2SSB 5968
In CommitteeSenate
Permitting and licensing
Improving regulatory efficiency by integrating executive order 25-03, concerning permitting and licensing processes, into chapter 43.42A RCW.
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 makes Washington’s credentialing process more transparent and efficient by requiring state agencies to track and publicly report how long they take to issue licenses and permits, set firm deadlines for decisions, and provide clear, centralized information for applicants. It also mandates fee refunds if agencies miss their own deadlines—unless an exception applies.
- Requires state agencies to track and report credential processing times (from application receipt to completion, and from completion to final decision) and post this data annually.
- Mandates that agencies establish and publicly post decision deadlines for all credentials by 2030 (phased in: 25% by 2027, 50% by 2028, 75% by 2029, 100% by 2030).
- Creates a statewide, searchable 'credential catalog' on the Office of Regulatory Innovation and Assistance’s website with standardized information about each credential—including fees, requirements, timelines, and application instructions.
- Requires agencies to refund application fees if they fail to meet their published decision deadline (with exceptions for certain fees or non-applicable statutes).
- Requires agencies to report data on pending and backlog applications, processing times (average and median), and other performance metrics each year by March 1.
Who is affected
- Applicants for state credentials — Businesses and individuals applying for state-issued licenses, permits, or certifications (e.g., contractors, restaurants, healthcare providers, environmental operators) will benefit from clearer timelines, standardized application tools, and a central online catalog to plan their activities and avoid delays.
- State agencies issuing credentials — State agencies that issue licenses or permits (e.g., Department of Licensing, Department of Ecology, Department of Health) must now track and report processing times, establish decision deadlines, and make credential information publicly available online.
- Office of Regulatory Innovation and Assistance — The Office of Regulatory Innovation and Assistance (the 'office') gains new responsibilities to coordinate credential data, maintain the statewide catalog, set reporting standards, and ensure agencies meet transparency and timeliness goals.
- Legislature and Governor — Legislative committees and the governor receive annual progress reports on credential processing performance, which may influence future policy or budget decisions.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Standardized, publicly accessible credential timelines and deadlines will help small businesses and sole proprietors plan operations, secure financing, and avoid costly delays—especially in time-sensitive industries like construction, food service, and healthcare, where licensing delays directly impact revenue and hiring.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(k) & Sec. 6(1)-(2)The statewide credential catalog with checklists, examples, and assistance tools will reduce application errors and rework, disproportionately helping low-resource applicants (e.g., first-time entrepreneurs, non-English speakers, small farms) who lack legal or consulting support.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 4(1) & Sec. 4(2)(q)-(r)Mandated fee refunds for agency-caused delays provide tangible financial relief to applicants—especially small businesses and individuals—who incur sunk costs (e.g., equipment rental, staffing, lease deposits) while waiting for approvals.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 6(3)Clear public access to appeal rights and post-approval obligations (e.g., inspections, continuing education) improves accountability and helps applicants avoid violations that could lead to enforcement actions, fines, or license revocation—protecting public safety and consumer trust.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(n) & Sec. 4(2)(o)Standardized application instructions and assistance tools may reduce the need for costly third-party licensing consultants, indirectly supporting workforce development by enabling more individuals to self-navigate credentialing—particularly beneficial for community college and trade school graduates entering regulated fields.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(1) & Sec. 4(2)(c)-(e)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandating fee refunds for missed deadlines could strain agency budgets, especially since many credential fees are legally non-refundable or tied to specific programs (e.g., Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council), potentially forcing agencies to divert funds from other services or delay processing to avoid refund liability.
FinancialRef: Sec. 6(3)The phased implementation of decision deadlines (25% by 2027, 100% by 2030) creates uncertainty for applicants and agencies alike, as inconsistent timelines across credential types may lead to administrative confusion and inconsistent service delivery during the transition period.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 6(1)(a)-(d)The refund provision excludes many fee structures (e.g., reimbursement-based programs, certain council fees), creating a two-tiered system where some applicants receive meaningful recourse for delays while others do not—despite identical delays—undermining equitable access to timely government decisions.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 6(3)While the bill requires agencies to report statutory deadlines, it does not require agencies to meet them—only to publish them—so applicants may be misled into believing a deadline is binding when it is not, potentially causing costly planning errors.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 4(2)(l)Agencies may set overly optimistic or non-binding “published decision times” without penalty if they fall short—unless a refund is legally required—reducing accountability and potentially undermining the bill’s stated goal of predictability.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 4(2)(k)
Who Is Most Affected
Small businesses and sole proprietors (e.g., contractors, restaurants, childcare providers) benefit significantly from predictable timelines and clear application instructions, reducing costly delays and administrative errors. However, they may face challenges if agencies set unrealistic deadlines or if refund policies exclude common fee types.
Agencies face new operational burdens (tracking, reporting, deadline-setting) and potential budget pressures from fee refunds, but gain clearer performance metrics and may improve efficiency over time. Smaller agencies with limited IT resources may struggle most with catalog maintenance.
The Office of Regulatory Innovation and Assistance gains authority but also significant new responsibilities (catalog maintenance, technical support, exception approvals), requiring additional staffing or technology investment—potentially straining current resources.
The Legislature gains valuable performance data to inform oversight and budget decisions, but may face pressure to fund agency compliance or address disparities in credential processing across regions or industries.