Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears HB 23 76 to expand property-tax relief for seniors and veterans
Summary
House Bill 23 76 would consolidate two state school levies, raise income thresholds for partial property-tax exemptions for seniors/disabled/veterans by 10 percentage points, add a standard deduction for disposable income, and change statement labeling. Supporters say it will expand access; some testifiers warned of tax-shift effects and caps that could harm seniors in high-value counties.
A proposal to reshape parts of Washington’s property-tax relief system for seniors, people with disabilities and veterans was the subject of a lengthy House Finance Committee hearing on Feb. 4.
House Bill 23 76 would combine the two existing state school levies into a single levy and set an initial 2027 rate described in the bill text. The bill raises county median income thresholds that determine eligibility by 10 percentage points, increases the share of assessed value that may be exempted for qualifying households, and provides a standard deduction ($7,500 for a claimant, plus $7,500 for a spouse or domestic partner) as an alternative to itemizing deductions when calculating combined disposable income, staff told the committee.
Serena Dolly (staff) said the Department of Revenue estimates roughly 30,000 additional households could qualify for partial exemptions and projected a $25 million increase in state revenue in fiscal year 2027 and a $99 million increase in the next biennium, alongside local-levy shifts and local revenue decreases estimated in staff analysis.
Representative Sharon Wiley, the bill’s sponsor, framed the measure as an effort to make property tax fairer and help seniors age in place. Supporters from county officials and assessors, including Jennifer Wallace (Washington Association of County Officials), Stephen Drew (Thurston County assessor) and Peter Van Nortwick (Clark County assessor), said the changes would simplify administration, align thresholds with federal low-income definitions and expand meaningful relief.
Testimony included cautions and opposition. Several public commenters—Laurie Lane, Jeff Pack (Washington Citizens Against Unfair Taxes) and Tim Imen—argued the bill could expand the tax base or create tax-shift effects that run counter to voters’ intent behind the 1% cap on property tax increases. Peter Van Nortwick asked the committee to remove a proposed $500,000 cap on the exemption, noting that in higher-value counties the cap could exclude long-term seniors from the program.
Committee members asked technical questions about how the consolidated levy rate would be set and whether the consolidation was intended to be revenue neutral. Association witnesses said leadership in both chambers is working to set a first-year rate intended to be revenue neutral and that future years would return to budget-based adoption. The committee closed public testimony on HB 23 76 without taking final action at this meeting.
