WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 5613

Concerning rural public facilities sales and use tax.

2023-2024 Regular Session Introduced by Matt Boehnke and 9 co-sponsors

SB 5613 requires planning cities/counties to adopt clear, objective residential standards in urban growth areas, with Commerce to publish model code by 2027 and adoption by 2029.

By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 5613

SB 5613 — Summary (2025 session)

Status & procedural history
- Bill introduced: January 31, 2025 (Sen. Salomon et al.).
- Passed the Senate (with substitutes and floor amendments); considered in House Housing and Appropriations committees and returned to Senate Rules for third reading (most recent recorded action: 04/27/2025).
- Effective date (if enacted): 90 days after adjournment of the session in which the bill is passed.
- Note: earlier iterations of “SB 5613” (2023) addressed a different topic (rural public facilities sales/use tax); the 2025 bill concerns residential development standards.

Purpose / intent
- To increase predictability and uniformity in residential permitting by encouraging or requiring (depending on version) local jurisdictions to use “clear and objective” development regulations and design standards, and to produce model code provisions to help jurisdictions comply.

Key provisions (engrossed second substitute and committee amendments)
1. Department of Commerce (Commerce) work group
- Commerce must convene a stakeholder work group (members from cities, counties, building industry, trades, planners, architects, and sustainable land‑use organizations) to analyze regulatory barriers to housing types and to guide implementation of clear-and-objective standards and model code provisions.

  1. Model code provisions

    • Commerce must develop and publish model code provisions for residential development by June 30, 2027 (committee-amended language: “model code provisions” or “optional model code provisions” in later amendments).

  2. Clear and objective requirement for fully‑planning jurisdictions

    • Under the principal (engrossed) version, fully‑planning cities and counties must adopt and apply only clear and objective development regulations and design standards for residential development within urban growth areas by January 1, 2029.
    • Definitions:
      • Clear and objective development regulations: rules that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are ascertainable by reference to measurable written or graphic criteria.
      • Clear and objective design standards: standards with ascertainable guidelines/criteria that do not reduce density, height, bulk, or scale below zone standards.

  3. Alternative approval process allowed

    • Jurisdictions may also adopt an alternative approval process that uses non‑objective (appearance/aesthetic) criteria if:
      • applicants may opt instead to use the clear-and-objective process; and
      • the alternative process does not authorize a density lower than what the comprehensive plan/zoning allows.
    • Nonobjective criteria should be identified and (in some versions) articulated in advisory guidelines.

  4. Compliance pathway and Commerce review

    • A jurisdiction is deemed compliant if it:
      • adopts regulations that meet the clear-and-objective standard; or
      • adopts the Commerce model code provisions (or substantially similar), submits its regulations to Commerce, and receives Commerce approval. Commerce must identify deficiencies and allow resubmission after amendment.

  5. Scope and exceptions

    • Applies to residential development within urban growth areas. Several amendments clarify the rule applies to residential regulations/standards (not all development) and excludes conditional use regulations.

  6. Appeals / enforcement (changed by amendment)

    • Earlier versions authorized Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) review of petitions alleging noncompliance. A later amendment (Rep. Dufault) would remove GMHB appeal provisions and change the model code from mandatory to optional — i.e., shifting toward guidance rather than a strict mandate. These changes were proposed but not adopted at all stages; the final legislative posture depends on subsequent floor action.

Who would be affected
- Fully‑planning cities and counties under the Growth Management Act (jurisdictions responsible for comprehensive planning).
- Developers, builders, architects, planners, and permit applicants (greater predictability for permitting; possible reduction in subjective design review).
- Department of Commerce (administration of the work group, model code development, and review/approval role).
- Potentially the Growth Management Hearings Board (in versions preserving appeal authority).

Potential impacts
- Increased regulatory predictability and potentially faster permitting for residential projects if jurisdictions adopt clear-and-objective standards.
- Limits on subjective design review could change how local design standards and review boards operate; jurisdictions retain some flexibility (alternative process, outright approvals, special conditions).
- Implementation costs for jurisdictions updating codes and for Commerce to convene the work group and produce model code provisions (no appropriation included in text).
- Legal and administrative disputes are possible over what constitutes “clear and objective” compliance and over Commerce determinations (appealability depends on final bill language).

Key deadlines
- Commerce model code provisions due: June 30, 2027 (as amended).
- Jurisdictions required to adopt/apply clear-and-objective standards: January 1, 2029 (in versions that retain the mandate).

What to watch for
- Final floor amendments resolving whether the model code is mandatory or optional, and whether GMHB appeal authority remains.
- Commerce’s published model code provisions and the composition/reporting of the stakeholder work group.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.