HB 2313
In CommitteeHouse
Public grocery stores
Concerning publicly owned grocery stores.
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 cities and code cities create and operate grocery stores in neighborhoods where residents lack easy access to affordable, healthy food — especially through public ownership, partnerships with nonprofits, or food locker systems. It also expands the use of tax increment financing to fund such stores and requires annual reporting on outcomes.
- Cities and code cities may establish publicly owned grocery stores in areas with limited food access, using tools like land acquisition, construction, long-term leases, or eminent domain.
- Cities can apply for capital grants from the Department of Commerce to cover land purchase, building upgrades, equipment, security, and food locker systems (24/7 refrigerated lockers for food pickup).
- Cities may use tax increment financing (TIF) to fund grocery store projects, directing future property tax increases from designated areas toward store construction, operation, or supporting existing stores.
- Grocery stores may be operated by the city itself, by a private or nonprofit operator, or as a cooperative — with contracts requiring clear terms on hours and product types.
- Cities can adjust zoning, allow higher housing density near stores, reduce parking requirements, and streamline environmental reviews to support store development.
- Cities must submit annual reports to the Department of Commerce covering finances, food access, jobs created, and — for TIF-funded stores — impact on local redevelopment.
Who is affected
- Residents of underserved neighborhoods — Residents in neighborhoods where grocery stores have closed or are scarce, especially low-income, rural, or communities of color facing food insecurity, who may gain better access to affordable, fresh food through new or expanded public grocery options.
- Cities and code cities in Washington — Cities and code cities (like Seattle, Spokane, etc.) that want to open or support grocery stores in areas lacking reliable food access, giving them new legal authority and funding tools to act.
- Nonprofits and food cooperatives — Nonprofit organizations and cooperatives that may partner with cities to operate publicly owned grocery stores, requiring contracts that specify operating hours and product offerings.
- Local taxing districts (counties, school districts, etc.) — Local governments and taxing districts that may see changes in property tax revenue due to new development around publicly owned grocery stores, especially where tax increment financing is used.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Publicly owned grocery stores and food locker systems in underserved areas directly improve food security and nutrition access—key social determinants of health—for low-income, rural, and communities of color, potentially reducing diet-related chronic disease burden.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (3)(a)(v), (4)(a)(iii) & Sec. 2(1), (3)(a)(v), (4)(a)(iii)Capital grants and flexible operational models (e.g., nonprofit/cooperative operation) create pathways for community-based entities to enter the grocery market, supporting local jobs and entrepreneurship in underserved areas.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(a) & Sec. 2(3)(a); Sec. 1(4)(a)(ii), (b) & Sec. 2(4)(a)(ii), (b)Zoning flexibilities—including allowing higher density and reducing parking minimums—lower development costs and increase feasibility of mixed-use projects that integrate housing and grocery access, benefiting working- and middle-class families.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(a), (c) & Sec. 2(5)(a), (c)Support for cooperative ownership models empowers residents to co-own and govern local grocery infrastructure, fostering community wealth building and long-term economic resilience.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(iii) & Sec. 2(4)(a)(iii)Mandated annual reporting on food access, jobs, and redevelopment outcomes creates accountability and data transparency, enabling evidence-based adjustments to improve program effectiveness and equity.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6) & Sec. 2(6)
Potential Concerns (5)
Tax increment financing (TIF) diverts future property tax revenue increases from designated areas to fund grocery stores, reducing available funds for other local services (e.g., schools, fire protection, parks) for up to 25 years—especially impacting districts with limited fiscal flexibility.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(3)(b) & Sec. 2(3)(b); RCW 39.114.010(6)(a), (g)Authorization of eminent domain for publicly owned grocery stores gives cities broad power to seize private property—even for use by third-party operators—which risks displacing small businesses, renters, or low-wealth residents without robust procedural safeguards.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(e) & Sec. 2(2)(e)TIF implementation requires cities to absorb administrative and revaluation costs (e.g., assessor fees, feasibility studies), which may strain small municipal budgets despite state grant availability.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(3)(b) & Sec. 2(3)(b); RCW 39.114.010(6)(e), (g)Allowing increased residential density and reduced parking near grocery stores may raise housing supply but could also accelerate gentrification and displacement in vulnerable neighborhoods if not paired with strong affordability safeguards.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(b), (c) & Sec. 2(5)(b), (c)Contractual benchmarks requiring operators to report local produce sourcing and food waste may impose administrative burdens on small nonprofit or cooperative operators, potentially discouraging participation from resource-constrained entities.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(e)(ii) & Sec. 2(6)(e)(ii)
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income residents in food deserts stand to gain significantly from improved access to affordable, nutritious food, potentially improving health outcomes and reducing food insecurity. However, benefits depend on store affordability and quality—not guaranteed by the bill.
Cities gain new legal authority and funding tools to address food access gaps, but face fiscal trade-offs from TIF diversion and administrative costs. Smaller cities may lack capacity to implement programs effectively without state support.
Nonprofits and cooperatives gain opportunities to operate grocery stores with city backing, but must comply with contractual requirements (e.g., product categories, hours) and may face operational constraints that limit autonomy.
Local taxing districts (e.g., school districts, fire districts) may experience reduced property tax revenue during TIF periods, potentially straining budgets—especially in areas with slow property value growth where the 'increment' is small.
Existing grocery stores in underserved areas may benefit from infrastructure and operational support, but could face competition from new public stores—especially if the city-subsidized store undercuts prices or receives preferential zoning.