Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agritourism Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SB 5055 agritourism exemption draws SBCC concerns over life‑safety, ADA and scope
Summary
The SBCC legislative committee discussed Senate Bill 5055, which would exempt certain agricultural buildings used for agritourism from normal commercial building‑code requirements, and agreed to prepare informational testimony urging clearer limits and caution on ADA, plumbing and crowd‑safety issues.
The State Building Code Council legislative committee discussed Senate Bill 5055 on March 25, 2025, and agreed to provide informational testimony to the Legislature noting concerns with the bill’s broad exemption for agritourism uses and urging sponsors to define limits and specific code exemptions.
Committee members said the bill as drafted could exempt large agricultural buildings used for agritourism activities — including on‑site hospitality, educational programs, petting zoos and similar uses — from many commercial code requirements. Members cautioned that a broad exemption could leave life‑safety, plumbing/public‑health, and accessibility obligations unclear.
Why it matters
Committee members flagged three core issues: (1) federal ADA obligations remain in force even if a building is exempted from state building codes and the SBCC cannot exempt owners from federal law; (2) the bill’s current language is broad enough to include high‑occupancy uses (weddings, events) and could produce hazardous occupant loads or inadequate egress; and (3) plumbing and other public‑health requirements for hospitality uses were not clearly addressed in the bill text.
Discussion and suggested testimony
The committee suggested testimony that asks sponsors to narrow the exemption by specifying which codes would be excluded (for example, limited to certain energy or structural provisions) or by limiting the exemption to incidental agritourism uses (events that do not change a building’s primary agricultural use). Members recommended callers cite the relevant RCW agritourism sections referenced in the discussion and suggest targeted language (including an ‘‘incidental use’’ qualifier and numerically defined occupancy or duration limits) rather than a blanket carve‑out.
Next steps
Staff will draft a short script for the bill’s hearing and circulate it for committee review; the committee agreed to submit informational testimony that highlights ADA obligations, public‑health concerns for hospitality uses, and the need for clearer numeric or use‑based limits.
Ending
No formal vote was recorded. Committee members emphasized that their testimony would be informational and seek clarification and targeted changes rather than endorse or oppose the policy.
