The Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce is thrilled to announce an exclusive sponsorship opportunity for one of our most impactful and popular programs: "Ask the Experts." We're looking for a visionary partner to champion this vital community resource and elevate their brand in the process.

What is "Ask the Experts"?

"Ask the Experts" is our highly successful monthly series of hybrid workshops (in-person and via Zoom) dedicated to equipping our members and the broader business community with crucial, actionable insights on a wide range of workplace topics. From "Unlocking Employee Engagement" to "Mental Well-Being and Building a Resilient Workforce," these sessions feature leading experts and provide invaluable professional development--all offered free of charge to attendees.

Our audience is diverse and engaged, including small business owners, non-profit leaders, professionals in higher education, and individuals from every corner of our thriving Tri-Cities economy.

View recordings of previous sessions on the Chamber's YouTube channel.

A Program at the Peak of Its Popularity!

"Ask the Experts" isn't just impactful; it's experiencing record growth and popularity!

• We're seeing increased in-person attendance and significant growth in online viewership for session recordings.
• Attendee feedback is consistently glowing, with professionals praising the program for its "bountiful harvest of wisdom" and its "rockstar experts."
• Our sessions attract a broad appeal, providing information that truly benefits all businesspeople, regardless of industry.

Why This Sponsorship Matters

This is more than just a sponsorship; it's an opportunity to align your brand with a highly respected, successful program that directly contributes to the strength and prosperity of the Tri-Cities business community. As the exclusive sponsor, your organization will gain:

• Significant Brand Visibility: Prominent recognition across all program materials, Chamber communications (eNewsletter, social media, website), and during each event.
• Direct Engagement: Opportunities to connect directly with a targeted audience of engaged business leaders and professionals.
• Thought Leadership: Position your organization as a key advocate for professional development and business excellence.
• Community Impact: Demonstrate your commitment to fostering growth, education, and success within the Tri-Cities region.

Your Chance to Make a Difference

The "Ask the Experts" program embodies the Chamber's mission to strengthen member businesses through innovative and essential programs. As our exclusive partner, your organization will play a pivotal role in continuing this vital service and enhancing its reach and quality for years to come.

Interested in Learning More? Contact Austin Regimbal, Vice President, at 509.491.3238 or [email protected]

​Earlier in this series, we explored why Washington lacks a personal income tax and reviewed its basic pros, cons, and design options. In this final part, we show how various income tax models might work in practice. These scenarios aren't predictions, but simple examples to help businesses and communities consider how different choices affect jobs, investment, family budgets, and local services.

 
In a flat rate model, everyone pays the same percentage on taxable income above an exemption. For example, the state could tax income over $20,000 at 4 percent. Someone earning $50,000 would pay about $1,200 in tax. Someone earning $200,000 would pay more in total, but still the same 4 percent rate. This approach is easy to understand and simple to administer. It offers predictability for small business owners whose profits are taxed as personal income. The main trade-off is fairness: lower- and middle-income households pay a larger share of their income than high earners, unless the state provides large exemptions or credits. The tax could produce stable revenue for schools, roads, and public safety, but might increase pressure on moderate earners.

 
A progressive tax uses tiers so higher incomes pay higher percentages. For example, the state might tax the first $50,000 of taxable income at 2 percent, $50,001 to $250,000 at 5 percent, and above $250,000 at 8 percent. A worker earning $40,000 would pay about $800. Someone earning $300,000 might pay around $15,000 across the three brackets. This structure eases the burden on lower and middle-income individuals and can boost revenue for community needs. However, high-earning individuals and business owners may face higher bills and change how they invest, hire, or operate. The tradeoff is greater equity and flexibility for public investment, at the cost of more complexity and potential competitiveness concerns.

 
A business-friendly design focuses on protecting job creation and investment. The state might exempt a set amount of pass-through business income, apply a lower rate to small business profits than to wages, or offer credits for training workers, investing in equipment, or operating in underserved areas. This can make the tax climate more attractive to employers, potentially encouraging expansion and hiring in Washington. At the same time, if the state gives too much relief, it may not collect enough revenue to support schools, transportation, and other services. The burden could shift to wage earners or to other taxes, and smaller firms without tax experts might not benefit as much from complex credit programs as larger companies do.

 
An aggressive income tax design combines high rates and a broad base. Under this model, the state taxes wages, business, and investment income—including capital gains—at a higher top rate, such as 10 percent, with fewer exemptions. The goal is to generate steady revenue for major investments in education, infrastructure, health care, and social support. Lawmakers might pair this with deep cuts in other taxes, such as sales or B&O taxes. This can create a more robust public system and improve long-term business conditions, such as better roads, broadband, and workforce skills. The risks are higher: businesses and top earners may be more sensitive to costs and could scale back or relocate, and a downturn could strain the state budget.

 
Comparing these four approaches underscores key tradeoffs: Flat-rate systems prioritize simplicity and predictability but tend to shift costs to lower- and middle-income households. Progressive systems emphasize fairness and boost community resources, yet introduce complexity and draw concerns from high earners and some businesses. Business-friendly models favor growth and job creation, but can shrink the tax base and challenge notions of equity. Aggressive designs pursue ambitious public service gains, but heighten economic and fiscal risks if revenues dip.
​
 
For businesses and communities, key questions arise in every scenario. What income is taxed, and at what rates? How large are exemptions and credits, and who benefits? How will the state phase in changes and adjust other taxes, such as sales, property, or B&O? Most importantly, how will leaders show that new revenue visibly improves schools, infrastructure, and quality of life? Clear answers help employers, workers, and residents judge which model fits Washington’s economy, competitiveness, and community goals. Tools and worksheets that let people input their own numbers can make these choices more concrete and support productive discussion about the path forward.

​

References
“Washington State Taxes: Income, Property and Sales.” AARP.
“Income tax – Washington State Department of Revenue.”
“How Washington State Doesn’t Have an Income Tax: The 1930s Campaign for Tax Reform and the Origins of Washington’s Tax System.” University of Washington.
“Washington may not have an income tax … but we pay more than you think.” Washington Policy Center.
“Washington state Democrats look at imposing income tax on higher earners.” Washington State Standard.

• ​This article was written with contributions from AI to organize the information and improve its readability.

Thanks to everyone who attended our Business After Hours at Marsh McLennan Agency on Dec. 11th! 

The design of a potential statewide income tax for Washington centers on critical choices that will ultimately determine the tax’s effects on residents, businesses, and the state’s future. These key decisions include setting tax rates, defining which incomes are taxed or exempted, handling business income, and determining revenue allocation. While previous articles examined Washington’s absence of a personal income tax and outlined key arguments for and against it, this article focuses on how specific design decisions shape whether an income tax would strengthen or hinder the state’s economic and social well-being.
 

When analyzing state tax policy, a central decision is defining the tax rate structure. Lawmakers must choose between a flat tax, where all pay the same tax percentage on taxable income (e.g., 4 percent), and a progressive tax, which imposes lower rates on lower-income households and higher rates on higher-income households (e.g., 2 percent at the bottom and up to 8 percent at the top). Additionally, policymakers must determine which types of income are taxed, such as wages, investment income, business profits, and capital gains. Importantly, a broader tax base enables lower rates, while a narrower base typically requires higher rates to generate equivalent revenue.

 
Other essential choices include exemptions, credits, and handling business or corporate income. States may exempt Social Security or retirement income, or exclude income below a threshold. Tax credits can offset costs for families or low-wage earners. Lawmakers may partly exclude pass-through business income or apply lower rates to support hiring and investment, and decide whether to tax corporate profits at the business or individual level.

 
The core issue is how new tax revenue will be allocated. Directing income tax dollars to areas such as K-12 education, higher education, workforce training, transportation, public health, or local services could yield tangible benefits. If communities observe improvements in schools, roads, and public safety, public trust in the tax system may increase. Conversely, if the income tax merely replaces other taxes without noticeable advantages, residents and employers may question its value. For businesses, allocating tax revenue to workforce and infrastructure development could offset some of the tax's cost.

 
All these choices involve trade-offs that shape Washington’s business climate and quality of life. For example, higher tax rates or fewer exemptions could raise more revenue for public services but would increase taxpayer burdens and might discourage businesses from expanding or relocating to the state. On the other hand, more exemptions and credits could protect groups like small businesses or low-income residents, but may require higher rates for others or reductions in government spending. A simpler tax system is easier for taxpayers to understand and comply with, though it is less customized to the diverse needs of individuals and businesses. A more detailed system, while potentially fairer by addressing specific situations, can be harder to administer effectively.

 
Designing a statewide income tax goes beyond choosing a rate; it requires lawmakers to make targeted decisions that will decide whether such a tax advances or undercuts economic vitality, fairness, and community strength in Washington. An effective system can enhance tax fairness, provide stable funding for essential services, and foster long-term growth. In contrast, a poorly structured tax could raise costs, dampen investment, and erode public trust. The debate is not just about whether to implement an income tax, but how to design it so it delivers tangible benefits and strengthens communities statewide.

• This article was written with contributions from AI to organize the information and improve its readability.

Thanks to everyone who joined us for the ribbon cutting for ICCU's first location in the Tri-Cities! You can go see them at 3720 Zintel Way, Kennewick, WA 99336.

Washington adopted two important land division laws in 2025, which aimed to speed up housing production and make local reviews more predictable. One law updates how cities regulate “unit lot subdivisions.” The other creates a simple process for residential lot splits within cities. Together, they set clearer standards, shortened review steps, and informed cities when they must update their codes.

SB 5559: Clearer rules for unit lot subdivisions
SB 5559 adds detail to the 2023 law, which first required local governments to allow unit lot subdivisions. The new law narrows down the scope of who must comply. Only cities and towns in counties that plan under the Growth Management Act must adopt these rules. Counties and non-GMA jurisdictions are not required to do so.

The bill sets the timelines. Cities that owe a comprehensive plan update in 2027 must include unit lot subdivision provisions in that update. All other affected cities and towns must adopt the required regulations within two years of the bill’s effective date (May 20, 2025).

SB 5559 also adds definitions for “parent lot,” “unit lot,” and “unit lot subdivision,” and defines what “clear and objective” standards mean. It requires prominent informational notes on recorded plats, including the original application number and warnings regarding any limits on future development. Purchasers must be notified of the legal status of a unit lot subdivision by June 30, 2026.

The local review must be administrative. Cities cannot require pre-decision public hearings or design reviews beyond an administrative check, except where state law, such as the Shoreline Management Act, requires it. Review timelines in RCW 36.70B.080 apply, and neighbors within 250 feet must receive notice with instructions on how to submit comments. Critical areas and other protective regulations still apply.
 
HB 1096: A simple, administrative lot split inside cities

HB 1096 directs cities to create a straightforward process for splitting one residential lot into two, if certain conditions are met. The decision is made administratively by the planning director or a designee, using clear and objective standards. The lot split can be reviewed simultaneously with a residential building permit for either single-family or middle housing. Lots created under this process are exempt from the detailed middle housing requirements of RCW 36.70A.635.

The law lists specific conditions. Only one new lot may be created, both lots must meet the minimum size requirement, the parent lot cannot be the product of a prior split under this section, and the site must be in a residential zone. The applicant must propose a strategy to reduce renter displacement if a tenant is affected. Utilities must be available, and access and utility rights must be secured for the number of homes. Lots that are not buildable due to critical areas, shorelines, or similar limits do not qualify for this exemption.

Compliance timelines mirror those of SB 5559. Cities with a 2027 periodic update must include lot split provisions in that update. Other cities have two years from May 20, 2025. Local ordinances adopting these provisions are exempt from SEPA’s administrative or judicial appeals. The Department of Commerce will provide guidance to cities regarding implementation.

Why this matters

For local governments, these laws call for prompt code updates, standardized administrative reviews, and better public notice. For homeowners and builders, the changes open new paths to create additional homes on existing land while keeping reviews focused on clear and measurable rules. The result should be a faster, more predictable process that respects environmental and safety limits.

Washington is pushing for more housing by making land division simpler and clearer. SB 5559 strengthens the unit lot subdivision rules for GMA cities and towns. HB 1096 provides cities with a reliable administrative path to split residential lots when basic standards are met. Both laws set firm timelines and maintain protections for critical areas. To dive deeper into the details and citations, read the original MRSC article: https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/june-2025/subdivision-legislation. 
​

Public safety is not merely a government service. It is the foundation that allows businesses to open their doors, hire workers, and serve customers with confidence. Our guiding principle is simple and straightforward. Public safety is essential for a high-quality life and secure community. We strive to balance empathy with the need to ensure a safe environment. Collaboration between local communities and service providers strengthens public safety and minimizes negative impacts on businesses. This principle helps us maintain our focus on both people and prosperity.


Safe streets and commercial areas help stores, restaurants, and offices to thrive. When crime is low and emergency response is strong, customers feel comfortable visiting local shops and attending events. Workers feel secure when commuting to and from their jobs. Insurance costs can be lower, property values can hold steady, and neighborhoods can remain active. In the Tri-Cities, this means more foot traffic in our downtowns, steady shifts at industrial sites, and a better experience for families and visitors to the area.


Collaboration is the means by which we achieve this. Businesses, law enforcement, firefighters, schools, service providers, and cities play important roles. Partnerships on issues such as lighting, security design, mental health response, and prevention programs reduce harm before it occurs. These efforts also help avoid rules that place extra burdens on employers without solving the root problems. When we sit at the same table, we find practical fixes that keep people safe and the economy moving.


This guiding principle also shapes how the Chamber evaluates the public policy. When a proposal is made, we ask clear questions. Does it improve safety outcomes in a measurable manner? Does it support fair enforcement? Does it coordinate with local partners? Does it avoid costly mandates that do not match risk? We weigh both empathy and accountability. We support policies that reduce crime, improve emergency readiness, and protect customers and workers while limiting unintended harm to businesses.
​

Our message is straightforward: a safe community is a strong economy. By applying this principle, the Chamber works to ensure that public safety efforts are smart, balanced, and effective. We will continue to bring partners together, review proposals carefully, and advocate for solutions that protect people and help local businesses grow.

Thanks to everyone who joined us for the ribbon cutting for Pro Made Homes' Columbia Shores townhome community! You can check them out at 11545 W. Court St., Pasco, WA 99301.

Thank you to everyone who joined us for the November Membership Luncheon: State of the Cities on Wednesday, November 19. We were honored to welcome our mayors who shared compelling perspectives on growth, community partnership, economic development, and the future of our region.