HB 1480
In CommitteeHouse
Affordable housing REET
Allowing all counties to impose a real estate excise tax for the purpose of developing affordable housing, subject to the will of the voters.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill lets every Washington county impose a 0.5% real estate excise tax to fund affordable housing, as long as voters approve it in an election. Revenue must be used only for building, buying, rehabilitating, or operating housing for low- and moderate-income residents and those with special needs.
- Allows all counties to impose a 0.5% real estate excise tax (REET) on property sales to fund affordable housing—subject to voter approval.
- Tax revenue must be used exclusively for developing or maintaining affordable housing for low-, moderate-, and very low-income households and people with special needs.
- Creates a dedicated affordable housing account in each county; funds are distributed through competitive grants and loans to eligible housing providers.
- Requires voter approval via ballot measure (initiated by county resolution or petition signed by 10% of recent voters) before the tax can take effect.
- Mandates a public spending plan, consultation with city officials, and at least one public hearing before the election—unless the tax is approved by petition, in which case the plan is due within six months of voter approval.
Who is affected
- Low-, moderate-, and very low-income households and individuals with special needs — Residents of Washington counties—especially those with low, moderate, or special needs incomes—who may benefit from new or expanded affordable housing programs funded by the tax.
- Homebuyers and sellers in counties that adopt the tax — May be required to pay up to 0.5% of the property’s sale price as part of real estate transactions, depending on county rules about who bears the tax obligation.
- Affordable housing developers (including private nonprofits, housing authorities, and public agencies) — Can apply for competitive grants or loans to develop or preserve affordable housing units, provided they meet eligibility criteria.
- County governments (especially county legislative authorities and auditors) — Must hold public hearings and create spending plans before voters approve the tax, and manage the tax revenue through a dedicated county account.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill creates a scalable, voter-approved mechanism for counties to raise dedicated revenue for affordable housing—targeting very low-, low-, and moderate-income households and people with special needs—potentially generating thousands of new units across the state over time.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)By requiring revenues to be placed in a dedicated county account and disbursed only through competitive grants/loans to eligible housing providers (including public agencies and nonprofits), the bill ensures transparency and prioritizes direct housing investment over general fund diversions.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)The voter-approval requirement—whether via county resolution or citizen-initiated petition—empowers local communities to decide whether to impose the tax, reinforcing democratic control over local housing policy.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)Mandating consultation with city officials and at least one public hearing before adoption encourages intergovernmental coordination and community input, potentially improving program design and reducing opposition.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)By funding housing for people with special needs—including those experiencing homelessness, mental health conditions, or substance use disorders—the bill may reduce emergency service calls, jail bookings, and ER visits tied to unsheltered homelessness.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)
Potential Concerns (5)
Homebuyers and sellers in counties that adopt the tax may be required to pay up to 0.5% of the property’s sale price—potentially $5,000 on a $1M home—increasing transaction costs at a time when housing affordability is already strained.
FinancialRef: Sec. 1(3)While the bill creates competitive grant/loan processes for housing providers, the requirement for competitive applications and county-determined eligibility criteria may disproportionately burden small, local nonprofits and community-based housing organizations with limited administrative capacity—potentially favoring larger, more experienced regional or national providers.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2) & (3)Counties must hold public hearings, create spending plans, and consult with cities before voter approval—adding administrative burdens and potential delays, especially for smaller counties with limited staff and resources.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a) & (5)The 0.5% tax is capped and dedicated solely to affordable housing, but the bill does not require matching funds, cost-benefit analysis, or performance metrics—raising concerns about whether new units will be delivered efficiently or at scale relative to need.
HousingRef: Sec. 1(1)The tax is imposed on both buyer and seller, with at least half the obligation on the buyer—potentially distorting housing market behavior (e.g., sellers absorbing the tax via lower asking prices, or buyers walking away), especially in tight or declining markets.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and moderate-income households stand to benefit significantly if new units are built—reducing rent burden, improving housing stability, and increasing access to safe, stable homes. However, benefits depend on whether units are actually delivered at scale and in high-opportunity areas.
Sellers and buyers in counties that adopt the tax face an additional cost—potentially reducing net proceeds for sellers or increasing effective purchase price for buyers. However, in high-demand markets, the tax may be partially absorbed by sellers or reflected in lower list prices.
Larger, well-resourced housing developers (e.g., national nonprofits, housing authorities) are well-positioned to compete for grants; smaller local nonprofits may struggle with application complexity, potentially limiting their access to funding despite deeper community ties.
Counties gain a new revenue tool but must invest staff time in planning, hearings, and administration. Smaller counties may face disproportionate burdens relative to revenue potential, while larger counties (e.g., King, Snohomish) are more likely to see net positive returns.
Local cities may benefit from increased housing supply and reduced strain on emergency services, but may also face pressure to coordinate with counties and potentially cede some local control over land use or zoning to enable housing development.