Committee weighs bill to limit local barriers to supportive and transitional housing

A bill to limit local barriers to siting permanent supportive housing, transitional housing and indoor emergency shelters drew both support from housing advocates and concern from municipal representatives over process and costs.

Substitute House Bill 1195, described by committee staff, would bar cities and counties from denying permits for ‘‘step housing’’ — a term the staff used to encompass permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, and indoor emergency housing and shelters — in residential or commercial zones within most urban growth areas where hotels are allowed. Municipalities would be required to process step‑housing permit applications through an administrative only review. If disputes arise, applicants or local governments could seek dispute resolution through the Department of Commerce; Commerce could make findings and require corrective action. If a jurisdiction fails to comply after Commerce's final decision, the bill directs the state treasurer to withhold certain shared revenues from the noncomplying city or county. The staff presentation said Commerce's proposed implementation would require contracts for dispute resolution and additional staff time.

Supporters, including FutureWise, King County, Plymouth Housing, Catholic Community Services, and others, said the measure would reduce unnecessary local barriers that delay or block housing that serves people experiencing homelessness. "Emergency shelters, transitional housing, emergency housing and permanent supportive housing must be located in all communities to ensure that people can stay in their communities and close to their families and their community networks," Joe McDermott, King County state relations director, said.

"When housing like this becomes public debate, it wastes valuable resources, time, energy, and funding from all parties," Sarah Dickmeyer of Plymouth Housing said, describing projects that nearly lost funding after extended public disputes.

Opponents raised concerns about process, local control, and fiscal impacts. Carl Schrader of the Association of Washington Cities said the bill extends responsibilities and requirements on cities beyond prior law and noted the fiscal burden of the dispute resolution process. Committee staff presented a preliminary fiscal note estimating Department of Commerce needs of about $1,600,000 General Fund and 1.5 FTE in the 2025–27 biennium and roughly $1,300,000 in the following biennium, driven primarily by contracts for dispute resolution and guidance updates. Staff cautioned the caseload is uncertain; the fiscal note assumed an anticipated caseload of 30 cases per year at about 60 billable hours per case.

Local witnesses with direct service experience said siting barriers — public opposition, special permitting requirements, or added licensing or agreements — can delay or cancel projects and raise costs. "We've faced significant opposition in siting," Donna Christiansen of Catholic Community Services said, recounting threats and local resistance that impeded operations.

The committee did not take a vote; it concluded public testimony and requested additional staff briefings on other bills. Supporters urged the Legislature to provide Commerce with adequate funding for dispute resolution and technical assistance; opponents urged more policy work and clarity around standards and fiscal impacts.

Ending: Staff and stakeholders signaled follow‑up meetings to refine dispute resolution mechanics, clarify the scope of local regulatory limits, and identify funding sources for Commerce implementation.