House Bill 1261 would allow agritourism as an incidental use on open space farm land

House Bill 1261 would add agritourism activities to allowable incidental uses on open space, farm and agricultural land that qualify for current‑use property tax assessment. The bill specifies that agritourism and similar incidental uses must remain compatible with the land’s primary agricultural purpose and generally not exceed 20% of the classified acreage.

Committee staff explained that current‑use assessments tax qualifying land at its agricultural—or current—use rather than its highest‑and‑best market value, and that removal from the program can trigger additional tax assessments (a “look‑back” penalty) and interest. The bill would reduce the additional tax calculation from seven years of benefit to four and authorize county assessors to waive back taxes and interest in some circumstances. The Department of Revenue would adopt rules defining what activities qualify as agritourism.

Snohomish County Executive Dave Somers, Snohomish County Council member Megan Dunn and the county assessor told the committee the bill would provide needed clarity after several farmers in the county received large additional tax assessments under varying county interpretations. County witnesses and farmers described agritourism activities—weddings, festivals, U‑pick operations, petting zoos and educational farm visits—as essential revenue sources that help smaller farms remain viable amid development pressure.

Multiple farmers testified with examples of how agritourism supports farm income: one family said U‑pick blueberries produce a substantially higher margin per pound than commodity sales, and another described a federal grant and local projects that rely on stable farm operations. Witnesses from the Washington Rural Environmental Network urged a broad statutory definition to allow future agritourism innovations and suggested future work to address non‑agricultural conversions such as solar and wind on farmland.

The Department of Revenue signed in to testify with administrative and constitutional concerns, noting the bill’s language could be difficult for county assessors to administer without clearer valuation and scope definitions. The Washington State Association of County Assessors asked the committee to narrow retroactive relief language and to provide parameters for any refunds to taxing districts.

Representative Loe, the bill sponsor, and committee members said the measure is intended as a clarification consistent with many counties’ current practice; the hearing closed with sponsors and assessors indicating they would work on targeted language to limit retroactive fiscal impacts.

Ending: If advanced, the bill would change current‑use administration in counties across Washington, reduce the potential penalty exposure for many farms, and require DOR rulemaking to define agritourism eligibility. The committee did not vote on the bill during this hearing.