Committee hears bill to allow agritourism as incidental use on open‑space land

Senate Bill 5479 received a public hearing in the Washington State Senate Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee. The bill would add agritourism activities to the list of allowable incidental uses for farm and agricultural land that qualify for current‑use property tax valuation, and it would change the penalty and certain administrative rules for removal from the program.

Committee staff summarized the proposal: under the state’s current‑use valuation, lands used primarily for commercial agriculture may include incidental uses that do not exceed 20% of classified land. SB 5479 would expressly permit agritourism activities — defined in the bill to include educational programs, hospitality services, self‑guided tours, farm festivals, corn mazes, self‑harvest operations, hay rides, horseback riding, fishing, camping, petting zoos, barn parties and “celebratory gatherings” such as weddings — provided those activities remain incidental and compatible with production. The bill would also allow de minimis supporting alterations, such as small structures and gravel parking lots, and would reduce the back‑tax lookback period used when land is removed from current use from seven years to four years. A fiscal note estimates implementation costs at about $75,000 for the upcoming biennium.

Sponsor remarks emphasized rural economic survival. Senator Elias (21st Legislative District) said high land values near urban edges make it difficult for small farms to remain viable and that “these agritourism activities… are incidental but really valuable to keeping these farms in operation.” He said the bill aims to clarify how assessors should treat modest visitor‑oriented uses so small farmers are not imperiled by unexpected back taxes.

Farmers and local officials testified in favor. Brad Tower of the Washington Christmas Tree Growers said the current‑use valuation is central to the retirement plans and survival of family farms and that involuntary removal with a seven‑year lookback can be financially devastating. Josh Weiss, representing Snohomish County, told the committee the bill is a priority for the county and its assessor and that agritourism helps county farm economies. During the hearing committee staff noted an Internet outage interrupted remote testimony; the committee continued the hearing to allow remote participants another opportunity to testify. The staff roll call recorded 355 sign‑in responses: 69 pro and 286 con; the chair continued the hearing to a later date so remote witnesses could be heard.

Members asked whether the bill overrides local zoning; the sponsor and staff both said the bill addresses current‑use tax classification, not local land‑use/zoning authority, and local regulations would still apply.

The committee did not take a vote on SB 5479 at this hearing and continued the public hearing to permit additional remote testimony.