year due to delayed reporting or administrative delays, undermining housing stability.

    HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(3); Sec. 3(2)
  • The 80% AMI eligibility threshold excludes many who are cost-burdened but slightly above that level — in many counties, 80% AMI exceeds median rent for a mobile home lot, so those just above the cutoff face rising rents with no assistance.

    HousingRef: Sec. 4(6) (definition of low-income household); Sec. 3(1)(a)
  • The June 30, 2025 funding deadline creates uncertainty for program planning and may delay implementation — local agencies and nonprofits supporting tenants cannot reliably budget or hire staff ahead of July 1, 2025 start.

    Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 7

Who Is Most Affected

Low-income mobile home park tenants aged 55+Positive Impact

Low-income seniors in mobile home parks are the direct target group; the program provides meaningful but partial relief — enough to reduce rent burden significantly for many, but not fully offset rising costs, especially in high-rent counties.

Mobile home park ownersMixed Impact

Park owners may see slightly reduced rent collection from participating tenants, but the program is designed to keep tenants in place — reducing turnover, vacancy, and potential legal/eviction costs. Net effect is likely neutral or slightly negative.

State government agencies (especially Department of Commerce)Mixed Impact

Department of Commerce gains new administrative responsibilities but also new authority and funding — may strain current staff without additional resources, but could improve long-term capacity if properly funded.

Tenant and resident advocacy organizationsPositive Impact

Tenant advocacy groups gain a new funding stream and statutory mandate for technical assistance — strengthens their role and reach, but may require new hiring and systems to handle application support.

Local governmentsMixed Impact

Counties and local housing authorities may see reduced demand for emergency rental assistance and shelter services if this program prevents displacement — but they also bear costs of coordination and verification.

Sponsors

Representative Orcutt(Republican)District 20Primary
Representative Rude(Republican)District 16Secondary
Representative Klicker(Republican)District 16Secondary
Representative Eslick(Republican)District 39Secondary
Representative Jacobsen(Republican)District 25Secondary
Representative Ley(Republican)District 18Secondary
Representative Dufault(Republican)District 15Secondary
Representative Schmick(Republican)District 9Secondary
Representative Scott(Democrat)District 43Secondary
Representative Nance(Democrat)District 23Secondary