HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 1631
BYRepresentatives Haugen, Brough, Nutley, Doty, Nelson, Cooper, Rayburn, Zellinsky, Jacobsen, Hine, Ferguson, May and Unsoeld; by request of Washington State Local Governance Commission
Establishing requirements for local government service agreements.
House Committe on Local Government
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. (13)
Signed by Representatives Haugen, Chair; Cooper, Vice Chair; Beck, Bumgarner, Butterfield, Ferguson, Hine, Jones, Nealey, Nelson, Nutley, Rayburn and Zellinsky.
House Staff:Steve Lundin (786-7127)
Rereferred House Committee on Ways & Means/Appropriations
Majority Report: The substitute bill by Committee on Local Government as amended by Committee on Ways and Means/Appropriations do pass. (20)
Signed by Representatives Locke, Chair; Belcher, Braddock, Brekke, Bristow, Butterfield, Fuhrman, Grant, Grimm, Holland, McLean, Nealey, Peery, Sayan, Silver, H. Sommers, Spanel, Sprenkle, Wang and B. Williams.
House Staff: Susan Kavanaugh and Rick Wickman (786-7136)
AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON WAYS & MEANS/APPROPRIATIONS
FEBRUARY 5, 1988
BACKGROUND:
The Local Governance Study Commission was established in 1986 to study local government in the state and make recommendations to the Legislature for changes in laws that were felt to be necessary. This commission has twenty-one members, and three ex- officio, nonvoting, members. The twenty-one members consist of four Senators, four Representatives, four city elected officials, four county elected officials, and five persons representing special districts. The ex-officio, nonvoting, members were the director of the Department of Community Affairs, who chaired the meetings, and the executive directors of the Association of Washington Cities and the Washington State Association of Counties.
This proposed legislation is one of the recommendations from this commission.
Statutes provide procedures how most local governments can annex territory, how some local governments can have territory withdrawn or de-annexed, and how some of the same type of local governments can merge or consolidate. Virtually all these local governments have boundaries that overlap with all or part of the boundaries of other types of local government.
The Interlocal Agreement Act authorizes local governments to enter into relationships as follows: (1) two or more local governments that each have the authority to provide the same service or facility can enter into a contract by which one government provides the service or facility for the other local government or governments; and (2) two or more local governments that each have the authority to provide the same service or facility can enter into agreements to jointly provide the service or facility.
SUMMARY:
SUBSTITUTE BILL: This legislation partially implements HJR 4227 by establishing a process for local governments to define and use a procedure to establish binding agreements among local governments for the provision of services and development of local policies, that could include the transfer of services and revenues between existing local governments.
An initial meeting of local governments must be convened in each county by the county legislative authority within 90 days of the effective date of this act to establish a starting date to commence this process.
A starting date is established after the initial meeting upon the approval of: (1) the county representative; (2) the representatives of the cities that include at least fifty percent of the incorporated population in the county; and (3) representatives of at least twenty percent of the special districts that are formally participating. The authority to establish a starting date lapses if this action is not taken within sixty days after the initial meeting.
Subsequently, another initial meeting can be called to establish a starting date.
After a starting date has been established, the local governments formally participating in the process define a process to formally adopt binding local government service agreements.
A local government service agreement may include any of the following matters: (1) The provision of governmental services, including which governments provide any of these services in which areas and whether and when a change if such service provision should occur; (2) a dispute resolution arrangement; (3) how joint land use planning and zoning controls can be established; (4) how common development standards can be established; (5) how capital improvement plans can be coordinated; (6) whether and to what extent revenues should be transferred among local governments in relationship to their obligations for providing facilities and services; (7) designation of urban areas and areas that are designed to become urban; and (8) designation of area-wide services to be provided by the county.
Provision is made for this process to be used on a multi-county area.
A local government service agreement process must be commenced in each county within six years of the effective date of this act if the Legislature appropriates money for local governments to conduct these activities.
Any agreements must be submitted to the department of community development to review for conformance with the requirements of this law, including the requirement that governmental services be addressed in a comprehensive manner. Financial incentives (to be specified in another bill that is not drafted) are available to local governments with agreements that have been certified by the department as conforming with this act.
Assistance from the department of community development shall be as follows: (1) grants shall be made to assist in the development of these agreements; (2) a financial methodology shall be made available to assist in assessing the need for, and appropriate extent of, financial adjustments between local governments that arise from implementing these agreements; and (3) mediation services to resolve disputes between local governments arising over the provision of services.
Seven hundred fifty thousand dollars is appropriated from the general fund to the department of community development to implement this act.
This legislation is effective only if the constitutional amendment relating to processes to alter local governments (HJR 4227) is approved by the voters.
SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL: The appropriation was reduced. Provision is made for county executives and city mayors to appoint people to represent them on the group that prepares agreements.
CHANGES PROPOSED BY COMMITTEE ON WAYS & MEANS/APPROPRIATIONS: Eliminated appropriation of $750,000 for biennium ending June 30, 1989.
Fiscal Note: Requested February 1, 1988.
Effective Date:This legislation is effective only if the constitutional amendment relating to processes to alter local governments (HJR 4227) is approved by the voters.
House Committee ‑ Testified For: (Local Government) Chuck Clark, Director of the Dept. of Community Development; Jim Metcalf, Wash. State Assn. of Counties; Ray Hill, Washington State Grange; Jesse Anderson, Local Governance Study Commission; Paul Grattet, City of Vancouver; and Jeannette Williams, Seattle City Council.
(Ways & Means/Appropriations) Mike McCormick, Department of Community Development.
House Committee - Testified Against: (Local Government) None Presented.
(Ways & Means/Appropriations) None Presented.
House Committee - Testimony For: (Local Government) This provides a mandate for local governments and citizens to look at their local governments and change them if desirable. Our structure of local government is almost impossible to change at present. Some of the types of changes possible under this are occurring now.
(Ways & Means/Appropriations) Statutory authority for local governments to develop alternative procedures to implement service agreements, ameliorate disputes over services, transfer revenues based on agreement, and designate urban and countywide services should be enacted.
House Committee - Testimony Against: (Local Government) This should not be mandatory.
(Ways & Means/Appropriations) None Presented.