HOUSE BILL REPORT
SB 5335
As Amended by the House
BYSenators Halsan, Zimmerman, Garrett and McCaslin
Changing provisions relating to boundary review boards.
House Committe on Local Government
Majority Report: Do pass with amendments. (11)
Signed by Representatives Haugen, Chair; Beck, Bumgarner, Ferguson, Hine, Madsen, Nealey, Nutley, Rayburn, L. Smith and Zellinsky.
House Staff:Steve Lundin (786-7127)
AS PASSED HOUSE APRIL 8, 1987
BACKGROUND:
State law creates a boundary review board in every class A and AA county (King, Pierce, Spokane and Snohomish), and permits a boundary review board to be created in other counties. A board has been created in each of the 15 following counties: Benton, Chelan, Clark, Cowlitz, Douglas, Franklin, Grant, Kitsap, Pacific, Skagit, Skamania, Thurston, Walla Walla, Whatcom and Yakima.
Boundary review boards may review and approve, reject, or modify and approve the creation, dissolution, annexation, or consolidation of governmental units, defined to be cities, towns and specific special purpose districts (sewer, water, fire protection, drainage improvement, drainage and diking improvement, flood control zone, irrigation, metropolitan park, drainage, or public utility district engaged in water distribution). Boundary review boards may also review and approve, reject, or modify and approve the extension of water or sewer services by a city, town, or special district beyond its boundaries.
Boundary review boards take jurisdiction over a matter upon the request of: (1) the chairman, or any three members, of the board; (2) an affected city, town or special purpose district; or (3) a sufficient number of registered voters, or property owners, within the affected area petitioning the board.
A boundary review board of a class AA county (King) has an eleven-member board, while all other boards have five- members.
SUMMARY:
Statutes relating to boundary review boards are altered as follows:
(1) The ability to cause jurisdiction of the board to be invoked on a matter is restricted as follows:
o The board could not raise jurisdiction on matters relating to boundary changes or incorporations, or extension of: (a) sewer service beyond their boundaries if the extension is through the installation of sewer mains of eight inches or less in diameter; or (b) water services beyond their boundaries if the extension is through the installation of water mains of six inches or less in diameter.
o The ability of the board chairman to raise jurisdiction is removed.
o A board in a class AA (King) county could only raise its jurisdiction by request of five, instead of three, members.
o The county within which the area of the proposed action is located is authorized to raise the jurisdiction on a specific action.
(2) The time period is shortened from 60 days to 45 days after notice of the action is filed before jurisdiction must be raised, or a proposed action is deemed to be approved.
(3) The authority of a board to modify and approve a proposal is limited as follows:
o It may not interfere with the authority of a city, town, or special district to require, or not require, pre-annexation agreements, covenant or petitions.
o The modification of the boundaries of a city, town, or special district annexation shall not invalidate signature sufficiency requirements on a petition.
o A proposal cannot be modified, or denied, unless a written finding is made, citing one or more of the board's objectives, and supported by appropriate findings and conclusions.
o A legal description can be modified if it is erroneous, with the agreement of the initiators.
(4) Fees to notify the board of an action are increased from $25 to $50, and fees to require to be paid if a board invokes jurisdiction are increased from $100 to $200.
(5) A board may waive review of an annexation of any local government, instead of only that of a city or town, involving a 10 acre or smaller area if the assessed valuation is less than $2 million, instead of less than $800,000.
(6) Meetings of the board expressly are subject to the open public meetings act.
Fiscal Note: Not Requested.
House Committee ‑ Testified For: Kent Swisher, Association of Washington Cities; Bob Roegner, Auburn City Mayor; and Jack Hebner, Spokane City Council.
House Committee - Testified Against: Jim Williams, Association of Washington Counties; Brice Martin, King County Boundary Review Board; Bud Norris, Snohomish County Council; Everett Fourre, President, Thurston County Boundary Review Board; Doreen Johnson, Plateau Preservation Society; and Kathy McCarthy, Friends of Snoqualmie Valley.
House Committee - Testimony For: Boundary review boards are at times too aggressive, make land- use decisions, and cause costs to increase by delaying actions. They should resolve disputes and not be both the prosecutor and judge. The Spokane Board denied a city annexation into an agricultural area that was supported by the city, county and owner of the land.
House Committee - Testimony Against: Boundary review boards are carrying out their mandated duties. Only rarely do they raise jurisdiction on their own. Most actions are approved anyway.