HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 2767
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in
their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a
statement of legislative intent.
As Reported by House Committee On:
Local Government
Title: An act relating to specialty agricultural structures.
Brief Description: Exempting specialty agricultural structures from building code requirements.
Sponsors: Representatives Blake, Kretz, Grant, VanDeWege, Orcutt, McCoy, Hailey, Pettigrew, Kenney, Loomis, Pearson and Newhouse.
Brief History:
Local Government: 1/31/08, 2/5/08 [DPS].
Brief Summary of Substitute Bill |
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 5 members: Representatives Simpson, Chair; Takko, Vice Chair; Warnick, Ranking Minority Member; Eddy and Nelson.
Minority Report: Without recommendation. Signed by 2 members: Representatives Schindler, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Schmick.
Staff: Ethan Moreno (786-7386).
Background:
The State Building Code Council (Council) was created to provide analysis and advice to the
Legislature and the Governor's Office on state building code issues. The Council establishes
the minimum building, mechanical, fire, plumbing, and energy code requirements by
reviewing, developing, and modifying the code provisions that comprise the state building
code (SBC). The SBC describes the powers and duties of fire code officials and building
officials and must be enforced by counties and cities. Subject to statutory limitations,
however, these local governments may amend the SBC as it applies within their jurisdiction.
Summary of Substitute Bill:
A provision limiting certain permit charges is established in the SBC. The permit charge that
may be imposed for specialty agricultural buildings constructed on a commercial agricultural
operation may not exceed the costs incurred by the local government for processing the
permit and performing associated inspections. Specialty agricultural structures are those that
are designed and constructed to house farm equipment, hay, grain, poultry, livestock, or other
horticultural products. Human habitation, public use, and employment where agricultural
products are processed, treated, or packaged are not permitted uses of a specialty agricultural
buildings.
"Commercial agricultural operation" is defined as an operation that generates an average of at
least $10,000 gross income per year from the sale of agricultural products.
Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill:
Deletes all provisions of the underlying bill exempting qualifying specialty agricultural
buildings from the SBC and related permit requirements. Adds a provision limiting the
charge for permits for specialty agricultural buildings constructed on a commercial
agricultural operation to the costs incurred by the local government for processing the permit
and performing associated inspections.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Not requested.
Effective Date of Substitute Bill: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
(In support) The intent of this bill is to keep using agricultural lands for agricultural practices.
If you encourage farmers to invest in agricultural buildings, the likelihood of continuing to
use the agricultural land for agricultural practices increases. Supporters of the bill are willing
to work on new language that would add electrical safety provisions and require local official
to be notified of new buildings. The costs of agricultural building permits in Washington are
very high when compared with those of Oregon and Idaho. Chicken production will not
expand in Washington if it is prohibitively expensive to do so. Washington is the only state
on the west coast that does not have statewide exemptions for agricultural buildings. The
costs of an agricultural building permit in the state can equal 25 percent of the construction
costs, yet the issuing county will derive tax roll benefits from the completed construction. If
the permit cost is too high, farmers will not construct the buildings and counties will lose
potential revenue. Local governments have concerns about buildings that would be
constructed under less stringent regulations, but agricultural buildings will be constructed
safely and will comply with code requirements. Farmers need agricultural buildings and the
logic behind high permit fees is questionable.
(Concerns) County assessors work from building permit data: this bill could interfere with
their efforts to fulfill professional obligations.
(Opposed) Concerns exist about the bill and its effect on the underground construction
industry. If a permit is not required, unlicensed contractors will be used for the construction.
This bill will encourage the construction of unsafe buildings. The SBC is designed to protect
firefighters. This bill will require code officials to ask farmers for income information; a
question that will not be welcomed. Buildings that people work in should not be exempted
from the SBC. If there are concerns about fees, agricultural buildings should be exempted
from permit fees instead of the SBC and its safety requirements. Counties are concerned
about the preemption provision of the bill. Counties may adopt fee exemptions for
agricultural buildings; eight already do. County exemptions are usually developed in
consultation with local fire officials. Counties use permit fees to recover costs in today's tight
fiscal environment. This bill is viewed as a public safety issue. Farm buildings are not
required to be designed by architects. Changes that will encourage the construction of unsafe
buildings are opposed.
Persons Testifying: (In support) Representative Blake, prime sponsor; Chris Cheney,
Washington Fryer Commission; Jay Gordan, Washington Dairy Federation; Bryan Henke,
Henke Farms; Louis Farrar; and Jim Burnett, All-Purpose Structures.
(Concerns) Robert Carlton, Washington State Association of County Assessors.
(Opposed) John Neff, Washington Association of Building Officials; Mike Brown,
Washington Fire Chiefs; Eric Johnson, Washington State Association of Counties; Bob
Johnson, Lewis County; and Stan Bowman, American Institute of Architects - Washington
Council.