The bill expands authority to use underutilized community and technical college land for affordable housing by amending RCW 28B.50.090 and adding new sections to chapter 28B.50 RCW. It expressly authorizes the state board for community and technical colleges (the college board) to sell, lease, convey, or otherwise dispose of college property at less than fair market value to governmental entities for a public purpose or to nonprofit corporations that agree to use the property for affordable housing or another community purpose for at least 50 years. The bill also adds an express grant of eminent domain power to the college board and authorizes long-term leases (at least 50 years), allows colleges to pledge or grant land used for affordable housing as security for loans, and requires restrictive covenants to prevent conversion of leased land (the covenant language is incomplete in the available text). The bill makes procedural changes for leases and dispositions: leases must include remedies if the lessee stops using the property for the designated public purpose, and a lease terminates and the property reverts to the college board if a project fails to secure financing or begin construction within four years of lease approval or if the property ceases to be used for the restricted purpose during the lease. Colleges may allow shared parking and use of campus roads and utilities, may charge reasonable fees for college facilities and services, and may enter leaseback agreements with nonprofit developers. If property sold for affordable housing becomes noncompliant with a covenant or ceases to be used as restricted, the college board may enforce the covenant or declare default and has the right of first refusal to repurchase the property at the original sale price minus enforcement costs. The bill also amends RCW 43.17.400 to require at least 60 days’ written notice to specified governmental entities before a state agency disposes of surplus state-owned real property to private or nongovernmental parties, but exempts the department of transportation and community or technical colleges providing affordable housing under section 3 of this act. The bill creates a new tax preference by adding a section to chapter 82.29A RCW that exempts leasehold interests in underutilized community and technical college land from tax under that chapter for the duration of the lease when the lessee commits to renting or selling 100% of units as affordable to lowand moderate-income households and the lease term is at least 99 years; the referenced definitions of “affordable housing,” “low-income household,” and “moderate-income household” are those in RCW 84.14.010. The bill includes a tax preference performance statement allowing JLARC to review outcomes and contemplates extension of the preference if JLARC verifies increased placement of affordable units. Important text is missing or incomplete in the extracted material: the full text of section 3, the complete restrictive covenant language, and an explicit definition of “underutilized community and technical college land” are not provided.

If enacted, community and technical colleges will have much more ability to put campus land into affordable housing by leasing or transferring property at below-market rates to governments or nonprofits, using long leases (50 years or more) or very long leases (99 years) that can qualify for a tax exemption if the lessee agrees to rent or sell 100% of units to lowand moderate-income households. Colleges can also pledge land as collateral to borrow for housing development, let projects use college roads, utilities, and shared parking, and charge reasonable fees, so developers and nonprofit builders will have stronger incentives and financing options to build deeply affordable projects on underused college sites. Those most affected are college boards and campuses (new tools, new responsibilities, and new enforcement tasks), nonprofit developers and lessees (access to cheaper land and a possible tax break if they commit to 99-year, 100% affordable occupancy), and lowand moderate-income households (potentially more units). Colleges take on risks and costs from monitoring and enforcing long-term covenants, possible repurchase obligations if covenants are breached, and the new eminent domain authority could raise legal and community risks; some important details are unclear here because key definitions (like “underutilized land,” the exact covenant terms, and all of section 3) are not included in the provided text.