Committee hears bill to require hearing examiners for certain land‑use decisions

The Local Government Committee on March 19 heard testimony on engrossed substitute Senate Bill 5,719, which would require counties planning under the Growth Management Act and cities in those counties with populations over 2,000 to adopt hearing examiner systems for quasi‑judicial land‑use decisions.

Supporters said the bill would speed permitting, reduce political pressure on elected officials and produce more predictable, legally grounded decisions. Opponents and county representatives warned of a shortage of qualified hearing examiners and potential costs and practical difficulties for small or rural jurisdictions.

Kellen Wright, staff to the committee, summarized the bill’s mechanics: jurisdictions required to adopt hearing examiner systems would have to do so by mid‑2027 (June or July depending on each jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan schedule). Under the proposal, examiners would hear and decide quasi‑judicial matters such as preliminary plats, variances and conditional uses; decisions would be final administrative decisions subject to appeal and judicial review. The bill requires final decisions within 10 business days of a hearing and written findings that explain how the decision is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Local governments could charge application fees or use other cost‑recovery methods to pay for the system.

Industry and planning groups testified in favor. Jen Kovitz, community engagement manager for Hayden Homes, said the state’s inconsistent local processes cause delays and added costs for homebuyers and urged the committee to move the bill forward: “This bill would streamline and standardize the land approval process by requiring certain municipalities to use hearing examiners for final decisions on quasi judicial permit applications.” Scott Hazelgrove of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties argued examiners apply rules set by elected bodies more efficiently and that faster decisions reduce carrying costs and help produce housing.

The Washington chapter of the American Planning Association also supported the bill. Joe Tobar, testifying for the chapter, told the committee that examiners ‘‘apply the standards adopted by those elected officials’’ and that professional examiners can decide cases more objectively and consistently than elected bodies or planning commissions.

Several witnesses and committee members raised workforce and small‑jurisdiction concerns. Curtis Steinhauer of the Association of Washington Counties said some rural counties have struggled to recruit examiners: ‘‘We have a small rural county ... that's been looking for one for two years.’’ Steinhauer and others also flagged provisions that would allow a local planning director to act as a hearing examiner if no examiner is available; advocates said that provides a practical fallback, but some testified that placing that quasi‑judicial role on a planning director creates conflicts and workload issues.

Committee members asked about interim solutions. Tobar noted jurisdictions can contract for examiner services or use interlocal agreements and that much of the staff work for quasi‑judicial decisions already occurs within planning staff; he said contracting and workforce development were near‑term and longer‑term options. Several testifiers urged committee amendments to exempt very small counties or to allow county legislative authorities alternative decision paths where workforce limits make an examiner impractical.

No formal action or votes were recorded during the hearing. The bill’s proponents and opponents said they would continue negotiating technical amendments on county exemption criteria and fallback decision procedures.

The committee will decide later whether to advance the bill and any accompanying amendments to address examiner availability and small‑jurisdiction impacts.