HB 1870
In CommitteeHouse
Public health clinics/tax
Concerning county property tax levies for public health clinic purposes.
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 Washington counties collect a small additional property tax—up to 5 cents per $1,000 of assessed value—to fund public health clinics. The tax is exempt from usual rate caps for the first year and must be used only for clinic services like primary care, behavioral health, and disease prevention.
- Authorizes counties to impose an additional property tax of up to 5 cents per $1,000 of assessed value per year to fund public health clinics.
- Defines 'public health clinic' broadly to include services like primary, dental, and reproductive health care; behavioral health; substance use disorder treatment; disease prevention; and health enrollment assistance.
- Exempts the new tax from standard property tax rate limits (RCW 84.52.043) in the first year it is imposed, and from the 1% constitutional cap in subsequent years only after other levies are reduced to stay within the cap.
- Adds the new clinic tax to the list of 'exempt' levies that do not count toward the $5.90 per $1,000 aggregate limit for junior and senior taxing districts (excluding the state).
- Requires the tax revenue to be used exclusively for clinic operations, maintenance, and capital expenses—not for general county funds.
Who is affected
- County governments — Counties gain the authority to impose an additional property tax of up to 5 cents per $1,000 of assessed value to fund public health clinics, and the new tax is exempt from standard property tax rate caps for the first year.
- Property owners and residents — Residents in counties that adopt the tax will pay a small increase in property taxes (e.g., $50 per year on a $1 million home) to support local public health clinic services.
- Public health clinic operators — Public health clinics—operated by counties or local health jurisdictions—can use the new tax revenue to fund operations, maintenance, and capital projects for services like primary care, behavioral health, disease prevention, and health enrollment assistance.
- Other local taxing districts — Other taxing districts (e.g., school districts, fire districts) may see their tax levies reduced if the total property tax rate exceeds the 1% constitutional cap, as the new clinic tax is subject to that cap after the first year.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
The tax directly expands access to primary, behavioral, and reproductive health services in underserved areas by enabling counties to fund public health clinics with dedicated, local revenue—especially valuable in counties where state funding is insufficient or delayed. This addresses gaps in care for Medicaid-eligible and uninsured residents.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(1); Sec. 1(2); Sec. 1(4)By funding disease prevention, substance use disorder treatment, and health enrollment assistance, the tax supports upstream public health interventions that reduce ER visits, incarceration, and homelessness—lowering long-term public costs and improving community safety.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4); Sec. 1(2)Healthy students are better learners; clinic services (e.g., vision screening, mental health counseling, nutrition programs) improve school attendance and academic performance, especially in low-income districts where clinics may serve school-based health centers.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1); Sec. 1(2)A healthier workforce is more productive; reduced burden on employers who otherwise provide or subsidize health benefits—particularly for small businesses lacking group insurance—can improve competitiveness and retention.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1); Sec. 1(2)The tax is exempt from standard rate caps in the first year, giving counties flexibility to launch clinics without triggering automatic reductions to other services—critical for rapid implementation in counties with high health disparities.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3); Sec. 2(p); Sec. 3(o)
Potential Concerns (5)
Counties that adopt the tax must reduce other levies (e.g., schools, fire, libraries) to stay under the 1% constitutional cap, potentially weakening core public services in high-tax counties where the clinic tax is most needed. This creates a structural trade-off: clinics gain funding at the expense of other districts, especially in counties already near the cap.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3); Sec. 2(p); Sec. 3(o)The sunset provision (Jan. 1, 2027) creates short-term funding uncertainty and discourages long-term clinic planning or capital investment, even though the tax is intended to be permanent. Without legislative renewal, clinics may lose funding abruptly after two years.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3); Sec. 2(p); Sec. 3(o)The bill’s narrow use-of-funds restriction (only clinic operations, maintenance, and capital) prevents counties from using the revenue for broader public health infrastructure (e.g., mental health crisis response teams, outreach workers, or mobile units), limiting flexibility to address emergent community needs beyond clinic walls.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(2); Sec. 1(4)The tax is exempt from rate caps only in the first year, but after that, it competes with other capped levies—including affordable housing levies under RCW 84.52.105—for reduction under the 1% cap. In high-property-value counties, this could indirectly reduce funding for affordable housing if both levies are active.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3); Sec. 2(p); Sec. 3(o)The tax is assessed on *all* property (residential, commercial, industrial), but low- and middle-income homeowners bear disproportionate burden relative to ability to pay, since commercial/industrial properties often benefit from clinic services (e.g., workforce health) without bearing proportional cost. A $50/year increase on a $1M home is modest, but for a $300K home it’s $15—still regressive relative to income.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1); Sec. 1(2)
Who Is Most Affected
Counties gain authority to raise up to $50/year per $1M home (e.g., $15 on a $300K home) to fund clinics, but must reduce other levies if over the 1% cap—benefiting clinics but potentially straining schools, fire, and libraries.
Low- and middle-income homeowners pay a small, regressive tax increase; however, they directly benefit from expanded access to affordable health services—including behavioral health, substance use treatment, and preventive care—that improve quality of life and reduce out-of-pocket medical costs.
Public health clinics (county-run or contracted) gain dedicated, local funding to expand services, hire staff, and maintain facilities—especially impactful in rural or underserved counties where state funding is limited.
School districts, fire districts, and other junior taxing districts may see their levies reduced to accommodate the clinic tax under the 1% cap, potentially affecting school programs, emergency response, or library hours—particularly in high-value counties already near the cap.