SHB 1758
In CommitteeHouse
Aquatic land lease inflation
Calculating the inflation rate for aquatic land leases.
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 changes how lease rent increases are calculated for state-owned aquatic lands—like marinas and moorage facilities—by switching the inflation metric from an older commodity-based index to the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue consumer price index (CPI-U), a widely used measure of regional inflation. It ensures more consistent and transparent rent adjustments tied to actual consumer price changes in the Puget Sound area.
- Amends the definition of 'inflation rate' in RCW 79.105.060 to use the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue consumer price index, all urban consumers (CPI-U), published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, instead of the previous 'all commodity producer price index.'
- Requires the Department of Natural Resources to use the CPI-U to calculate annual rent increases for aquatic land leases, ensuring consistency with national inflation tracking methods.
- If the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue CPI-U ceases to be published, the Department may adopt a comparable substitute index by rule.
- Clarifies that this inflation metric applies across chapters 79.105 through 79.145 RCW, affecting lease renewals and rent adjustments for state-owned aquatic lands.
Who is affected
- Aquatic land leaseholders — Leaseholders of state-owned aquatic lands (e.g., marinas, moorage facilities, aquaculture operations) will have their annual lease rent adjustments tied to a more standardized inflation measure—the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue CPI-U—instead of the previous 'all commodity producer price index.'
- State agencies (e.g., Department of Natural Resources) — State agencies managing aquatic lands (especially the Department of Natural Resources) will use a consistent, federally published inflation metric to calculate rent increases, improving transparency and predictability in lease renewals.
- Marina and floating home operators — Marina operators and floating home owners may see more predictable rent changes each year, depending on regional inflation trends in the Puget Sound area.
- Port districts and local governments — Local governments and port districts that lease or manage aquatic lands may experience more stable and transparent rent adjustments, aiding long-term budget planning.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (3)
Leaseholders—including floating home residents and small marina operators—will benefit from more predictable, transparent, and standardized rent adjustments tied to actual regional consumer inflation, reducing the risk of arbitrary or politically motivated rent hikes under the prior commodity-based index.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1, amending RCW 79.105.060(7)Small and medium-sized aquatic businesses (e.g., marinas, aquaculture operations) gain long-term planning certainty, which can improve access to financing and reduce operational risk—especially when compared to the volatile, commodity-driven index that sometimes diverged sharply from actual business costs.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1, amending RCW 79.105.060(7)State agencies and port districts benefit from a more consistent, federally published metric for rent calculations, reducing administrative burden and legal uncertainty—though this does not directly improve public services or outcomes for residents.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1, amending RCW 79.105.060(7)
Potential Concerns (3)
Rent increases for marina and moorage leaseholders—including floating home owners—will now be tied to the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue CPI-U, which has historically outpaced national averages and may rise faster than income growth, increasing housing cost burdens for long-term, low-to-moderate-income residents who rely on long-term leases at fixed rates.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1, amending RCW 79.105.060(7)Small marina operators and aquaculture leaseholders may face unpredictable rent spikes if regional inflation surges (e.g., during supply chain disruptions or housing shortages), potentially forcing closures or consolidation—especially for operations with thin margins or limited ability to pass costs to customers.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1, amending RCW 79.105.060(7)Port districts and local governments that lease or manage aquatic lands may lose flexibility to adjust rents based on local economic conditions (e.g., downturns in fishing or tourism), potentially constraining their ability to fund critical infrastructure maintenance or community programs.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1, amending RCW 79.105.060(7)
Who Is Most Affected
Floating home residents—many of whom are retirees or low-to-moderate income—may face higher housing costs if CPI-U rises faster than their incomes, but gain protection against arbitrary rent spikes. Net negative impact for vulnerable populations.
Small marina and moorage operators benefit from predictable rent escalations and improved lease stability, but may struggle if regional inflation spikes unexpectedly—especially if they cannot raise service fees proportionally. Net positive for most small operators.
Large marina chains or corporate operators may benefit more than small operators due to greater pricing power and economies of scale, allowing them to absorb or pass on rent increases more easily. Net positive for concentrated interests.
Port districts gain administrative simplicity and transparency, but lose discretion to tailor rent adjustments to local economic conditions—potentially limiting revenue during downturns. Mixed impact depending on regional economic health.
State agencies (e.g., DNR) benefit from reduced legal and administrative risk, but this change does not directly improve public services or outcomes for everyday Washingtonians. Neutral impact.