SB 6211
In CommitteeSenate
Real estate excise taxes/GMA
Creating uniformity for the process by which cities planning under the growth management act implement real estate excise taxes.
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 standardizes how cities and counties that follow the Growth Management Act can impose a 0.25% real estate excise tax on property sales, requiring voter approval and limiting how the money can be spent—primarily on infrastructure like roads and parks, with some flexibility for homelessness and affordable housing projects. It also ties the tax’s continuation to the jurisdiction’s compliance with state planning laws.
- Allows cities and counties that plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to impose an additional 0.25% real estate excise tax on sales of real property in unincorporated county areas and within city limits.
- Requires voter approval via ballot measure before the tax can be imposed in jurisdictions where the county has adopted GMA planning requirements.
- Limits tax revenue use to capital projects (e.g., roads, water systems, parks, airports, and homelessness/affordable housing), with a cap of $100,000 or 25% of funds for housing projects unless the jurisdiction had already used such funds for housing before June 30, 2019.
- Requires jurisdictions to show in their comprehensive plan that they have funding for other capital projects (like roads and parks) in the next two years before using funds for homelessness/affordable housing.
- Suspends the tax authority if the governor files a formal notice that the jurisdiction is not complying with GMA requirements, and reinstates it only after the governor rescinds that notice.
Who is affected
- Homebuyers and sellers in participating jurisdictions — Residents and property owners in cities and counties that choose to impose the tax may see an additional 0.25% charge on real estate sales; those in unincorporated areas are specifically included.
- City and county governments (especially those under GMA) — Local governments in cities and counties that plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA) gain new authority to impose and manage the tax, with specific rules about how funds can be used.
- People experiencing homelessness and affordable housing advocates — People experiencing homelessness and low-income households may benefit from increased funding for affordable housing and supportive housing facilities, if local governments allocate funds accordingly.
- Voters in affected counties and cities — Voters in jurisdictions where the tax is proposed must approve it via ballot measure, giving them direct decision-making power over implementation.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill explicitly authorizes use of tax revenue for homelessness and affordable housing—potentially generating tens of millions of dollars annually across multiple jurisdictions—for new shelter beds, supportive housing, and permanent housing solutions, directly benefiting people experiencing homelessness and low-income households.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(d), (5), (6)Mandating use of tax revenue for capital projects like roads, water systems, and parks improves public safety and quality of life by upgrading aging infrastructure, reducing flood risk, and expanding access to green space—benefiting all residents, especially in unincorporated areas that often lack adequate services.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a), (b), (c)Standardizing the process for imposing the tax and requiring voter approval creates transparency and accountability, potentially increasing public trust in local government use of real estate revenues.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)The requirement to identify capital projects in the budget and demonstrate funding for roads/parks before housing use encourages more disciplined long-term fiscal planning, reducing risk of underfunded infrastructure backlogs.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (7)The suspension/reinstatement mechanism tied to GMA compliance creates an incentive for jurisdictions to meet state planning requirements, potentially improving regional coordination and compliance with environmental and growth management goals.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(8)
Potential Concerns (5)
The 0.25% real estate excise tax adds a direct cost to real estate transactions, raising closing costs for homebuyers and potentially reducing housing affordability—especially for first-time buyers, low- and middle-income sellers, and those in tight markets where even small transaction costs can delay or prevent sales.
HousingIndustryRef: Sec. 1(2), (5), (6), (7)The requirement that jurisdictions document two years of funding for roads and parks *before* using tax revenue for housing creates a de facto barrier to housing investment, potentially delaying or reducing funding for homelessness and affordable housing even when urgent need exists.
Local GovernmentIndustryRef: Sec. 1(7)The tax authority is suspended automatically if the governor issues a noncompliance notice under the Growth Management Act—giving the executive branch discretionary power to halt local revenue collection without judicial review or appeal, undermining local autonomy and creating uncertainty for long-term infrastructure planning.
Local GovernmentIndustryRef: Sec. 1(8)The $100,000 or 25% cap on housing spending (with grandfathering for pre-2019 users) disproportionately benefits jurisdictions that already had housing programs, locking in inequities and preventing newer or smaller jurisdictions from scaling up services despite higher need.
HousingIndustryRef: Sec. 1(6)Requiring voter approval for the tax via ballot measure—while democratic—creates a high barrier to implementation, especially in jurisdictions where anti-tax sentiment or NIMBYism is strong, potentially preventing communities from addressing infrastructure or housing needs even when local officials support the measure.
Rights & LibertiesLean industryRef: Sec. 1(2)
Who Is Most Affected
Homebuyers and sellers face an additional 0.25% transaction cost—about $2,500 on a $1M home—reducing net proceeds for sellers and increasing effective purchase price for buyers. This disproportionately impacts first-time buyers, seniors downsizing, and low- and middle-income households in competitive markets. However, improved infrastructure and housing supply may offset some of this cost over time.
Local governments gain new revenue authority but face strict usage constraints and administrative burdens (e.g., documenting two years of road/park funding before housing use). Jurisdictions already compliant with GMA and with pre-2019 housing spending gain the most flexibility; others face barriers to using funds for homelessness. The automatic suspension clause gives the governor discretionary power over local revenue, weakening local autonomy.
People experiencing homelessness may benefit from new funding for shelters and supportive housing, especially in jurisdictions that prioritize housing use within the 25% cap. However, the requirement to fund roads/parks first—and the $100K/25% cap—limits scalability and may delay or underfund services in high-need areas. Grandfathering for pre-2019 users rewards early adopters, potentially leaving newer or smaller jurisdictions behind.
Voters gain direct decision-making power over the tax, increasing democratic engagement. However, the ballot requirement creates a high barrier to implementation—especially in politically conservative or anti-tax jurisdictions—potentially blocking popular local initiatives and reinforcing NIMBY resistance to growth and housing investment.
Developers and real estate professionals may see reduced transaction volumes or lower home prices due to the added tax burden, especially in high-demand areas where buyers are price-sensitive. However, improved infrastructure and increased housing supply could support long-term market stability and appreciation, benefiting long-term investors and commercial developers.