Bill would require some UGA boundary expansions for residential parcels; water and sewer districts warn of costs

The House Local Government Committee heard public testimony on House Bill 1164, which would require counties and cities planning under the Growth Management Act to expand urban growth area (UGA) boundaries at their next comprehensive plan update to include specified adjacent parcels and to allow residential development at densities consistent with adjoining qualifying parcels.

Committee staff summarized the bill’s mechanics: qualifying parcels are those that (1) share a common boundary with another qualifying parcel or (2) are adjacent across the street to parcels already in the UGA; qualifying parcels would have to be included in the UGA and be allowed residential density consistent with the adjacent parcel. The bill includes exceptions for critical areas, certain watersheds, and lands designated as agricultural, forest or mineral resource lands. The bill also requires that urban governmental services be made available to residential developments added to the UGA.

Representative Connie Conner (first time appearing in this committee) said the measure aims to increase developable land for housing, reduce arbitrary barriers where infrastructure already exists on one side of a street, and to help both fast‑growing urban areas and rural small cities that have limited available UGA land. “If you are driving down that street and it already has water, sewer, electricity serving the adjacent parcel or across the street … they would allow those parcels to be brought into the UGA to allow for residential purposes,” Conner said.

Supporters included the Building Industry Association of Washington, Washington Realtors (represented by Mary Hall Drury), and the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, which asked for a technical clarification that eligibility begin at the next five‑year update rather than waiting until the ten‑year comprehensive plan update in some jurisdictions.

Opponents included FutureWise’s Bryce Aden, who said urban growth boundaries are carefully planned to match land supply with housing needs and that automatic inclusion of adjacent parcels could produce unbounded expansion except for the bill’s listed exemptions. Aden warned the provision could create an open‑ended expansion process unless the exceptions are tightly enforced. The Washington Association of Sewer and Water Districts, represented by Devin Gomboski, opposed the bill on grounds that mandatory boundary expansion would create unanticipated capital demands on sewer and water districts, require rapid revisions to system plans and growth assumptions, and could raise rates for existing customers if growth does not materialize as projected.

The committee took no action during the hearing; proponents and opponents urged technical fixes and more consultation on infrastructure and implementation timing.