SB 5247
In CommitteeSenate
Naselle Youth Camp property
Transferring ownership of the Naselle Youth Camp property to the Chinook Indian Nation.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill transfers the Naselle Youth Camp property from state ownership to the Chinook Indian Nation, provided the Nation commits to using it for tribal government purposes for at least 10 years. It also updates state law to remove the camp from definitions and listings of state-run juvenile facilities.
- Requires the Department of Enterprise Services to transfer ownership of the Naselle Youth Camp property to the Chinook Indian Nation by October 1, 2025, if the Nation agrees to keep the land for at least 10 years and use it for tribal government purposes.
- Amends RCW 28A.190.005 to remove Naselle Youth Camp from the definition of a ‘residential school’ used for juvenile rehabilitation and education.
- Amends RCW 72.05.010 to remove Naselle Youth Camp from the list of facilities placed under state agency oversight (specifically, under the Department of Children, Youth, and Families).
- Clarifies that the transfer is intended to support the ‘highest and best use’ of the underutilized property for the benefit of the local community and tribal people.
Who is affected
- Chinook Indian Nation — The Chinook Indian Nation would gain ownership of the Naselle Youth Camp property, with the requirement to use it for tribal government purposes for at least 10 years.
- Youth in or formerly in state residential facilities — Youth currently or formerly in state-run residential facilities (e.g., Green Hill, Echo Glen, Yakima Valley) may be affected if the transfer influences future use or availability of such facilities, though the bill does not change services directly.
- State agencies (Enterprise Services and Children, Youth, and Families) — State agencies—specifically the Department of Enterprise Services (responsible for property transfers) and the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (which oversees some residential facilities)—would need to implement the transfer and update records.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
This bill affirms tribal sovereignty by returning underutilized state land to a state-recognized tribe with a long-standing federal recognition history (though not yet fully restored), enabling self-determined use of the land for tribal governance, cultural preservation, or economic development—potentially including services for tribal members and the broader local community.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (transfer to Chinook Indian Nation); Sec. 2 & 3 (removal from state facility lists); Overview (supporting highest and best use for local community and tribal people)The state avoids future maintenance, security, and administrative costs for an underutilized facility (last reported operational use was over a decade ago), freeing up limited state resources for higher-priority needs—while the land remains in public (tribal) hands rather than being sold to private developers or left idle.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (transfer without monetary consideration); Fiscal Impact (no state costs or revenue changes)The Chinook Indian Nation may use the property for economic development (e.g., tribal enterprises, job training, cultural tourism), potentially creating jobs for tribal members and local residents—especially if the tribe partners with local businesses or expands services that serve the broader Pacific County region.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (intent to realize highest and best use for local community and tribal people); Sec. 2 & 3 (removal from outdated facility lists)If the tribe repurposes the site for community-based services—such as mental health clinics, substance use treatment, or youth outreach programs—it could improve public safety outcomes by offering preventive, culturally grounded alternatives to incarceration, especially for Native youth.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (transfer to Chinook Indian Nation); Overview (supporting highest and best use for local community and tribal people)Clarifying that Naselle Youth Camp is no longer a state-run residential school helps correct outdated statutory language and reduces bureaucratic confusion in education and juvenile justice planning—though the practical impact is limited since the facility has been largely unused for that purpose for years.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2 & 3 (removal of Naselle Youth Camp from statutory definitions and oversight lists)
Potential Concerns (3)
Removal of Naselle Youth Camp from state definitions and oversight may reduce transparency and accountability for how the land is used in the future, especially if tribal operations are not subject to the same public reporting, oversight, or civil rights safeguards as state-run facilities. While the camp is currently underutilized, its reclassification could weaken public access to information about juvenile justice infrastructure in the region.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1; Sec. 2 (removal of Naselle Youth Camp from 'residential school' definition); Sec. 3 (removal from DCYF oversight list)The state ceases maintenance and operational responsibilities for the property, but local governments (e.g., Pacific County) may face indirect costs if the land’s future use requires public infrastructure support (e.g., roads, utilities, emergency services) or if the tribal government seeks local services without contributing to local tax revenue (as tribal lands are generally exempt from local taxation).
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1 (transfer without monetary consideration); Fiscal Impact section (no state costs or revenue changes specified)The requirement that the land be used for *tribal government purposes only* for 10 years may limit future flexibility for broader community or intergovernmental use—even if the current tribal intent is beneficial, it could preclude future collaborative public health, education, or economic development partnerships that don’t fit the narrow “tribal government purpose” definition.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1 (10-year minimum use requirement for tribal government purposes only); Sec. 2 & 3 (removal from state facility lists)
Who Is Most Affected
The Chinook Indian Nation gains ownership of a 220-acre property with potential for cultural, governmental, and economic development. As a tribe with long-standing ties to the Columbia River region but only partial federal recognition (pending full restoration), this transfer represents a significant step toward self-determination and resource sovereignty.
Local residents of Pacific County—especially low-income families, youth, and Native community members—may benefit if the tribe uses the land for community services, job creation, or culturally relevant youth programs. However, they may also face challenges if tribal operations limit public access or if local governments lose potential tax revenue.
The Department of Enterprise Services and DCYF avoid future operational and administrative burdens related to an unused facility. However, the state loses a potential asset that could have been sold or repurposed for state needs—though the fiscal impact is negligible given the property’s current underutilization.
Youth currently in state facilities (e.g., Green Hill) are not directly affected, but the symbolic and practical shift—removing a facility from the state’s juvenile justice inventory—may signal broader reforms in how Washington approaches rehabilitation and community-based alternatives to incarceration.
Local governments (Pacific County, city councils) may benefit from tribal partnerships or economic development but could face unfunded costs if tribal operations require expanded public services (e.g., road maintenance, emergency response) without corresponding tax revenue. Tribal lands are generally exempt from local taxation.