HB 1810
In CommitteeHouse
Seismic hazard risk, reduce
Concerning seismic hazard risk reduction.
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 addresses Washington’s high earthquake risk by focusing on unreinforced masonry buildings—older, brick structures vulnerable to collapse. It creates two studies: one to identify financial tools (like tax breaks) to help owners afford seismic upgrades, and another to complete a full statewide inventory of such buildings for planning and emergency response.
- Directs the Department of Commerce to study and recommend financial incentives (e.g., tax changes, special assessments) to help building owners afford seismic retrofits of unreinforced masonry buildings.
- Requires the Emergency Management Division of the Washington Military Department to complete a statewide inventory of unreinforced masonry buildings using existing data (e.g., Sanborn maps, historic records) and ground verification, and share the data via the WSAAR (Washington System for Architectural and Archaeological Records) portal.
- Mandates reporting of findings to the legislature: a preliminary report by June 30, 2026, and a final report by September 1, 2026 for the incentive study; and a progress report by September 1, 2027, with full inventory due by June 30, 2030.
- Includes specific policy areas for analysis: modifying the special valuation tax, expanding current use taxation, exploring tax exemptions, and identifying incentives for tax-exempt entities (e.g., schools, nonprofits).
- Requires consultation with key stakeholders including the State Association of County Assessors, American Institute of Architects – Washington Chapter, Structural Engineers Association of Washington, Department of Revenue, and Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee.
Who is affected
- Building owners (especially of older commercial and residential structures) — Owners of unreinforced masonry buildings (typically older, red brick structures built before WWII) may face new requirements or opportunities for financial support to conduct seismic retrofits, with potential relief through tax incentives or grants.
- Local jurisdictions and emergency management agencies — Local governments and emergency management agencies will gain access to a statewide inventory of vulnerable buildings to better plan for earthquake response and mitigation.
- Tenants in older buildings — Tenants in buildings undergoing seismic retrofits may benefit from increased building safety and reduced risk of displacement if financial support helps offset rent increases tied to retrofit costs.
- Tax-exempt organizations — Tax-exempt entities like schools, nonprofits, and religious organizations may become eligible for new financial incentives to retrofit their own unreinforced masonry buildings.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill’s core purpose—reducing risk of collapse in earthquake-prone buildings—directly benefits everyday Washingtonians by potentially preventing mass casualties and displacement in a major seismic event; the focus on financial tools (e.g., special valuation, assessments) could make retrofits feasible for middle- and low-income owners if implemented well.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (preamble), Sec. 2(2)(a)-(d)By exploring financial mechanisms to reduce retrofit costs, the bill aims to prevent displacement of tenants in older buildings, especially in tight rental markets like Seattle and Spokane—though not guaranteed, the intent to preserve affordable housing stock aligns with everyday residents’ interests in stable, safe housing.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (preamble), Sec. 2(2)(e)Uploading data into the WSAAR portal enables local emergency managers and first responders to identify high-risk buildings ahead of a disaster, improving targeted evacuation and rescue planning—this is a low-cost, high-impact preparatory step that enhances community resilience.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(c)Mandating consultation with county assessors, architects, engineers, and state agencies ensures the financial incentive study is technically sound and regionally aware, reducing the risk of poorly designed policies that could backfire (e.g., incentives that only benefit urban areas or large developers).
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)Protecting schools and universities (as tax-exempt entities included in the scope) from collapse reduces risk to students and staff, and avoids long-term disruption to education infrastructure—though the bill only studies incentives, the potential downstream benefit to public education is significant.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (preamble)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill explores tax exemptions and reductions (e.g., property, excise, sales, B&O taxes) to offset retrofit costs for building owners—these incentives are likely to disproportionately benefit wealthier owners of commercial properties or high-value residential buildings, as low-income owners rarely pay enough in these taxes to benefit meaningfully; the state’s revenue loss could reduce funding for public services that everyday Washingtonians rely on.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(c)The bill directs analysis of financial incentives for tax-exempt entities (e.g., schools, nonprofits), but since these organizations do not operate for profit and typically lack capital reserves, the practical benefit to everyday people is limited unless the incentives directly reduce service costs or prevent closures—however, the bill does not mandate implementation, only study and reporting.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(2)(e)Creating a statewide inventory of unreinforced masonry buildings improves emergency planning and response coordination, but the benefit is indirect and delayed—only realized if and when the data is used to prioritize retrofits or allocate future funding, and the bill does not require or fund implementation of retrofits.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 3(1)Local jurisdictions gain access to standardized data via WSAAR, but the bill explicitly states that local governments have been unable to mandate retrofits due to affordability concerns, and this bill does not override that constraint or provide enforcement authority—so the data alone does not change local regulatory power.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(4)The bill’s expiration dates (2026 and 2030) mean the studies and inventory are temporary and non-binding; without subsequent legislation to act on the findings, the bill may produce only administrative overhead with no tangible outcomes for Washingtonians.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(5), Sec. 3(4)
Who Is Most Affected
Building owners—especially of older commercial structures—may benefit from future tax incentives or assessment financing, but only if they have the capacity to pursue retrofits (i.e., those with equity, access to capital, or rental income). Low-income residential owners or those in distressed markets may still be unable to afford upgrades despite incentives.
Local jurisdictions gain a critical data tool for hazard planning and emergency response, but lack enforcement authority under this bill; they may use the inventory to prioritize future grants or zoning changes, but cannot mandate retrofits without additional legislation.
Tenants in older buildings stand to benefit from reduced risk of injury or death in a quake and potentially lower displacement risk—if retrofits are paired with rent stabilization or tenant assistance. However, if incentives primarily help owners raise rents to offset costs, tenants could be harmed.
Tax-exempt organizations (e.g., schools, nonprofits) may gain access to new funding mechanisms, but since they typically lack profit margins and rely on grants/donations, the financial impact depends on how incentives are structured (e.g., grants vs. tax exemptions).