HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1278

BYRepresentative Winsley

Authorizing continued superior court jurisdiction over weed control in certain lakes.

House Committe on Local Government

Majority Report:  Do pass.  (13)

      Signed by Representatives Haugen, Chair; Cooper, Vice Chair; Beck, Butterfield, Dorn, Ferguson, Hine, Jones, Nealey, Nelson, Nutley, Rayburn and Zellinsky.

House Staff:Steve Lundin (786-7127)

AS PASSED HOUSE FEBRUARY 8, 1988

BACKGROUND:

Legislation was enacted in 1985 authorizing counties, cities and towns to create lake management districts to finance the lake improvement projects, including weed removal.  A lake management district is created by an affirmative vote of the owners of property within the district who will make the payments for such purposes, with a property owner having one vote for each projected dollar of charge that will be imposed on his or her property.

This 1985 legislation removed the previous authority of lake weed removal projects from being financed under a system of assessments imposed by the superior court of the county in which the lake is located.  The ability was retained for maintaining lake levels under this superior court established process.  This superior court process is initiated by petition of ten property owners on a lake.  The superior court assumes jurisdiction over the proposal if it finds that the proposal will be beneficial to property around the lake and imposes assessments on the property for this purpose.  The court retains continuing jurisdiction over the proposal.

The old superior court process was used for weed control projects on several lakes in Pierce County.

SUMMARY:

A superior court that had assumed jurisdiction over a weed removal project on any lake prior to July 28, 1985 (the effective date of the legislation removing the authority for such purposes), may retain its jurisdiction over weed removal on the effected lake.

EFFECT OF SENATE AMENDMENT(S):  Provisions are added for assessments to be imposed and collected under the old superior court procedure for weed removal purposes on lakes over which a superior court previously had assumed jurisdiction.

Fiscal Note:      Not Requested.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Representative Shirley Winsley, Prime Sponsor; Patrick Steele and Tom Gagliardi, attorneys in Pierce County.

House Committee - Testified Against:      None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:    This just grandfathers in the lakes under the old procedure. Pierce County does not want to use the new procedure.  The Pierce County Superior Court ruled that lakes under the old procedure were grandfathered in, but this is under appeal.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      The old superior court process is not fair.  There is no vote on the old process.  Why can't Pierce County figure out how to use the lake management district procedure when Thurston County has used this procedure.

VOTE ON FINAL PASSAGE:

      Yeas 97; Absent 1

Absent:     Representative Sanders