[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-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],{"_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",6109029,"mediaKeyId","2764970-da8f961a813d6460aba2a72387a30b2c","parentId",2764970,"title","House Finance committee hears HB 2037 to lift cannabis residency restriction, expand tax relief and allow agricultural associations; industry divided","audioSeconds",2955,"startMs",1112515,"endMs",4068463,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2764970-da8f961a813d6460aba2a72387a30b2c&start=1112&end=4068","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2764970-da8f961a813d6460aba2a72387a30b2c/thumbnail_1112515.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6109029/Washington/House-Finance-committee-hears-HB-2037-to-lift-cannabis-residency-restriction-expand-tax-relief-and-allow-agricultural-associations-industry-divided","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6109029-d543b243ae14c5d1329694fe21e26084/orig.mp4?Expires=1770971976&Signature=N8BK6H7eD1V8FgtI4zFgza-PbnWWZXqCHeX1CFr70P1KdakB7uhYgE2ELys6OH-9JNQWjDGK7WODdjeuI0QHMymLtDJWr4QjMCzdD-R3tKdVthLJzt-zH7qb59r-oGyY9~MJoE0gx-LRvnL2T302wQt4XF9H5nYsMXMa96Kj6-fj9fNU63TGEw9hr6K2wBKLTULwgN4RJPyjeUe1eRN5LkzDV0tPfyj3dAz5-V9yUJZTXFjIoP~CUYzIFNZdxOrnNnfxhSyZXiuzDKbHQCYyK20IY2W6oCt~FZf4cioabC0wyC0-aL-sQTcWiOYi2DKvwBjUe6Ftnjr-dK65hBh3Jg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Washington Legislature","date","2025-03-25T00:00:00Z","article","The House Finance Committee on March 25 held a public hearing on House Bill 2037, a package of changes to Washington’s cannabis licensing and taxation rules that would remove the state’s six-month residency requirement for license applicants, allow licensed cannabis producers to form agricultural associations, and create temporary business-and-occupation (B&O) tax exemptions for social-equity licensees and certain license transfers.

Michelle Harris, committee staff, summarized the bill’s main provisions and said the Liquor and Cannabis Board issues producer, processor and retail licenses. Harris explained that the bill would permit producers to form agricultural associations and would create two separate B&O tax exemptions for producers, processors or retailers licensed through the cannabis social equity program. Under the draft language cited by staff, an exemption would apply for five years after a licensee exceeds $5,000 in sales revenue and would expire on specified sunset dates in the bill; a similar five-year exemption would apply when a social-equity license is obtained via transfer. Harris said the provision eliminating the requirement that applicants have lawfully resided in Washington for six months would be removed under the bill, and that annual license fees for out-of-state owners would be increased (staff noted that the out‑of‑state fee would be approximately $267 higher than in-state fees and said they would follow up with details).

Representative Melanie Morgan, the bill’s prime sponsor, said the measures are designed to remove barriers to capital and investment for historically marginalized entrepreneurs who seek to enter the regulated market. “One of the most significant challenges is the restriction of the out‑of‑state investment, which has made it nearly impossible for social equity applicants to access capital,” Morgan said, adding the bill’s exemptions and residency change are intended to strengthen the social equity program.

Supporters included the Washington Cannabis Association, the Cannabis Alliance (mixed/neutral on ownership but urging more discussion), industry owners and advocates, and several social-equity advocates. Vicki Christofferson of the Washington Cannabis Association said Representative Morgan had convened many stakeholders and argued the residency requirement is “one of the most outdated provisions” holding the industry back. Paula Sardinas, who co-chaired the cannabis social equity task force, said access to capital is the program’s biggest impediment and noted that of the 43 social-equity licenses issued in September 2024 only seven were operable.

Opposition was substantial among licensee and producer associations and many small business owners. Trent Mattson of the Washington Cannabis Licensee Association recommended opposing the bill, saying the combination of removing residency limits and offering tax exemptions could “significantly disrupt Washington’s stable cannabis industry” and depress state revenues. Producers and retailers raised concerns that allowing out‑of‑state ownership would invite large multistate operators and publicly traded companies that could drive down prices, cause market oversupply, siphon jobs and profits out of state, and increase opportunities for fraud or complex ownership structures. Several speakers cited examples from other states where opening ownership coincided with market instability.

The Liquor and Cannabis Board’s Mark Webster said the agency was officially neutral but warned that removing the in‑state ownership prohibition could affect an ongoing appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; he told the committee that Washington courts had twice affirmed the constitutionality of the in‑state restriction and that changing the law could “break with arguments the state has made in the past and could impact the appeal.” Webster also said the agency and the Attorney General’s Office expect higher implementation costs, including staff for nationwide background checks and appeals, and that such costs would appear in fiscal notes.

Several industry witnesses urged more time for stakeholder discussion and recommended clarifying implementation timing, effective dates and the interaction between the bill’s two B&O exemptions. Kate Armstrong of the Department of Revenue recommended delaying an exemption’s effective date (for example to Oct. 1, 2025 or Jan. 1, 2026) to allow programming changes and suggested clarifying that businesses may claim only one of the two proposed exemptions, as currently drafted both could apply and extend relief beyond five years.

No committee votes were taken during the hearing. Testimony on both sides called for additional analysis of fiscal impacts, market effects and litigation risk before the Legislature considers final action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Finance 8:00 AM March 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The House Finance Committee on March 25 held a public hearing on House Bill 2037, a package of changes to Washington’s cannabis licensing and taxation rules that would remove the state’s six-month residency requirement for license applicants, allow licensed cannabis producers to form agricultural associations, and create temporary B&O tax exemptions for social-equity licensees and certain license transfers.","taxTitle","Finance, House of Representatives, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20261,"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},6109034,"House Finance committee hears homestead exemption proposal to exempt a portion of primary residences from state property tax",1093,17895,1111335,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2764970-da8f961a813d6460aba2a72387a30b2c&start=17&end=1111","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2764970-da8f961a813d6460aba2a72387a30b2c/thumbnail_17895.jpg","/articles/6109034/Washington/House-Finance-committee-hears-homestead-exemption-proposal-to-exempt-a-portion-of-primary-residences-from-state-property-tax","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6109034-fca0f41cb54bd40aa2fb13390cb692d8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770971975&Signature=LU-3hg35~VvFA1KdaKfMQ9pP9mzSy56i8-P359IwEkMkD7XUjVVJ~mltWcZpozKR97Fpu-G6hBvQyRlx1zwBOgu-isSYG8v--CD0eteb9DNhVm5jJKOwG99yZcChqbRFi~OygUFSe9W~ws6wlWmtDur9zDjXTrL6e7EofsqiHiF33zaSdjw52Oela2Jfpur7CT39rF~3Ta6eurgpKhjzp~SYZ7~BZhWWQSjI8NB9WmiNAGh9Gzoyw~EBbpgy10VHfJiZcL1MIoLBlUXcBGJwgKXqMDH1TtYZvreBVHQrWk-3QTumUAK9QJcQ4dfCApiwMD5Njlpk7ICE08vMKJuggg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Washington State House Finance Committee on March 25 held a public hearing on House Bill 2024 and House Joint Resolution 4204, a pair of measures that would allow the Legislature to exempt a portion of a homeowner’s principal residence from state property taxation and establish the program’s implementing rules if voters approve a constitutional amendment.

Tracy Taylor, staff to the committee, told members that HJR 4204 would amend the state constitution to permit the Legislature to “provide a property tax exemption for the principal place of residence,” and that HB 2024 would implement the exemption if voters approve the amendment. Taylor said the exemption amount in the draft bill is the greater of $100,000 or 60% of the county median home value as published by the Department of Revenue, rounded to the nearest $1,000. She also said the Department of Revenue must reduce the exempted percentage if state school levy parts 1 or 2 are expected to exceed the combined statutory maximum of $3.60 per $1,000 of market value.

The bill text would limit the exemption to a single residential parcel per claimant, require the claimant to occupy the residence at least 184 days in the calendar year for which the exemption is claimed, and exclude the exemption from local property tax levies. Taylor said the exemption would apply to single-family homes, residential parcels with fewer than five dwelling units, mobile homes fixed in location, residential floating homes, cooperative housing where the exemption passes through to the claimant, and certain life estates. The exemption would remain until sale, transfer or a change of use; the claimant must notify the county assessor of status changes on forms approved by the Department of Revenue.

Taylor described an application process administered by the Department of Revenue and interactions with county assessors. The bill would create a Primary Residence Property Tax Exemption Administration Account, funded by legislative appropriation and distributed to counties to offset administration costs; counties would receive $10 per initial-year application and $5 for subsequent-year applications and must segregate those state funds for assessor administration. Taylor said the act would be exempt from a tax preference performance statement, JLARC review and the automatic 10-year expiration that otherwise can apply to tax preferences.

Representative April, the bill’s prime sponsor (for the record name given as April), told the committee she has sponsored or cosponsored homestead-exemption proposals in each of her five years in the Legislature and framed this measure as non-means-tested relief. “All Washingtonians would be able to take advantage that a portion of their property would not be subject to state taxation,” she said, adding that the proposal is intended to help homeowners build wealth through homeownership.

Public testimony for the two measures included support from Mia Shigemura of the Washington State Budget and Policy Center, who said treating a primary home differently than investment property is “common sense” and urged a yes vote on the resolution. Opposition testimony came from multifamily and manufactured-housing representatives including Brad Tower of Commonwealth Real Estate Services, who warned the tax shift could raise costs for residents of manufactured-housing communities, and from Jonathan Manheim of NAHOP, who said shifting roughly $1 billion per year of tax burden to other property owners could increase rent pressure and strain the economics of rental housing.

Taylor summarized fiscal notes in the committee packet. She said the Office of the Secretary of State estimated costs for the 2025 ballot measure of about $2.2 million in fiscal 2026, including roughly $418,000 for the voters’ pamphlet and about $1.8 million for statewide election costs. The Department of Revenue’s fiscal note, Taylor said, projects a major shift in the state property tax levy, with estimated impacts to other taxpayers of about $750 million in fiscal 2030 and about $1.4 billion in fiscal 2031; the department also listed administrative expenditures across early implementation years. The Office of the State Treasurer and other fiscal offices flagged indeterminate effects on earnings credited to the general fund. Taylor said the constitutional amendment would be placed on the November 2025 ballot if it passes the Legislature, and — if adopted by voters — the exemption would apply to state property taxes levied for collections in calendar year 2028 and thereafter.

No committee action or vote occurred during the hearing; leaders closed public testimony and moved on to other bills.

The committee record contains the staff briefings and fiscal notes cited in testimony, and written testimony submitted by supporters and opponents is in the bill packet.","The Washington State House Finance Committee on March 25 held a public hearing on House Bill 2024 and House Joint Resolution 4204, a pair of measures that would allow the Legislature to exempt a portion of a homeowner’s principal residence from state property taxation and establish the program’s implementing rules if voters approve a constitutional amendment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House Finance committee hears HB 2037 to lift cannabis residency restriction, expand tax relief and allow agricultural associations; industry divided

House Finance committee hears homestead exemption proposal to exempt a portion of primary residences from state property tax