SB 5747
In CommitteeSenate
Affordable housing/exemption
Concerning an exemption for affordable housing.
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 expands flexibility for affordable housing projects by allowing them to be built using older versions of the state building and energy codes—up to four prior iterations—while also clarifying definitions and safety standards. It aims to reduce regulatory barriers and accelerate construction of affordable units for low- and moderate-income households.
- Allows affordable housing projects meeting specific income and affordability criteria to be built using any of the last four versions of the state building code (instead of only the current code).
- Allows affordable housing projects to use any of the last four versions of the state energy code (instead of only the current code).
- Clarifies the definition of 'affordable housing' as units where rent or housing costs do not exceed 30% of household income, or are affordable for households earning 80% or less of local median income.
- Updates definitions in state building and energy codes to support clarity and consistency for affordable housing projects.
- Maintains safety requirements for portable oil-fueled heaters, including certification and usage rules, especially in certain housing types.
Who is affected
- Affordable housing developers and builders — Developers and builders of affordable housing projects may use older or alternative building and energy codes that are less costly or complex, making it easier and faster to build or renovate affordable units.
- Low- and moderate-income households — Low- and moderate-income households (those earning ≤80% of local median income) benefit from increased availability of affordable rental or owner-occupied housing due to streamlined construction rules.
- Local governments (cities and counties) — Cities and counties gain flexibility to apply any of the last four versions of the state building and energy codes when reviewing permits for qualifying affordable housing projects.
- Heater manufacturers and suppliers — Manufacturers and suppliers of portable oil-fueled heaters must ensure their products meet updated safety standards and certification requirements for use in certain affordable housing structures.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Allowing use of older building and energy codes significantly reduces construction costs and timelines for qualifying affordable housing projects, directly increasing the supply of units for low- and moderate-income households. Lower compliance costs (e.g., avoiding expensive new materials or complex HVAC systems required by current codes) enable nonprofits and small developers to enter the market, expanding housing access where demand is most acute.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 4 and Sec. 5 (new sections added to RCW 19.27 and 19.27A)The explicit definition of 'affordable housing' as ≤30% of household income (or ≤80% AMI) provides legal clarity and consistency for developers, local governments, and housing agencies—reducing disputes over eligibility and streamlining funding applications. This predictability encourages investment in affordable projects and helps prevent misallocation of limited public resources.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2, subsection (1) and Sec. 3, subsection (7) (definition of 'affordable housing' and 'low and moderate-income households' as ≤80% AMI)By codifying the 80% AMI threshold, the bill ensures that a broad swath of working-class families—including teachers, nurses, firefighters, and retail workers—can access subsidized housing. This inclusion helps stabilize communities by reducing displacement and supporting local workforce retention, especially in high-cost urban centers.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2, subsection (7) and Sec. 3, subsection (7) (definition of 'affordable housing' and 'low and moderate-income households' as ≤80% AMI)Local governments gain flexibility to apply any of the last four building/energy codes, reducing permitting bottlenecks and administrative overhead for qualifying projects. This allows municipalities to prioritize housing goals without being locked into outdated or overly complex code requirements, supporting faster project delivery.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2, subsection (7) and Sec. 3, subsection (7) (definition of 'affordable housing' and 'low and moderate-income households' as ≤80% AMI)The bill strengthens safety standards for portable oil-fueled heaters by requiring UL-listed equipment and supplier certification, reducing fire and carbon monoxide risks in affordable housing—especially in older or retrofitted units where heating systems may be less reliable. This addresses a known hazard in low-income housing stock.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 3, subsection (1)–(4) (definition and certification requirements for 'portable oil-fueled heaters')
Potential Concerns (5)
Allowing use of up to four prior versions of building and energy codes may reduce structural and fire safety requirements compared to current standards, increasing risk of code violations or failures—especially in high-risk zones (e.g., wildfire-prone areas or older infrastructure zones). While the bill retains safety requirements for portable oil-fueled heaters, it does not require retroactive upgrades or additional inspections for older-code projects, potentially compromising long-term occupant safety.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4 and Sec. 5 (new sections added to RCW 19.27 and 19.27A)The definition of 'affordable housing' excludes households earning between 81–120% AMI, a large segment of working-class families who are cost-burdened but do not qualify for the policy’s benefits. This creates a 'cliff effect' where households just above 80% AMI receive no relief despite facing similar affordability pressures, limiting the policy’s reach to the most severely cost-burdened (≤50% AMI) and leaving many moderate-income households behind.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2, subsection (7) and Sec. 3, subsection (7) (definition of 'affordable housing' and 'low and moderate-income households' as ≤80% AMI)The bill’s affordability criteria rely on local median income, which can distort affordability in high-cost urban areas (e.g., Seattle, Bellevue) where 80% AMI may still exceed $70,000—well above what many service workers, teachers, or nurses earn. In low-cost rural areas, 80% AMI may be insufficient to meet basic needs, yet the same threshold applies, resulting in misaligned affordability thresholds across regions.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2, subsection (7) and Sec. 3, subsection (7) (definition of 'affordable housing' and 'low and moderate-income households' as ≤80% AMI)Local governments gain flexibility in code enforcement but face increased administrative burden to verify project eligibility (e.g., income certifications, code version selection), especially where staff resources are already constrained. Without state funding for implementation, this may strain municipal planning departments and delay permitting despite the bill’s intent to accelerate approvals.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2, subsection (7) and Sec. 3, subsection (7) (definition of 'affordable housing' and 'low and moderate-income households' as ≤80% AMI)The bill does not include long-term affordability covenants or tenant protections beyond initial occupancy, meaning newly built units could be converted to market-rate housing once subsidies expire or ownership changes—effectively reducing the net gain in permanently affordable units over time.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 2, subsection (7) and Sec. 3, subsection (7) (definition of 'affordable housing' and 'low and moderate-income households' as ≤80% AMI)
Who Is Most Affected
Nonprofit and small-scale affordable housing developers benefit significantly: lower code compliance costs enable more projects to be financially viable, especially in high-cost areas where construction margins are thin. However, they face increased administrative burden verifying income eligibility and selecting appropriate code versions.
Low- and moderate-income households (≤80% AMI) benefit from increased housing supply and potentially lower rents, but may face displacement if units are not permanently protected. Households earning just above 80% AMI (e.g., 90–110% AMI) are excluded despite being cost-burdened, creating a gap in support.
Local governments gain flexibility in code enforcement and may see faster permitting, but lack dedicated funding for implementation and verification. In high-demand areas, this may ease pressure on housing waitlists, but without affordability covenants, long-term benefits are uncertain.
Heater manufacturers benefit from clearer safety standards and certification pathways, but face compliance costs for UL-listing and documentation. The requirement for fire chief permits in certain occupancies may increase demand for certified units in multifamily affordable housing.
Existing tenants in older affordable housing may benefit indirectly from improved safety standards for heating systems, but risk displacement if new construction replaces existing units without replacement guarantees. Landlords of non-qualifying properties face no direct impact.