Senate committee hears bills to define and expand agritourism, with debate over neighbor protections and liquor rules

The Senate Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs Committee on Thursday heard testimony on Senate Bill 5055, a proposal to define "agritourism" in state law and let counties adopt ordinances permitting accessory agritourism activities on working farms and ranches.

The bill would allow counties to permit direct sales, educational and seasonal entertainment activities tied to on-site agriculture; clarify that agricultural buildings used for agritourism that operate six months or less per year need not meet additional commercial building-code standards; and create a limited beer-and-wine license for on-premises consumption at agritourism venues (with limited off-premises sales tied to in-state microbreweries or craft wineries). Karen Epps, committee staff, summarized the bill and noted a fiscal note has been requested.

Why it matters: supporters said the bill would help smaller farms diversify income, maintain working landscapes and provide public education about agriculture. Opponents and some local officials urged changes to avoid duplicative or prescriptive state rules that would override local permitting and nuisance protections.

Supporters: Senator Judy Warnke (prime sponsor) said the measure is intended to help small farms survive by allowing them to host activities such as pick‑your‑own operations and limited events. Farmer testimony emphasized recent business and crop losses that left operators in need of flexible, local options. Hillary Jensen of Jensen Farms said county officials enforced commercial building standards against seasonal on‑site sales and called for the state to remove that barrier for short‑season operations. Scott Lucky and other farmers described agritourism as essential supplemental income.

Concerns and requested changes: Several county officials and land‑use groups asked the committee to revisit section 2, which would require counties to consult neighboring landowners and create criteria (water, septic, parking, curfews, seasons of use) before permitting agritourism activities. Critics said those requirements are duplicative of existing county codes and could impose expensive infrastructure demands (for example, permanent septic or parking installations) that many rural farms cannot meet. Bryce Aton of FutureWise said the bill’s reference to “hospitality” could unintentionally expand agritourism to hotels and restaurants and lead to tavern‑style uses inconsistent with agricultural goals. Linda Yelle, Snohomish County Assessor, asked that language about taxation and the open‑space current use program be clarified in statute (referencing RCW 84.34) so assessors and the Department of Revenue have consistent guidance.

Other provisions: the measure would require agritourism venues to provide a plan to prevent minors’ access to alcoholic beverages. Multiple testifiers urged the committee to clarify how long‑standing, grandfathered agritourism operations would be treated.

Where it stands: committee staff said the bill is a work in progress and the sponsor and stakeholders intend to refine language with the Department of Revenue and local governments. No formal action or vote occurred during this hearing.

Ending: Committee members and witnesses agreed more drafting work is needed on section 2 and on tax and building‑code interactions; supporters asked the committee to advance a revised bill that balances farm flexibility with neighbor protections.