SENATE BILL REPORT

                  ESHB 2596

              As Reported By Senate Committee On:

           Government Operations, February 27, 1998

Title:  An act relating to master planned resorts.

Brief Description:  Clarifying that master planned resorts may obtain facilities, utilities, and services from outside service providers.

Sponsors:  House Committee on House Government Reform & Land Use (originally sponsored by Representatives Chandler, Reams, Gardner, Lantz and Mulliken).

Brief History:

Committee Activity:  Government Operations:  2/26/98, 2/27/98 [DPA].

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Majority Report:  Do pass as amended.

  Signed by Senators McCaslin, Chair; Hale, Vice Chair; Anderson, Haugen, Horn, Patterson and T. Sheldon.

Staff:  Diane Smith (786-7410)

Background:  The Growth Management Act provides for development of master planned resorts.   A master planned resort is a self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development, in a setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed on-site indoor and outdoor recreational facilities.  Other residential uses may be included within the boundaries of a master planned resort if those uses are integrated into and support the on-site recreational nature of the resort.

One of the criteria specified for a county's approval of a master planned resort is the county's determination that on-site and off-site infrastructure impacts have been fully considered and mitigated.

Summary of Amended Bill:  Master planned resorts are expressly authorized to use outside service providers for capital facilities, services and utilities or to share facilities, services and utilities with outsider service providers.

The changes to master planned resort statutes are based on recommendations from the 1994 Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development Master Planned Resort Task Force.  Master planned resorts may use capital facilities, utilities and services (specified to include those related to sewer, water, storm water, security, fire suppression and emergency medical) from outside service providers.  Master planned resort capital facilities, utilities and services provided on-site are limited to those meeting the needs of the master planned resort.  The master planned resort bears the full costs related to service extensions and capacity increases directly attributable to the resort.

The outside service providers and the master planned resort may agree to share capital facilities, utilities and services.  Any shared facilities and utilities may serve only the master planned resort and urban growth areas.

All waters or use of waters are to be regulated and controlled by the Water Code, Chapter 90.03 RCW, and the Groundwater Code, Chapter 90.44 RCW.

In addition to the determination that infrastructure impacts have been considered and mitigated, a county may approve a master planned resort only after determining that on-site and off-site service impacts are fully considered and mitigated.

Amended Bill Compared to Substitute Bill:  Additional language in the intent section relating to the bill=s complete lack of effect on water rights is moved into the codified section of the bill.

Appropriation:  None.

Fiscal Note:  Not requested.

Effective Date:  Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.

Testimony For:  Master planned resorts have the potential to attract economic development to remote areas that have limited tax bases for provision of infrastructure within the UGAs.  By allowing municipalities to agree to share capital facilities and utilities and to provide those necessities and services to master planned resorts is sound economic practice of benefit to all concerned.

Testimony Against:  UGA means dense growth is contained therein.  The master planned resort is a legitimate exception only when it remains fully self contained and not an extension, in any form, of the UGA.

The language in the intent section about water rights should be codified.

Testified:  PRO:  Michael Moyer, Trendwest Resorts; Joe Howe, Central WA Home Builders; Kevin Raymond, Cairncross and Hompelmann for Trendwest; Karla Kay Fullerton, WA Cattlemen=s Association; CON:  Dan Sexton, WA State Building and Construction Trades; Josh Baldi, WA Enviro Council.