[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6310234,"mediaKeyId","2403994-917ca0ada4f834f81f76f8ab3534a645","parentId",2403994,"title","Votes at a glance: what the Capital Budget Committee moved Feb. 26","audioSeconds",3657,"startMs",575000,"endMs",4232000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2403994-917ca0ada4f834f81f76f8ab3534a645&start=575&end=4232","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2403994-917ca0ada4f834f81f76f8ab3534a645/thumbnail_575000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6310234/Washington/Votes-at-a-glance-what-the-Capital-Budget-Committee-moved-Feb-26","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6310234-9184834dac847f17ecd95c3ec3977a1f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770719246&Signature=hB-QO4ABGatNUUJRkMM5bC1Hu7OdL87IifT8ipaQJ18D-JhmoMRPiZPb9k4SKfJ6Lk2iBpUao8W6doTpN6rr~OQpSpdPz5Lcyw3KyQhwYBCO9HusTzftGX4au1jlJushT5qYCD1YGZ9i~V8-90ckObyQaCniZSISJ8PaoAb8VhgepiWKbe4hd6cf5vlOaDStc3J6uSnbMz8BwFYx8RE2BNeU2JEUkJchDgZUv75GJAH4x9d1aD2458kUmlvVKAGSiPl5CVJ0GohCCiu74sWUndTRvJeUKt8Fq5dKrS6ArhUH4dA3t9VFm~W2D6OdbXEeLAET8ZmqQTMHmpq4BgdYcg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Capital Budget","date","2025-02-26T00:00:00Z","article","The Capital Budget Committee on Feb. 26 reported several bills and a concurrent resolution out of committee. Below are the formal actions recorded in the hearing, with reported outcomes and brief notes on substantive changes recorded during committee consideration.

- Substitute House Bill 15 49 (public-works responsible-bidder criteria): Moved out of committee with a due-pass recommendation. Final vote (expedited): 19–0. The second substitute changes effective dates and adjusts bidder-training verification and L&I recordkeeping requirements; it keeps the 2026 effective date for apprentice-utilization-plan provisions and extends some provisions to 07/01/2027.

- House Bill 19 67 (bonding requirements for design-build public-works projects): Substitute as amended reported with a due-pass recommendation; recorded tally announced as 17 aye, 2 nay without recommendation. The committee adopted Hatfield 196 to clarify that certain non-construction services need not be covered by performance/payment bonds.

- House Bill 20 16 (broadband state-match authority): Reported out with a due-pass recommendation, vote 19–0. Members said the bill positions the state to accept approximately $1.2 billion in federal broadband funds by enabling the state match.

- House Concurrent Resolution 4403 (rename Joel Pritchard State Library building): Reported out with a due-pass recommendation, vote 19–0. The resolution would remove “State Library” from the building’s name to reflect a remodel, renaming it the Joel Pritchard Building.

- House Bill 16 87 (social housing / development-regulation waivers for public housing authorities): Reported out with a due-pass recommendation, roll-call recorded as 11 aye, 8 nay do not pass. The bill would allow city waivers of certain development regulations for publicly owned mixed-income “social housing” developments; members debated fiscal-note language and whether Commerce already administers similar authority.

Notes: For items moved with substantive amendment packages, those amendments were described during the hearing and are summarized in the separate articles on HB 1458 and HB1491.

Ending: Committee staff and members said they faced an unusually large amendment load; the committee recessed for caucus before returning to consider final motions. Several bills reported out unanimously, while others passed on narrower margins.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Capital Budget February 26, 9:00 am","oneSentenceSummary","A roundup of bills the committee reported out Feb. 26, including vote tallies and one-line descriptions of each measure and its committee action.","taxTitle","Capital Budget, House of Representatives, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20255,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6310239,"Committee forwards transit-oriented development bill after marathon amendment debate",3357,220000,3577000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2403994-917ca0ada4f834f81f76f8ab3534a645&start=220&end=3577","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2403994-917ca0ada4f834f81f76f8ab3534a645/thumbnail_220000.jpg","/articles/6310239/Washington/Committee-forwards-transit-oriented-development-bill-after-marathon-amendment-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6310239-07df109f413316e7a1c6aab749f13762/orig.mp4?Expires=1770719246&Signature=QkCvYTXsqU~F4d6fbW5G7VeNMe5rrM4aPOziEjDHKeVJW0L8MoKuK7CnqSADaPJuWktcCluH8DWnvoLmWbBIRGIQes~2AvXuyRkrN69IW4JAsvkg64ncqRvgknC1f0ONf-idi92ZCN8OaMeavoJMYUD4mY1sCB3EPeb-UviFE4l-M0QaiuGcd2zUmhpJFagkE~wSlatD1TuNWfSAUsKJmj7DFmxGhjDh0ijRz6R3PplY9U7e~j3YiG72NDqJ81QAqY4GZ17m7u8NBYcRSeHhbj6ThXwaMDfWDBR7MhpDS7yfy9csOMTkTxHYwimTPBsGh3RW87EjilRaeTT9ErIEmg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Capital Budget Committee on Feb. 26 reported Substitute House Bill 1491 out of committee with a due-pass recommendation after a lengthy amendment process over transit-oriented development (TOD) standards, affordability thresholds and local control.

Don Eichner, committee staff, told the panel the substitute contained 14 separate amendments. Committee discussion focused on affordability income limits, the walking-distance definition for station-area planning, floor-area ratio rules, whether a Commerce-published model ordinance should preempt local rules, and whether common-interest-community rules should be constrained by state TOD requirements.

Why it matters: the bill would affect cities’ TOD regulations, density and affordability rules, and potentially access to state and federal funding tied to multifamily development and tax-exemption incentives. Cities, housing advocates and local officials weigh the potential housing gains near transit against concerns about local planning authority and feasibility.

Major amendments and outcomes

- ICH 328 (Representative Walsh) narrowed legislative intent language; the committee rejected the amendment.

- ICH 330 (Representative Walsh) would have changed affordability limits for owner-occupied housing from 80% AMI to 140% AMI; the amendment was defeated after members warned it could jeopardize public funding eligibility.

- Amendment ICH 145 (Representative McClintock) reduced the station-area walking distance for cities under 15,000 residents from one-half mile to one-quarter mile; committee adopted the amendment to give small cities a tighter radius.

- ICH 329 (Walsh) to expand walking distance to 1 mile for rail and bus station areas was withdrawn to avoid conflict with the McClintock amendment.

- ICH 332 (Walsh) would have removed provisions related to floor-area ratio incentives and exemptions; the amendment failed after members said it would remove incentives to build family-sized units.

- ICH 326 and ICH 325 (Representative Steele) sought flexibility for cities and required Commerce guidance and grants timed at least 12 months before compliance deadlines. ICH 325 also required Commerce to develop guidance and provide grants sufficient to cover full compliance costs; the committee debated but ultimately did not adopt all proposed flexibility amendments.

- ICH 333 (Walsh) would have prevented Commerce from publishing a model ordinance that would preempt local development regulations; the amendment failed.

- ICH 335 (Walsh) removed limits on minimum parking requirements; the amendment failed.

- SIRI 144 (Representative Zahn), a technical fix from Ecology, was adopted and clarifies SEPA categorical-exemption exceptions.

- WILLS 046 and WILLS 045 (Representative Walsh) sought to carve out common-interest communities (HOAs and condominium declarations) and to remove a section imposing requirements on city governing authorities; both failed.

Final action

The committee incorporated a subset of amendments into the second substitute and moved the bill out of committee with a due-pass recommendation. The clerk announced the final tally as 11 aye, 8 nay do not pass.

Debate highlights

Representative Walsh repeatedly offered amendments framed as protecting local control and simplifying the bill (for example, removing presumed preemption by a Commerce model ordinance and reducing FAR-related incentives), while proponents of the bill argued those changes would undermine the bill’s purpose to increase density and affordability near transit.

Representative McClintock said the quarter-mile radius amendment for small cities was a “much more workable solution.” Representative Steele and others pushed several amendments to give cities more time and grant support to meet new standards; some of those amendments were debated but did not carry.

What’s next: With the committee recommendation, the bill proceeds to the next legislative step. Committee members signaled further work may still be needed to reconcile local control, funding eligibility and feasibility concerns raised during the hearing.","Substitute House Bill 1491, which would set state rules and incentives for transit-oriented development (TOD), was reported out of the Capital Budget Committee Feb. 26 after extensive amendment votes addressing affordability thresholds, station-area radiuses, floor-area ratios and preemption language. The committee recommended the bill 11–8.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6310244,"Committee advances bill to curb embodied carbon in large buildings after narrow vote",1641,0,1641000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2403994-917ca0ada4f834f81f76f8ab3534a645&start=0&end=1641","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2403994-917ca0ada4f834f81f76f8ab3534a645/thumbnail_0.jpg","/articles/6310244/Washington/Committee-advances-bill-to-curb-embodied-carbon-in-large-buildings-after-narrow-vote","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6310244-07a8cb4aa309844541f8be517e422656/orig.mp4?Expires=1770719246&Signature=TdS1aQyR7ZqJ3CHVEyaMANgv-sMUoNb3H9N~dWvJQMA5GVMXyDKd9hboXO1Fo7Q8z9-Dp4vxRJdnDM-E10E3bxoX9AdPZsecO9mzrCQGpiBfDHyHD5vD5F8TrTfIeA5Tjww6DlrPIhggfGGKnGuY0DYCWKInZwzBmJRJxGWFofvg~lkUjJkmpQWDnXmtCRIcgqnfr5k0z8qp-VdKp0OtOJgfC9vl8nKSZRXOutl6qkyyVOthyXqRaAbJYsgbu4vDXbYPewLO0SwtlTPNGnqDqsNRx7-dYmYpvg8ptjJqVdc8hfNdOw7whbjvo8P9db-GdCtALDdEauA5veGmZ0PL9g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Capital Budget Committee on Feb. 26 voted to report Substitute House Bill 1458 out of committee with a due-pass recommendation. The bill would require steps to reduce embodied carbon emissions from buildings and building materials for covered projects; committee members amended the measure several times before forwarding it to the next stage.

The bill’s sponsor and committee staff described five amendments that alter reporting, coverage and targets. Ingrid Lewis, staff to the committee, summarized the substitute bill and said there are five amendments in the packet, including changes to which entities the State Building Code Council must consult and to reporting requirements.

Why it matters: embodied carbon — the greenhouse-gas emissions from producing and transporting building materials — is a growing focus for state building policy because materials can represent a substantial share of a project’s lifecycle emissions. The bill aims to require reductions for covered projects and to assign rulemaking and implementation responsibilities to state agencies and the State Building Code Council.

Key amendments and debate

- WILGE 043 (moved by Representative Walsh) would have removed consultation with an existing technical work group; the committee rejected that amendment after members said retaining parallel work-group coordination has value. Walsh argued the amendment “clarify[ed] the purpose of the bill,” while a supporter of retaining the consultation said the work group from last session was valuable.

- Line 275 (moved by Representative Zahn) exempts school district construction from the embodied-carbon requirements and raises the size threshold for covered buildings from 50,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet. Zahn said the change is intended to reduce the fiscal impact on districts and the state; the amendment passed.

- WILGE 042 (moved by Representative Walsh) would have removed requirements that the design professional of record enter carbon-emissions data into a Commerce-maintained database and would have removed Commerce’s public-facing education website and related auditing/reporting requirements. The amendment failed on the floor; opponents said collecting data is essential to future policymaking.

- Line 276 (moved by Representative Hahn) corrected a reference to a technical advisory group, replacing a Commerce-based advisory group reference with one in the State Building Code Council; the amendment passed as a technical correction.

- WILLS 044 (moved by Representative Walsh) proposed lowering the embodied-carbon reduction target from 30% to 10%. Walsh described the 10% goal as more achievable and better able to engage stakeholders; opponents argued that 30% is an accepted target for climate progress. The amendment failed.

Final action

After debate and the incorporated amendments, the committee voted to report the bill out with a due-pass recommendation. The roll-call on the final motion recorded 10 yes and 9 no votes. The clerk announced the tally as 10 aye, 9 nay do not pass, and the clerk recorded the motion as passed out of committee.

Voting (as recorded) — final report motion: Representative Thuringer (yes); Representative Callan (yes); Representative Steele (no); Representative Abarneau (no); Representative McClintock (no); Representative Barnard (no); Representative Davis (yes); Representative Dai (no); Representative Eslek (no); Representative Fossey (yes); Representative Hill (yes); Representative Levitt (yes); Representative Morgan (yes); Representative Rule (no); Representative Salahuddin (yes); Representative Stearns (yes); Representative Walsh (no); Representative Waters (no); Representative Zahn (yes).

What’s next: With the committee recommendation, the bill moves to the next floor or fiscal step set by House rules. The committee record includes multiple amendments that will travel with the bill as it advances.

Ending note: Committee members repeatedly emphasized the tension between ambitious climate targets and practical impacts on institutions such as school districts and universities; that tension shaped the amendment votes and the final narrow margin.","The Capital Budget Committee on Feb. 26 reported Substitute House Bill 1458 — a measure to reduce embodied carbon in building materials — out of committee with a due-pass recommendation after multiple amendment votes and a 10-9 roll call.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: what the Capital Budget Committee moved Feb. 26

Committee forwards transit-oriented development bill after marathon amendment debate

Committee advances bill to curb embodied carbon in large buildings after narrow vote