skip navigation

Ask MRSC - Housing & Homelessness

Below are selected “Ask MRSC” questions we have received from local governments throughout Washington State related to housing and homelessness. Click on any question to see the answer.

These questions are for educational purposes only. All questions and answers have been edited and adapted for posting to the MRSC website, and all identifying information has been removed.


Have a Question? Ask MRSC!

Officials and employees from eligible government agencies can use our free one-on-one inquiry service, Ask MRSC. With one call or click you can get a personalized answer from one of our trusted attorneys, policy consultants, or finance experts!

Ask MRSC



Reviewed: August 2025

RCW 82.14.530 was enacted through HB 2263 in 2015. It was later amended by HB 1590 in 2020 to give cities and counties the ability to councilmanically impose the sales tax. RCW 82.14.540 was enacted through HB 1406.

The Housing and Related Services Sales Tax authorized under RCW 82.14.530 (HB 1590) does not expire and is an additional tax to the consumer. The Affordable Housing Sales Tax Credit authorized under RCW 82.14.540 (HB 1406) expires after 20 years. Unlike the Housing and Related Services Sales tax, it is a sales tax credit against the state’s portion of sales tax, so it is not an additional tax to the consumer.

You can find a discussion of the Affordable Housing Sales Tax Credit (HB 1406) and the Housing & Related Services Sales Tax in MRSC’s Revenue Guide for Washington Cities and Towns. The guide discusses any caps, restrictions on imposing the tax, ballot measure requirements, revenue sharing requirements, and restrictions on use of the revenues.

(Link to this question)

Reviewed: February 2025

The city does not have the authority to impose an affordable housing fee on development projects. Cities must have statutory authority to impose taxes. And while local governments have general authority to charge fees to recoup various costs (see Carrillo v. City of Ocean Shores (2004)), RCW 82.02.020 limits the fees a local government can collect associated with development. The statute provides, in relevant part:

Except as provided in RCW 64.34.440 and 82.02.050 through 82.02.090, no county, city, town, or other municipal corporation shall impose any tax, fee, or charge, either direct or indirect, on the construction or reconstruction of residential buildings, commercial buildings, industrial buildings, or on any other building or building space or appurtenance thereto, or on the development, subdivision, classification, or reclassification of land.

The statute (RCW 82.02.020) then makes an exception for reasonable permit fees:

Nothing in this section prohibits cities, towns, counties, or other municipal corporations from collecting reasonable fees from an applicant for a permit or other governmental approval to cover the cost to the city, town, county, or other municipal corporation of processing applications, inspecting and reviewing plans, or preparing detailed statements required by chapter 43.21C RCW, including reasonable fees that are consistent with RCW 43.21C.420(6), 43.21C.428, and beginning July 1, 2014, RCW 35.91.020. [Emphasis added]

Applying this statute, the Washington State Court of Appeals struck down a surcharge on building permits imposed by the City of Bainbridge Island to fund an affordable housing trust fund. See Home Builders Ass'n of Kitsap Cty. v. City of Bainbridge Island (2007).

So, cities are limited to charging fees for permits to cover costs associated with processing applications, inspecting and reviewing plans, and preparing statements required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). For further examples and discussion of fees that cities can charge, see MRSC’s Revenue Guide for Cities and the section Other Fees and Charges (p. 152).

Impact fees may also only be imposed as allowed under state law. Currently, impact fees are authorized for transportation, parks, schools, and fire facilities. See RCW 82.02.050-.110. An impact fee could therefore not be imposed to generate funds for affordable housing.

Here are some funding options currently available to cities for affordable housing:

  • Affordable Housing Levy – This is an additional property tax levy up to $0.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. The revenues may only be used to finance affordable housing for “low-income” and “very low-income” households. A “low-income household” is defined as households with income below 80% of the county median income.
  • Housing & Related Services Sales Tax – If the county hasn’t already done so, the city can impose a sales tax up to 0.1% for affordable housing and related services including behavioral health facilities and treatment programs.
  • Lodging Tax – Lodging tax revenues can be used for general obligation bonds (RCW 67.28.150) and revenue bonds (RCW 67.28.160) for “financing loans or grants to nonprofit organizations or public housing authorities for affordable workforce housing within one-half mile of a transit station.” A transit station includes: all passenger facilities, structures, stops, shelters, bus zones, properties, and rights-of-way of all kinds that are owned, leased, held, or used by a transit authority for the purpose of providing public transportation services.
  • REET 2 – Through January 1, 2026, REET 2 can be used for affordable housing projects. The amount is restricted to $100,000 or 25% of available REET 2 (not to exceed $1 million). The affordable housing project must be listed on the city’s capital facilities plan.
  • Affordable Housing Sales Tax Credit (HB 1406) – Cities had to pass an ordinance to participate in this sales tax credit by July of 2020, and it is no longer an option for those cities that choose not to participate.

For additional options, see MRSC’s Affordable Housing Funding Sources webpage.

(Link to this question)

Reviewed: May 2024

Requiring a longer notice of rent increase than the statutory minimum of 60 days set forth at RCW 59.18.140 is not preempted by state law. Some jurisdictions require longer written notice of rent increase than the statutory 60 days notice period (see examples listed below). Advance notice of rent increase is not considered a control over the amount of rent charged as described in RCW 35.21.830. Legislative attempts to preempt local rent increase notice periods have not been successful. For example, see HB 1460 Bill Report (2019).

Examples of Codes:

(Link to this question)

Reviewed: March 2023

The authority to waive connection and hook-up fees, as well as other rate relief programs, comes from RCW 35.92.020(5) and RCW 35.67.020(5) which authorize cities and towns to “provide assistance to aid low-income persons in connection with [municipal utilities and sewer] services.” And RCW 35.92.380 requires that any waivers of system development or connection charges be done pursuant to a program established by ordinance.

None of these statutes contains language similar to that in RCW 82.02.060 requiring the waived fees to be paid from sources other than impact fee accounts. I find nothing in our inquiry database that indicates that SDCs, if waived pursuant to an adopted ordinance, require backfilling from another source.

(Link to this question)

Reviewed: October 2022

We are aware of a handful of Washington cities that allow more than one ADU per lot.

And here’s an Oregon example:

(Link to this question)