VETO MESSAGE ON SB 5336-S

                   May 14, 1997

To the Honorable President and Members,

  The Senate of the State of Washington

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     I am returning herewith, without my approval as to sections 1, 5, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 24, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5336 entitled:

"AN ACT Relating to clarifying and harmonizing provisions affecting cities and towns;"

     Substitute Senate Bill No. 5336 is primarily a technical bill relating to the internal operations of cities and towns.  It deletes some archaic statutes and references, aligns some other statutes to current practice, and makes others more usable.

     Section 1 of this bill would provide that the reasonable costs involved in the collection of debts through the use of a collection agency by a governmental entity are reasonable costs that may be added to, and included in the debt to be paid by the debtor.  I support this concept, however, I find the language in Substitute Senate Bill 5827, dealing with this same subject, preferable because it offers more precision regarding what can be considered reasonable costs.

     Section 5 would correct a reference regarding civil infractions for violation of concealed weapons laws.  This reference was also corrected in Senate Bill No. 5326 which I have already signed into law, therefore this section is duplicative.

     Sections 18 through 21 of this bill would allow cities, code cities, and towns to unilaterally annex territory located in a county, beyond the urban growth area, if the area to be annexed is owned by the city or town and the annexation is for a municipal purpose.  The authority that would be granted by these sections goes well beyond the changes to annexation laws recommended by the Land Use Study Commission.

     These sections could create a very large loophole in our growth management laws.  "Municipal purpose." is not clearly defined in the bill.  Without a definition of "municipal purpose", the annexation authority could be exercised much too broadly.  Nothing in the bill requires a city to maintain a use of the annexed property that would be appropriate outside of an urban growth area, after an annexation is completed.  Also, over-broad annexation authority would erode the financial base of some of our counties.

     Section 24 is an emergency clause.  Although this bill is important, it is not a matter for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions.

     For these reasons, I have vetoed sections 1, 5, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 24 of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5336.

     With the exception of sections 1, 5, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 24,  Substitute Senate Bill No. 5336 is approved.

                   Respectfully submitted,

                   Gary Locke

                   Governor