This bill amends RCW 36.70A.330 to change the procedures the Growth Management Act hearings board must follow for compliance hearings. After the statutory compliance period expires (or earlier on motion), the board must set and give highest priority to a compliance hearing, issue a written finding of compliance or noncompliance, and must issue that finding within 45 days of the filing of the motion. The board may not find a county or city in compliance unless the specific portions of its plan or regulations previously found noncompliant have been amended and the amended provisions are compliant with the chapter. The amendment also clarifies who may participate and what happens after a finding. A person with standing to challenge legislation enacted in response to the board’s final order may participate in the hearing along with the original petitioner and the affected state agency, county, or city. If the board finds noncompliance it must transmit the finding to the governor, may refer the matter to the department for technical assistance and training under RCW 36.70A.332, or may recommend sanctions to the governor while taking into account the county’s or city’s efforts to meet its compliance schedule. The board may adjust compliance schedules, set additional hearings, and on petition must reconsider its final order and decide whether a determination of invalidity should now be made under RCW 36.70A.302. This is a procedural change to existing law governing enforcement and compliance hearings under the Growth Management Act rather than the creation of a new crime or new penalties beyond recommending sanctions. The amendment affects the hearings board, the governor, the referenced department, counties and cities subject to compliance, state agencies, petitioners, and persons with standing. The extracted text does not define key terms such as “board” or “department,” and the full text of the referenced provisions in RCW 36.70A.300, RCW 36.70A.302, and RCW 36.70A.332 is not included here, so some procedural details and statutory definitions are not available in the provided facts.

If enacted, the bill means challenges over county or city growth-management plans will get a much faster, higher-priority review: the board must hold a compliance hearing and issue a decision within 45 days of a motion, and it cannot declare a jurisdiction compliant until the specific offending plan or rule changes are actually made and meet the law. That makes it more likely noncompliant counties and cities will either have to move quickly and spend money to revise plans or face a formal noncompliance finding sent to the governor, along with possible referral for state technical assistance or a recommendation for sanctions — and the board must take local efforts to meet schedules into account. The people most affected are county and city governments, which could see faster timelines, added costs for rewriting regulations and potential sanction risk; the board and the state department will have more urgent hearing, oversight, and training work; the governor will receive more formal noncompliance reports; and petitioners or others with standing can participate in hearings. Important details about who exactly the board and department are, and the exact procedures or sanctions available, rely on other statutes that aren’t included here, so the precise enforcement steps and assistance options remain unclear.