HB 1622

HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 1622

This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent.

As Reported by House Committee On:
Local Government

Majority Report: The second substitute bill be substituted therefor and the second substitute bill do pass. Signed by 4 members: Representatives Simpson, Chair; Takko, Vice Chair; Eddy and Nelson.

Minority Report: Do not pass. Signed by 3 members: Representatives Warnick, Ranking Minority Member; Schindler, Assistant Ranking Minority Member and Schmick.

Background:

Boundary Review Boards
Boundary Review Boards (Boards) are authorized in statute to guide and control the creation and growth of municipalities in metropolitan areas. While statute provides for the establishment of Boards in counties with at least 210,000 residents, current law provides that a Board may be created and established in any other county. Board members are appointed by the Governor and local government officials from within the applicable county. Some members are appointed by Boards from nominees of special districts within the applicable county.

Upon receiving a timely and sufficient request for review, and following an invocation of a Board's jurisdiction, a Board must review and approve, disapprove, or modify proposed actions, including actions pertaining to the creation, incorporation, or change in the boundary of any city, town, or special purpose district. In reaching decisions on proposed actions, Boards must satisfy public hearing requirements and must attempt to achieve objectives prescribed in statute, including the preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities, and the use of physical boundaries. Generally, decisions on proposed actions must be made within 120 days of the Board receiving a valid request for review.

Board modifications of proposed actions must adhere to legal requirements and limitations. Examples of these provisions are as follows:

Additionally, Board decisions in counties planning under the Growth Management Act (Act) must be consistent with the planning goals of the Act and other provisions.

Supreme Court Action
On November 9, 2006, the Washington Supreme Court (Court) ruled in Interlake Sporting Association, Inc. v. Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County, and City of Redmond, 158 Wn.2d 545 (2006), that the King County Board exceeded its statutory authority when it required the City of Redmond to annex an area that was more than three times larger than the area the city intended to annex. In its ruling, the Court indicated that Boards may modify or adjust boundaries of proposed actions in ways that do increase the total acreage of the proposal.

Summary of Substitute Bill:

Boards, subject to certain requirements, may modify proposals by adding territory that would increase a proposal's total area. A provision prohibiting Boards from adding an amount of territory to proposed town annexations that is greater than the original proposal is replaced with a provision prohibiting Boards from adding an amount of territory to proposed city or town annexations that constitutes more than 100 percent of the area within the proposal before the Board.

Second Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill:

The second substitute bill deletes amendatory provisions authorizing Boards to add or delete territory and to adjust the boundary of a proposed annexation to include all or any land located within an unincorporated urban growth area if certain requirements are met. The second substitute bill authorizes Boards, subject to requirements governing them, to modify a proposal by adding territory that would increase the total area within the proposal before the Board. The second substitute bill also prohibits Boards from modifying proposals for city or town annexations by adding an amount of territory that exceeds 100 percent of the total area within the proposal before the Board.

Effective Date of Second Substitute Bill: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.

Staff Summary of Public Testimony:

(In support of second substitute bill) This bill was heard by and reported from the Local Government Committee last year, but it did not pass the Rules Committee. A Washington Supreme Court ruling one year ago limited the ability of Boundary Review Boards (Boards) to add territory to annexation proposals. This bill restores that authority, but limits the amount of territory that can be added to a 100 percent increase. Annexation furthers growth management goals and objectives and this bill furthers annexation. Boards are effective arenas for dispute resolutions. Board expansions of previous annexation proposals have increased service efficiencies, prevented irregular boundaries, and saved money.

(With concerns on second substitute bill) The 100 percent increase provision seems relatively arbitrary. The committee should consider what a correct maximum percentage of increase should be and what criteria should be used in authorizing an annexation expansion.

(Opposed to second substitute bill) The 100 percent increase allowed by a Board under this bill is too large. If an annexation proposal is properly conceived, a 100 percent increase would be unnecessary. What of the affected public?

Persons Testifying: (In support) Representative Moeller, prime sponsor; Michael Marchand, Washington State Association of Boundary Review Boards; and Mark T. Beales, Boundary Review Board of Snohomish County.

(With concerns) Steve Stuart, Clark County.

(Opposed) Mike Burgess, Spokane County.