SSB 6147
In CommitteeSenate
Grocery estab. closures
Concerning notice requirements for grocery establishment closures.
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 requires grocery stores in certain high-need areas to give at least six months’ advance notice before permanently closing and to work with local governments and community groups to explore alternatives. It also bans private agreements that block future grocery stores at a closed location—unless specific exceptions apply—and gives state and local officials new tools to enforce these rules.
- Requires grocery stores in certain high-need areas (e.g., food deserts or low-income areas far from other stores) to give at least six months’ written notice before permanently closing, to local governments, health departments, and the attorney general.
- Mandates that stores post prominent public notices at all entrances/exits during the notice period to inform customers and the public.
- Requires employers to meet in good faith with local officials, neighborhood groups, and unions during the notice period to explore alternatives to closure (e.g., selling to a new operator, forming a cooperative).
- Allows exceptions to the six-month notice requirement only for emergencies (e.g., natural disasters) or if giving notice would jeopardize efforts to secure funding or a buyer—but employers must still give as much notice as possible and explain why less was given.
- Bars private agreements (e.g., lease or deed restrictions) that prohibit or limit future grocery store use on a site once a store closes—except for limited exceptions, such as relocating within one year to a nearby site of similar or greater size.
- Authorizes the attorney general and local prosecutors to sue employers for violations and seek injunctions, civil penalties, or court orders requiring compliance.
- Grants cities, towns, and counties authority to enforce the law locally and extend certain deadlines (e.g., relocation timelines) for good cause (e.g., financing delays, food access needs).
Who is affected
- Grocery establishment owners and operators — Grocery stores in designated food deserts or low-access, low-income areas must provide six months' notice before closing and engage in good-faith discussions with local officials and community groups about alternatives to closure.
- Grocery store employees and their unions — Employees may be represented by unions in discussions with employers and local officials about preventing closures or transitioning services.
- Local government officials (city councils, county councils, city/county attorneys) — Local governments (cities, towns, counties) gain new authority to require advance notice of closures, hold meetings with employers, and enforce the law in their jurisdictions.
- Community members, especially those in food deserts — Residents—especially seniors, people with disabilities, and those without reliable transportation—may benefit from increased access to food if closures are delayed or prevented through community efforts.
- State Attorney General's Office — The state attorney general gains authority to sue employers for violations and to enforce penalties under consumer protection laws.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The six-month notice and public posting requirement gives communities—especially vulnerable populations like seniors, disabled residents, and car-limited households—critical time to organize alternatives (e.g., pop-up markets, mobile vendors, food banks), reducing sudden food access loss and preventing acute food insecurity spikes.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(a), Sec. 3(2)(b), Sec. 3(1)Mandating good-faith engagement with unions and neighborhood groups increases the likelihood of cooperative transitions (e.g., worker co-ops, local purchase agreements), preserving jobs and community control—particularly beneficial in areas where grocery closures have historically led to job losses with no remediation.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 4(1), Sec. 4(2), Sec. 4(3)Voiding restrictive covenants that permanently block grocery use prevents corporate landlords or developers from locking out future food access to force higher rents or redevelop for non-essential uses—protecting long-term community health infrastructure in low-income neighborhoods.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 7(1), Sec. 7(3)(b)Granting local governments authority to extend deadlines for good cause (e.g., financing delays, food access needs) empowers cities and counties to tailor enforcement to local conditions—supporting equitable reinvestment while avoiding one-size-fits-all mandates.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 8(1), Sec. 8(2)(a)Authorizing local prosecutors and neighborhood groups to sue for violations strengthens accountability in communities where the Attorney General’s office may lack resources to monitor all closures—particularly helpful in rural counties with limited state presence.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 5(2)(b), Sec. 9(2)(c)
Potential Concerns (5)
Grocery stores—especially small, independent operators in thin-margin, high-volatility retail environments—face increased operational risk from mandatory six-month notice periods, which may limit their flexibility to respond to sudden financial distress, supplier failures, or lease expirations. This could accelerate closures in vulnerable markets where agility is essential for survival.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(a), Sec. 3(2)(b)The good-faith meeting requirement imposes administrative and legal risk on employers: while framed as collaborative, the obligation to engage with multiple stakeholders—including unions and government—during a sensitive closure process may create pressure to delay or abandon closures even when financially necessary, potentially increasing costs and liability exposure for struggling operators.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 4(1), Sec. 4(2)The bill shifts significant enforcement costs to local governments and the Attorney General’s office without appropriated funding, potentially diverting resources from other public safety or consumer protection priorities—especially in rural or under-resourced counties that lack dedicated legal staff for such enforcement.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 5(1), Sec. 5(2), Sec. 9(1)By voiding private use restrictions on grocery sites, the bill may reduce property owners’ ability to plan long-term land use—potentially discouraging investment in mixed-use developments or non-grocery retail in areas where a grocery anchor is no longer viable, especially in neighborhoods transitioning away from traditional retail models.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 7(1), Sec. 7(3)(b)The exception for 'actively seeking capital or business' is narrow and subjective, creating uncertainty for employers: without clear regulatory guidance, businesses may over-disclose or forgo time-sensitive opportunities to avoid legal risk, potentially worsening closure outcomes despite good-faith efforts.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(3)(b), Sec. 3(4)
Who Is Most Affected
Grocery operators in food deserts face new compliance burdens and reduced flexibility, but may benefit from extended timelines to find buyers or co-ops; small independent stores are most at risk due to thinner margins and less legal capacity.
Employees—especially unionized workers—gain a formal seat at the table during closure negotiations, potentially preserving jobs or securing severance; however, if closures still occur, the process may be slower and less predictable.
Local governments gain new enforcement authority and tools to protect food access, but face unfunded costs for legal and administrative work—especially burdensome for small municipalities without dedicated legal staff.
Residents in food deserts—particularly seniors, disabled people, and low-income households without cars—stand to gain significantly from delayed or prevented closures, reducing food insecurity and health disparities.
The Attorney General gains new enforcement powers and civil penalty authority, expanding consumer protection reach—but this is a marginal increase in workload without new funding, and the primary beneficiaries are communities, not the AG’s office.