SSB 5725
In CommitteeSenate
Housing on college lands
Expanding affordable housing opportunities on community and technical college lands.
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 allows Washington’s community and technical colleges to lease underutilized college land for up to 99 years to build affordable housing, with safeguards to keep units permanently affordable. It also provides tax breaks for such projects and streamlines rules to make housing development easier and faster.
- Authorizes the state board for community and technical colleges to enter long-term leases (up to 99 years) with nonprofit developers or public housing authorities to build affordable housing on underutilized college land.
- Requires that leased land include restrictive covenants preventing future conversion to market-rate or commercial use, and allows colleges to reclaim land if housing projects fail to start within 4 years.
- Grants tax exemption for leasehold interests used for affordable housing, provided 100% of units are permanently affordable to low- and moderate-income households and the lease lasts at least 99 years.
- Gives colleges a right of first refusal to repurchase or lease back land if the state decides to sell or lease underutilized property.
- Allows colleges to share parking, roads, and utilities with housing projects and grant easements for access and services—without violating rules against using public resources for private benefit.
- Exempts community and technical colleges from the usual 60-day public notice requirement when disposing of land for affordable housing projects under this law.
Who is affected
- Community and technical colleges — May lease college land to developers or partner with them to build and maintain affordable housing; gain authority to use underutilized land for housing without violating public resource restrictions.
- College faculty, staff, and students — May benefit from increased availability of affordable housing near campus, helping attract and retain faculty, staff, and students; may see reduced turnover and improved educational continuity.
- Low- and moderate-income workers and households — May gain access to more affordable housing options near workplaces, reducing long commutes and housing cost burdens; especially benefits frontline workers, educators, and public employees.
- Nonprofit housing developers and public housing authorities — May partner with colleges to develop and manage affordable housing projects; may lease land at favorable terms to support community benefit goals.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Enables large-scale, long-term development of permanently affordable housing on underutilized college land—potentially adding hundreds of units across the state—directly benefiting low- and moderate-income households, frontline workers, educators, and students who struggle with housing costs and long commutes.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1), Sec. 5(1)(a), Sec. 2(13)Improves faculty, staff, and student retention and recruitment by providing affordable housing near campuses, reducing turnover and supporting educational continuity—especially impactful for community colleges serving working-class and first-generation students.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1), Sec. 3(5), Sec. 2(13)Creates opportunities for nonprofit housing developers and public housing authorities to partner with colleges on large-scale, low-risk projects—leveraging public land to attract financing and ensure long-term affordability, without displacing existing residents or requiring new tax subsidies.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1), Sec. 3(2), Sec. 5(1)(a)By enabling housing near transit-accessible college campuses, the bill supports shorter commutes and reduced vehicle miles traveled—lowering household transportation costs and emissions, especially for low-income workers who rely on public transit or walking.
TransportationPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1), Sec. 3(4), Sec. 2(13)Streamlined land-use approval process (exemption from 60-day notice) may accelerate housing delivery in areas with urgent need—potentially reducing homelessness and housing instability, though this benefit depends on robust project oversight.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(1), Sec. 3(3), Sec. 4(5)(b)
Potential Concerns (4)
The 99-year lease structure and tax exemption for leasehold interests reduce state excise tax revenue by an estimated $1.2M annually, which could strain public funding for education, transportation, and other core services—especially since the exemption applies only to projects meeting strict affordability thresholds, meaning most new units will serve households earning ≤80% AMI, while the tax loss is borne by the broader public through reduced revenue.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 5(1)(a), (b); Sec. 2(13); Sec. 3(1)The bill exempts community and technical colleges from the 60-day public notice requirement for land disposal under this law, potentially limiting local government input on land-use decisions that affect zoning, infrastructure, and community character—especially in jurisdictions where colleges are major landowners.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(13), Sec. 3(1), Sec. 4(5)(b)While the bill mandates restrictive covenants and a 4-year construction deadline, enforcement mechanisms and remedies for failure to comply (e.g., reversion clauses) are not detailed in the text, raising concerns about long-term affordability durability and project timelines—potentially allowing delays or conversions if oversight is weak.
HousingRef: Sec. 3(2), Sec. 3(3)Allowing colleges to share utilities, roads, and parking with housing projects—and granting easements—could shift maintenance and liability burdens to local governments if infrastructure is not clearly defined as public or private, especially for aging or under-resourced districts.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(4), Sec. 2(13)
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and moderate-income households—especially frontline workers, educators, students, and seniors—will benefit most from access to stable, affordable housing near workplaces and campuses, reducing commute times and housing cost burdens.
Community and technical colleges gain new tools to support student/staff retention and fulfill public mission, but must manage long-term lease oversight and potential liability for shared infrastructure.
Nonprofit developers and public housing authorities gain access to high-quality, publicly owned land for affordable housing—reducing acquisition costs and increasing project feasibility—but must meet strict affordability and compliance requirements.
State and local governments lose $1.2M/year in tax revenue and may face increased infrastructure maintenance costs if shared utilities are not clearly assigned—though broader public benefits from reduced homelessness and improved workforce stability.
Existing residents near college campuses may benefit from increased housing supply and reduced displacement pressure—but could face concerns about traffic, parking, or changes in neighborhood character if local input is limited.