To direct the United States Postal Service to designate single, unique ZIP Codes for certain communities, and for other purposes.
Click any stage to learn more about the legislative process.
Would require the U.S. Postal Service to assign a single, unique ZIP Code to each of 66 named communities across more than a dozen states within 270 days of enactment, addressing a long-standing problem for towns and neighborhoods that share ZIP Codes with neighboring areas.
What this bill would do
What it would do
The bill would direct the United States Postal Service to designate a distinct, exclusive ZIP Code for each of 66 specifically named communities in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The USPS would be required to complete these designations within 270 days of the bill's enactment. The communities listed currently lack a single unique ZIP Code of their own, meaning their addresses overlap with broader or neighboring postal zones.
The bill does not appropriate funds, prescribe how USPS must administer the new ZIP Codes once assigned, or address what happens if the agency misses the 270-day deadline. It applies only to the communities named in the text; no general authority is created for other communities to petition for unique ZIP Codes under this measure.
Key provisions
- 1Would require the USPS to designate a single, unique ZIP Code for each of 66 specifically named communities across more than a dozen states.
- 2Would set a 270-day deadline from enactment for USPS to complete all ZIP Code designations.
Who would be affected
Residents, businesses, local governments, and emergency-services providers in each of the 66 listed communities, who currently share ZIP Codes with neighboring areas. The U.S. Postal Service would be directly directed to act. Mail carriers, package delivery services, and anyone who uses a listed community's address in databases, maps, or official records would also be affected.
Why it matters
Shared ZIP Codes can cause misrouted mail, confusion in emergency-dispatch systems, inaccurate demographic and commercial data tied to postal geography, and a loss of community identity in official records. A unique ZIP Code would give each listed community a cleaner address boundary, which matters especially for growing suburban and exurban municipalities that have incorporated or expanded but still carry inherited postal zones.
What would change
Agencies directed to act
Effective dates
- Deadline for USPS to designate unique ZIP Codes for all 66 listed communities
How implementation would work
The bill imposes a single, self-executing deadline: USPS must complete all 66 designations within 270 days of enactment. The bill specifies no rulemaking process, no community petition mechanism, and no reporting requirement. USPS would need to internally assign new five-digit codes, update its postal database, notify affected post offices and delivery routes, and coordinate with local governments and address-database vendors. The bill provides no appropriation to cover those administrative costs and sets no fallback if the deadline is not met.
Legislative status & sources
Latest action
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Official CRS summary
Show the CRS summaryHide the CRS summary
This bill requires the U.S Postal Service to designate a single, unique ZIP Code for each of the following 74 communities:
- Canyon Lake, California
- Eastvale, California
- Hidden Hills, California
- Industry, California
- North Tustin, California
- Tehachapi, California
- Castle Pines, Colorado
- Centennial, Colorado
- Cherry Hills Village, Colorado
- Greenwood Village, Colorado
- Highlands Ranch, Colorado
- Keystone, Colorado
- Lone Tree, Colorado
- Mountain Village, Colorado
- Mt Crested Butte, Colorado
- Severance, Colorado
- Silver Cliff, Colorado
- Sterling Ranch, Colorado
- Superior, Colorado
- Telluride, Colorado
- Scotland, Connecticut
- Estero, Florida
- Ft Myers, Florida
- Hollywood, Florida
- Oakland Park, Florida
- Lighthouse Point, Florida
- Coconut Creek, Florida
- Parkland, Florida
- Deerfield Beach, Florida
- Wilton Manors, Florida
- Burr Ridge, Illinois
- Carmel, Indiana
- Noblesville, Indiana
- Westfield, Indiana
- Zionsville, Indiana
- Urbandale, Iowa
- Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
- Montz, Louisiana
- Springwater Township, Minnesota
- Grass Valley, Nevada
- Swanzey, New Hampshire
- Kinnelon, New Jersey
- Mendham Township, New Jersey
- Flanders, New York
- Glendale, New York
- Riverside, New York
- Pendelton, New York
- Northampton, New York
- Harnett County, North Carolina
- Weddington, North Carolina
- Goose Creek, South Carolina
- Fairview, Texas
- Fate, Texas
- Heath, Texas
- Murphy, Texas
- Northlake, Texas
- Parker, Texas
- Sargent, Texas
- Fairlawn, Virginia
- Caledonia, Wisconsin
- Franklin, Wisconsin
- Glendale, Wisconsin
- Greenfield, Wisconsin
- Village of Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin
- Village of Somers, Wisconsin
- Village of Harrison, Wisconsin
- Mills, Wyoming
- Hochatown, Oklahoma
- North Enid, Oklahoma
- Green, Ohio
- Rochester, Wisconsin
- Quartzite Township, Minnesota
- Frederick, Colorado
- Camargo, Kentucky
Legislative subjects
California; Colorado; Connecticut; Florida; Government Operations and Politics; Illinois; Indiana; Iowa; Kentucky; Louisiana; Minnesota; Nevada; New Hampshire; New Jersey; New York State; North Carolina; Ohio; Oklahoma; Postal service; Texas; Virginia; Wisconsin; Wyoming