BILL REQ. #: S-0629.1
State of Washington | 63rd Legislature | 2013 Regular Session |
Read first time 01/29/13. Referred to Committee on Governmental Operations.
AN ACT Relating to local government compliance with the growth management act; and amending RCW 36.135.030, 36.70A.130, 36.70A.295, 36.70A.330, 36.70A.340, 36.70A.345, 36.70A.500, 43.17.250, 43.155.070, 70.146.070, and 82.02.050.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1 RCW 36.135.030 and 2009 c 45 s 3 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) Counties, in consultation with cities and towns within the
county, may make loans to local governments from funds established
under RCW 36.135.020 for the purpose of assisting local governments in
funding public works projects. Counties may require terms and
conditions and may charge rates of interest on its loans as they deem
necessary or convenient to carry out the purposes of this chapter.
Counties may not pledge any amount greater than the sum of money in
their local public works assistance fund plus money to be received from
the payment of the debt service on loans made from that fund. Money
received from local governments in repayment of loans made under this
chapter must be paid into the fund of the lending county for uses
consistent with this chapter.
(2) Prior to receiving moneys from a fund established under RCW
36.135.020, a local government applying for financial assistance under
this chapter must demonstrate to the lending county:
(a) Utilization of all local revenue sources that are reasonably
available for funding public works projects;
(b) Compliance or a showing of working toward compliance with
applicable requirements of chapter 36.70A RCW; and
(c) Consistency between the proposed project and applicable capital
facilities plans.
(3) Counties may not make loans under this chapter prior to
completing the initial collaboration and prioritization requirements of
RCW 36.135.040(1).
Sec. 2 RCW 36.70A.130 and 2012 c 191 s 1 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1)(a) Each comprehensive land use plan and development regulations
shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the county or
city that adopted them. Except as otherwise provided, a county or city
shall take legislative action to review and, if needed, revise its
comprehensive land use plan and development regulations to ensure the
plan and regulations comply with the requirements of this chapter
according to the deadlines in subsections (4) and (5) of this section.
(b) Except as otherwise provided, a county or city not planning
under RCW 36.70A.040 shall take action to review and, if needed, revise
its policies and development regulations regarding critical areas and
natural resource lands adopted according to this chapter to ensure
these policies and regulations comply with the requirements of this
chapter according to the deadlines in subsections (4) and (5) of this
section. Legislative action means the adoption of a resolution or
ordinance following notice and a public hearing indicating at a
minimum, a finding that a review and evaluation has occurred and
identifying the revisions made, or that a revision was not needed and
the reasons therefor.
(c) The review and evaluation required by this subsection shall
include, but is not limited to, consideration of critical area
ordinances and, if planning under RCW 36.70A.040, an analysis of the
population allocated to a city or county from the most recent ten-year
population forecast by the office of financial management.
(d) Any amendment of or revision to a comprehensive land use plan
shall conform to this chapter. Any amendment of or revision to
development regulations shall be consistent with and implement the
comprehensive plan.
(2)(a) Each county and city shall establish and broadly disseminate
to the public a public participation program consistent with RCW
36.70A.035 and 36.70A.140 that identifies procedures and schedules
whereby updates, proposed amendments, or revisions of the comprehensive
plan are considered by the governing body of the county or city no more
frequently than once every year, except that, until December 31, 2015,
the program shall provide for consideration of amendments of an urban
growth area in accordance with RCW 36.70A.1301 once every year.
"Updates" means to review and revise, if needed, according to
subsection (1) of this section, and the deadlines in subsections (4)
and (5) of this section or in accordance with the provisions of
subsection (6) of this section. Amendments may be considered more
frequently than once per year under the following circumstances:
(i) The initial adoption of a subarea plan. Subarea plans adopted
under this subsection (2)(a)(i) must clarify, supplement, or implement
jurisdiction-wide comprehensive plan policies, and may only be adopted
if the cumulative impacts of the proposed plan are addressed by
appropriate environmental review under chapter 43.21C RCW;
(ii) The development of an initial subarea plan for economic
development located outside of the one hundred year floodplain in a
county that has completed a state-funded pilot project that is based on
watershed characterization and local habitat assessment;
(iii) The adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program under
the procedures set forth in chapter 90.58 RCW;
(iv) The amendment of the capital facilities element of a
comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or
amendment of a county or city budget; or
(v) The adoption of comprehensive plan amendments necessary to
enact a planned action under RCW 43.21C.031(2), provided that
amendments are considered in accordance with the public participation
program established by the county or city under this subsection (2)(a)
and all persons who have requested notice of a comprehensive plan
update are given notice of the amendments and an opportunity to
comment.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in (a) of this subsection, all
proposals shall be considered by the governing body concurrently so the
cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained.
However, after appropriate public participation a county or city may
adopt amendments or revisions to its comprehensive plan that conform
with this chapter whenever an emergency exists or to resolve an appeal
of a comprehensive plan filed with the growth management hearings board
or with the court.
(3)(a) Each county that designates urban growth areas under RCW
36.70A.110 shall review, according to the schedules established in
subsection (5) of this section, its designated urban growth area or
areas, and the densities permitted within both the incorporated and
unincorporated portions of each urban growth area. In conjunction with
this review by the county, each city located within an urban growth
area shall review the densities permitted within its boundaries, and
the extent to which the urban growth occurring within the county has
located within each city and the unincorporated portions of the urban
growth areas.
(b) The county comprehensive plan designating urban growth areas,
and the densities permitted in the urban growth areas by the
comprehensive plans of the county and each city located within the
urban growth areas, shall be revised to accommodate the urban growth
projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty-year period.
The review required by this subsection may be combined with the review
and evaluation required by RCW 36.70A.215.
(4) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, counties
and cities shall take action to review and, if needed, revise their
comprehensive plans and development regulations to ensure the plan and
regulations comply with the requirements of this chapter as follows:
(a) On or before December 1, 2004, for Clallam, Clark, Jefferson,
King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston, and Whatcom counties and the
cities within those counties;
(b) On or before December 1, 2005, for Cowlitz, Island, Lewis,
Mason, San Juan, Skagit, and Skamania counties and the cities within
those counties;
(c) On or before December 1, 2006, for Benton, Chelan, Douglas,
Grant, Kittitas, Spokane, and Yakima counties and the cities within
those counties; and
(d) On or before December 1, 2007, for Adams, Asotin, Columbia,
Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grays Harbor, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan,
Pacific, Pend Oreille, Stevens, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, and Whitman
counties and the cities within those counties.
(5) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (6) and (8) of this
section, following the review of comprehensive plans and development
regulations required by subsection (4) of this section, counties and
cities shall take action to review and, if needed, revise their
comprehensive plans and development regulations to ensure the plan and
regulations comply with the requirements of this chapter as follows:
(a) On or before June 30, 2015, and every eight years thereafter,
for King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties and the cities within those
counties;
(b) On or before June 30, 2016, and every eight years thereafter,
for Clallam, Clark, Island, Jefferson, Kitsap, Mason, San Juan, Skagit,
Thurston, and Whatcom counties and the cities within those counties;
(c) On or before June 30, 2017, and every eight years thereafter,
for Benton, Chelan, Cowlitz, Douglas, Kittitas, Lewis, Skamania,
Spokane, and Yakima counties and the cities within those counties; and
(d) On or before June 30, 2018, and every eight years thereafter,
for Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Grays
Harbor, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Stevens,
Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties and the cities within
those counties.
(6)(a) Nothing in this section precludes a county or city from
conducting the review and evaluation required by this section before
the deadlines established in subsections (4) and (5) of this section.
Counties and cities may begin this process early and may be eligible
for grants from the department, subject to available funding, if they
elect to do so.
(b) A county that is subject to a deadline established in
subsection (4)(b) through (d) of this section and meets the following
criteria may comply with the requirements of this section at any time
within the thirty-six months following the deadline established in
subsection (4) of this section: The county has a population of less
than fifty thousand and has had its population increase by no more than
seventeen percent in the ten years preceding the deadline established
in subsection (4) of this section as of that date.
(c) A city that is subject to a deadline established in subsection
(4)(b) through (d) of this section and meets the following criteria may
comply with the requirements of this section at any time within the
thirty-six months following the deadline established in subsection (4)
of this section: The city has a population of no more than five
thousand and has had its population increase by the greater of either
no more than one hundred persons or no more than seventeen percent in
the ten years preceding the deadline established in subsection (4) of
this section as of that date.
(d) A county or city that is subject to a deadline established in
subsection (4)(d) of this section and that meets the criteria
established in (b) or (c) of this subsection may comply with the
requirements of subsection (4)(d) of this section at any time within
the thirty-six months after the extension provided in (b) or (c) of
this subsection.
(e) A county that is subject to a deadline established in
subsection (5)(b) through (d) of this section and meets the following
criteria may comply with the requirements of this section at any time
within the twenty-four months following the deadline established in
subsection (5) of this section: The county has a population of less
than fifty thousand and has had its population increase by no more than
seventeen percent in the ten years preceding the deadline established
in subsection (5) of this section as of that date.
(f) A city that is subject to a deadline established in subsection
(5)(b) through (d) of this section and meets the following criteria may
comply with the requirements of this section at any time within the
twenty-four months following the deadline established in subsection (5)
of this section: The city has a population of no more than five
thousand and has had its population increase by the greater of either
no more than one hundred persons or no more than seventeen percent in
the ten years preceding the deadline established in subsection (5) of
this section as of that date.
(g) State agencies are encouraged to provide technical assistance
to the counties and cities in the review of critical area ordinances,
comprehensive plans, and development regulations.
(7)(a) The requirements imposed on counties and cities under this
section shall be considered "requirements of this chapter" under the
terms of RCW 36.70A.040(1). Only those counties and cities that meet
the following criteria may receive grants, loans, pledges, or financial
guarantees under chapter 43.155 or 70.146 RCW:
(i) Complying or a showing of working toward complying with the
deadlines in this section;
(ii) Demonstrating substantial progress towards compliance with the
schedules in this section for development regulations that protect
critical areas; or
(iii) Complying with the extension provisions of subsection (6)(b),
(c), or (d) of this section.
(b) A county or city that is fewer than twelve months out of
compliance with the schedules in this section for development
regulations that protect critical areas is making substantial progress
towards compliance. Only those counties and cities in compliance or
showing that they are working toward compliance with the schedules in
this section may receive preference for grants or loans subject to the
provisions of RCW 43.17.250.
(8)(a) Except as otherwise provided in (c) of this subsection, if
a participating watershed is achieving benchmarks and goals for the
protection of critical areas functions and values, the county is not
required to update development regulations to protect critical areas as
they specifically apply to agricultural activities in that watershed.
(b) A county that has made the election under RCW 36.70A.710(1) may
only adopt or amend development regulations to protect critical areas
as they specifically apply to agricultural activities in a
participating watershed if:
(i) A work plan has been approved for that watershed in accordance
with RCW 36.70A.725;
(ii) The local watershed group for that watershed has requested the
county to adopt or amend development regulations as part of a work plan
developed under RCW 36.70A.720;
(iii) The adoption or amendment of the development regulations is
necessary to enable the county to respond to an order of the growth
management hearings board or court;
(iv) The adoption or amendment of development regulations is
necessary to address a threat to human health or safety; or
(v) Three or more years have elapsed since the receipt of funding.
(c) Beginning ten years from the date of receipt of funding, a
county that has made the election under RCW 36.70A.710(1) must review
and, if necessary, revise development regulations to protect critical
areas as they specifically apply to agricultural activities in a
participating watershed in accordance with the review and revision
requirements and timeline in subsection (5) of this section. This
subsection (8)(c) does not apply to a participating watershed that has
determined under RCW 36.70A.720(2)(c)(ii) that the watershed's goals
and benchmarks for protection have been met.
Sec. 3 RCW 36.70A.295 and 2010 c 211 s 9 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) The superior court may directly review a petition for review
filed under RCW 36.70A.290 if all parties to the proceeding before the
board have agreed to direct review in the superior court. The
agreement of the parties shall be in writing and signed by all of the
parties to the proceeding or their designated representatives. The
agreement shall include the parties' agreement to proper venue as
provided in RCW 36.70A.300(5). The parties shall file their agreement
with the board within ten days after the date the petition is filed, or
if multiple petitions have been filed and the board has consolidated
the petitions pursuant to RCW 36.70A.300, within ten days after the
board serves its order of consolidation.
(2) Within ten days of receiving the timely and complete agreement
of the parties, the board shall file a certificate of agreement with
the designated superior court and shall serve the parties with copies
of the certificate. The superior court shall obtain exclusive
jurisdiction over a petition when it receives the certificate of
agreement. With the certificate of agreement the board shall also file
the petition for review, any orders entered by the board, all other
documents in the board's files regarding the action, and the written
agreement of the parties.
(3) For purposes of a petition that is subject to direct review,
the superior court's subject matter jurisdiction shall be equivalent to
that of the board. Consistent with the requirements of the superior
court civil rules, the superior court may consolidate a petition
subject to direct review under this section with a separate action
filed in the superior court.
(4)(a) Except as otherwise provided in (b) and (c) of this
subsection, the provisions of RCW 36.70A.280 through 36.70A.330, which
specify the nature and extent of board review, shall apply to the
superior court's review.
(b) The superior court:
(i) Shall not have jurisdiction to directly review or modify an
office of financial management population projection;
(ii) Except as otherwise provided in RCW 36.70A.300(2)(b), shall
render its decision on the petition within one hundred eighty days of
receiving the certification of agreement; and
(iii) Shall give a compliance hearing under RCW 36.70A.330(2) the
highest priority of all civil matters before the court.
(c) An aggrieved party may secure appellate review of a final
judgment of the superior court under this section by the supreme court
or the court of appeals. The review shall be secured in the manner
provided by law for review of superior court decisions in other civil
cases.
(5) If, following a compliance hearing, the court finds that the
state agency, county, or city is not in compliance with the court's
prior order, the court may use its remedial and contempt powers to
enforce compliance.
(6) The superior court shall transmit a copy of its decision and
order on direct review to the board, the department, and the governor.
If the court has determined that a county or city is not in compliance
and the county or city cannot show that it is working toward compliance
with the provisions of this chapter, the governor may impose sanctions
against the county or city in the same manner as if the board had
recommended the imposition of sanctions as provided in RCW 36.70A.330.
(7) After the court has assumed jurisdiction over a petition for
review under this section, the superior court civil rules shall govern
a request for intervention and all other procedural matters not
specifically provided for in this section.
Sec. 4 RCW 36.70A.330 and 1997 c 429 s 21 are each amended to
read as follows:
(1) After the time set for complying with the requirements of this
chapter under RCW 36.70A.300(3)(b) has expired, or at an earlier time
upon the motion of a county or city subject to a determination of
invalidity under RCW 36.70A.300, the board shall set a hearing for the
purpose of determining whether the state agency, county, or city is in
compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
(2) The board shall conduct a hearing and issue a finding of
compliance or noncompliance with the requirements of this chapter and
with any compliance schedule established by the board in its final
order. A person with standing to challenge the legislation enacted in
response to the board's final order may participate in the hearing
along with the petitioner and the state agency, county, or city. A
hearing under this subsection shall be given the highest priority of
business to be conducted by the board, and a finding shall be issued
within forty-five days of the filing of the motion under subsection (1)
of this section with the board. The board shall issue any order
necessary to make adjustments to the compliance schedule and set
additional hearings as provided in subsection (5) of this section.
(3) If the board after a compliance hearing finds that the state
agency, county, or city is not in compliance, the board shall transmit
its finding to the governor. The board may recommend to the governor
that the sanctions authorized by this chapter be imposed. The board
shall take into consideration the county's or city's efforts to meet
its compliance schedule in making the decision to recommend sanctions
to the governor. The governor may only impose sanctions against the
county or city if the county or city cannot show that it is working
toward compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
(4) In a compliance hearing upon petition of a party, the board
shall also reconsider its final order and decide, if no determination
of invalidity has been made, whether one now should be made under RCW
36.70A.302.
(5) The board shall schedule additional hearings as appropriate
pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of this section.
Sec. 5 RCW 36.70A.340 and 2011 c 120 s 2 are each amended to read
as follows:
Upon receipt from the board of a finding that a state agency,
county, or city is in noncompliance under RCW 36.70A.330, or as a
result of failure to meet the requirements of RCW 36.70A.210, the
governor may, if the county or city cannot show that it is working
toward compliance with RCW 36.70A.330 and 36.70A.210, either:
(1) Notify and direct the director of the office of financial
management to revise allotments in appropriation levels;
(2) Notify and direct the state treasurer to withhold the portion
of revenues to which the county or city is entitled under one or more
of the following: The motor vehicle fuel tax, as provided in chapter
82.36 RCW; the transportation improvement account, as provided in RCW
47.26.084; the rural arterial trust account, as provided in RCW
36.79.150; the sales and use tax, as provided in chapter 82.14 RCW; the
liquor profit tax, as provided in RCW 66.08.190; and the liquor excise
tax, as provided in RCW 82.08.170; or
(3) File a notice of noncompliance with the secretary of state and
the county or city, which shall temporarily rescind the county or
city's authority to collect the real estate excise tax under RCW
82.46.030 until the governor files a notice rescinding the notice of
noncompliance.
Sec. 6 RCW 36.70A.345 and 2010 c 211 s 13 are each amended to
read as follows:
(1) The governor may impose a sanction or sanctions specified under
RCW 36.70A.340 on: (((1))) (a) A county or city that fails to
designate critical areas, agricultural lands, forest lands, or mineral
resource lands under RCW 36.70A.170 by the date such action was
required to have been taken; (((2))) (b) a county or city that fails to
adopt development regulations under RCW 36.70A.060 protecting critical
areas or conserving agricultural lands, forest lands, or mineral
resource lands by the date such action was required to have been taken;
(((3))) (c) a county that fails to designate urban growth areas under
RCW 36.70A.110 by the date such action was required to have been taken;
and (((4))) (d) a county or city that fails to adopt its comprehensive
plan or development regulations when such actions are required to be
taken.
(2) Imposition of a sanction or sanctions under this section shall
be preceded by written findings by the governor, that either the county
or city is not proceeding in good faith to meet the requirements of the
act; or that the county or city has unreasonably delayed taking the
required action. The governor shall consult with and communicate his
or her findings to the growth management hearings board prior to
imposing the sanction or sanctions. For those counties or cities that
are not required to plan or have not opted in, the governor in imposing
sanctions shall consider the size of the jurisdiction relative to the
requirements of this chapter and the degree of technical and financial
assistance provided. The governor may only impose sanctions against
the county or city if the county or city cannot show that it is working
toward compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
Sec. 7 RCW 36.70A.500 and 2012 1st sp.s. c 1 s 310 are each
amended to read as follows:
(1) The department of commerce shall provide management services
for the growth management planning and environmental review fund
created by RCW 36.70A.490. The department shall establish procedures
for fund management. The department shall encourage participation in
the grant or loan program by other public agencies. The department
shall develop the grant or loan criteria, monitor the grant or loan
program, and select grant or loan recipients in consultation with state
agencies participating in the grant or loan program through the
provision of grant or loan funds or technical assistance.
(2) A grant or loan may be awarded to a county or city that is
required to or has chosen to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 and that is
qualified pursuant to this section. The grant or loan shall be
provided to assist a county or city in paying for the cost of preparing
an environmental analysis under chapter 43.21C RCW, that is integrated
with a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, plan element, countywide
planning policy, development regulation, monitoring program, or other
planning activity adopted under or implementing this chapter that:
(a) Improves the process for project permit review while
maintaining environmental quality; or
(b) Encourages use of plans and information developed for purposes
of complying with this chapter to satisfy requirements of other state
programs.
(3) In order to qualify for a grant or loan, a county or city
shall:
(a) Demonstrate that it will prepare an environmental analysis
pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW and subsection (2) of this section that
is integrated with a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, plan element,
countywide planning policy, development regulations, monitoring
program, or other planning activity adopted under or implementing this
chapter;
(b) Address environmental impacts and consequences, alternatives,
and mitigation measures in sufficient detail to allow the analysis to
be adopted in whole or in part by applicants for development permits
within the geographic area analyzed in the plan;
(c) Demonstrate that procedures for review of development permit
applications will be based on the integrated plans and environmental
analysis;
(d) Include mechanisms to monitor the consequences of growth as it
occurs in the plan area and to use the resulting data to update the
plan, policy, or implementing mechanisms and associated environmental
analysis;
(e) Demonstrate substantial progress towards compliance with the
requirements of this chapter. A county or city that is more than six
months out of compliance with a requirement of this chapter is deemed
not to be making substantial progress towards compliance unless the
county or city can show that it is working toward compliance with the
requirements of this chapter; and
(f) Provide local funding, which may include financial
participation by the private sector.
(4) In awarding grants or loans, the department shall give
preference to proposals that include one or more of the following
elements:
(a) Financial participation by the private sector, or a
public/private partnering approach;
(b) Identification and monitoring of system capacities for elements
of the built environment, and to the extent appropriate, of the natural
environment;
(c) Coordination with state, federal, and tribal governments in
project review;
(d) Furtherance of important state objectives related to economic
development, protection of areas of statewide significance, and siting
of essential public facilities;
(e) Programs to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
permitting process by greater reliance on integrated plans and
prospective environmental analysis;
(f) Programs for effective citizen and neighborhood involvement
that contribute to greater likelihood that planning decisions can be
implemented with community support;
(g) Programs to identify environmental impacts and establish
mitigation measures that provide effective means to satisfy concurrency
requirements and establish project consistency with the plans; or
(h) Environmental review that addresses the impacts of increased
density or intensity of comprehensive plans, subarea plans, or
receiving areas designated by a city or town under the regional
transfer of development rights program in chapter 43.362 RCW.
(5) If the local funding includes funding provided by other state
functional planning programs, including open space planning and
watershed or basin planning, the functional plan shall be integrated
into and be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(6) State agencies shall work with grant or loan recipients to
facilitate state and local project review processes that will implement
the projects receiving grants or loans under this section.
Sec. 8 RCW 43.17.250 and 1999 c 164 s 601 are each amended to
read as follows:
(1) Whenever a state agency is considering awarding grants or loans
for a county, city, or town planning under RCW 36.70A.040 to finance
public facilities, it shall consider whether the county, city, or town
requesting the grant or loan has adopted a comprehensive plan and
development regulations as required by RCW 36.70A.040.
(2) When reviewing competing requests from counties, cities, or
towns planning under RCW 36.70A.040, a state agency considering
awarding grants or loans for public facilities shall accord additional
preference to those counties, cities, or towns that have adopted a
comprehensive plan and development regulations as required by RCW
36.70A.040. For the purposes of the preference accorded in this
section, a county, city, or town planning under RCW 36.70A.040 is
deemed to have satisfied the requirements for adopting a comprehensive
plan and development regulations specified in RCW 36.70A.040 if the
county, city, or town:
(a) Adopts or has adopted a comprehensive plan and development
regulations within the time periods specified in RCW 36.70A.040;
(b) Adopts or has adopted a comprehensive plan and development
regulations before submitting a request for a grant or loan if the
county, city, or town failed to adopt a comprehensive plan and/or
development regulations within the time periods specified in RCW
36.70A.040; or
(c) Demonstrates substantial progress toward adopting a
comprehensive plan or development regulations within the time periods
specified in RCW 36.70A.040. A county, city, or town that is more than
six months out of compliance with the time periods specified in RCW
36.70A.040 or that cannot show that it is working toward compliance
with the time periods specified in RCW 36.70A.040 shall not be deemed
to demonstrate substantial progress for purposes of this section.
(3) The preference specified in subsection (2) of this section
applies only to competing requests for grants or loans from counties,
cities, or towns planning under RCW 36.70A.040. A request from a
county, city, or town planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall be accorded
no additional preference based on subsection (2) of this section over
a request from a county, city, or town not planning under RCW
36.70A.040.
(4) Whenever a state agency is considering awarding grants or loans
for public facilities to a special district requesting funding for a
proposed facility located in a county, city, or town planning under RCW
36.70A.040, it shall consider whether the county, city, or town in
whose planning jurisdiction the proposed facility is located has
adopted a comprehensive plan and development regulations as required by
RCW 36.70A.040 and shall apply the preference specified in subsection
(2) of this section and restricted in subsection (3) of this section.
Sec. 9 RCW 43.155.070 and 2012 c 196 s 9 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) To qualify for loans or pledges under this chapter the board
must determine that a local government meets all of the following
conditions:
(a) The city or county must be imposing a tax under chapter 82.46
RCW at a rate of at least one-quarter of one percent;
(b) The local government must have developed a capital facility
plan; and
(c) The local government must be using all local revenue sources
which are reasonably available for funding public works, taking into
consideration local employment and economic factors.
(2) Except where necessary to address a public health need or
substantial environmental degradation, a county, city, or town planning
under RCW 36.70A.040 must have adopted a comprehensive plan, including
a capital facilities plan element, and development regulations as
required by RCW 36.70A.040. A county, city, or town that has adopted
a comprehensive plan and development regulations as required in RCW
36.70A.040 may request a grant or loan for public works projects. This
subsection does not require any county, city, or town planning under
RCW 36.70A.040 to adopt a comprehensive plan or development regulations
before requesting ((or receiving)) a loan or loan guarantee under this
chapter ((if such request is made before the expiration of the time
periods specified in RCW 36.70A.040)). A county, city, or town
planning under RCW 36.70A.040 ((which)) that has not adopted a
comprehensive plan and development regulations within the time periods
specified in RCW 36.70A.040 is not prohibited from receiving a loan or
loan guarantee under this chapter if the comprehensive plan and
development regulations are adopted as required by RCW 36.70A.040
before ((submitting a request for a loan or loan guarantee)) the board
disburses the funds or guarantees the loan, or if the county, city, or
town can show that it is working toward compliance with adopting
comprehensive plan and development regulations as required in RCW
36.70A.040.
(3) In considering awarding loans for public facilities to special
districts requesting funding for a proposed facility located in a
county, city, or town planning under RCW 36.70A.040, the board must
consider whether the county, city, or town planning under RCW
36.70A.040 in whose planning jurisdiction the proposed facility is
located has adopted a comprehensive plan and development regulations as
required by RCW 36.70A.040.
(4) The board must develop a priority process for public works
projects as provided in this section. The intent of the priority
process is to maximize the value of public works projects accomplished
with assistance under this chapter. The board must attempt to assure
a geographical balance in assigning priorities to projects. The board
must consider at least the following factors in assigning a priority to
a project:
(a) Whether the local government receiving assistance has
experienced severe fiscal distress resulting from natural disaster or
emergency public works needs;
(b) Except as otherwise conditioned by RCW 43.155.110, whether the
entity receiving assistance is a Puget Sound partner, as defined in RCW
90.71.010;
(c) Whether the project is referenced in the action agenda
developed by the Puget Sound partnership under RCW 90.71.310;
(d) Whether the project is critical in nature and would affect the
health and safety of a great number of citizens;
(e) Whether the applicant's permitting process has been certified
as streamlined by the office of regulatory assistance;
(f) Whether the applicant has developed and adhered to guidelines
regarding its permitting process for those applying for development
permits consistent with section 1(2), chapter 231, Laws of 2007;
(g) The cost of the project compared to the size of the local
government and amount of loan money available;
(h) The number of communities served by or funding the project;
(i) Whether the project is located in an area of high unemployment,
compared to the average state unemployment;
(j) Whether the project is the acquisition, expansion, improvement,
or renovation by a local government of a public water system that is in
violation of health and safety standards, including the cost of
extending existing service to such a system;
(k) Except as otherwise conditioned by RCW 43.155.120, and
effective one calendar year following the development of model
evergreen community management plans and ordinances under RCW
35.105.050, whether the entity receiving assistance has been
recognized, and what gradation of recognition was received, in the
evergreen community recognition program created in RCW 35.105.030;
(l) The relative benefit of the project to the community,
considering the present level of economic activity in the community and
the existing local capacity to increase local economic activity in
communities that have low economic growth; and
(m) Other criteria that the board considers advisable.
(5) Existing debt or financial obligations of local governments may
not be refinanced under this chapter. Each local government applicant
must provide documentation of attempts to secure additional local or
other sources of funding for each public works project for which
financial assistance is sought under this chapter.
(6) Before November 1st of each even-numbered year, the board must
develop and submit to the appropriate fiscal committees of the senate
and house of representatives a description of the loans made under RCW
43.155.065, 43.155.068, and subsection (9) of this section during the
preceding fiscal year and a prioritized list of projects which are
recommended for funding by the legislature, including one copy to the
staff of each of the committees. The list must include, but not be
limited to, a description of each project and recommended financing,
the terms and conditions of the loan or financial guarantee, the local
government jurisdiction and unemployment rate, demonstration of the
jurisdiction's critical need for the project and documentation of local
funds being used to finance the public works project. The list must
also include measures of fiscal capacity for each jurisdiction
recommended for financial assistance, compared to authorized limits and
state averages, including local government sales taxes; real estate
excise taxes; property taxes; and charges for or taxes on sewerage,
water, garbage, and other utilities.
(7) The board may not sign contracts or otherwise financially
obligate funds from the public works assistance account before the
legislature has appropriated funds for a specific list of public works
projects. The legislature may remove projects from the list
recommended by the board. The legislature may not change the order of
the priorities recommended for funding by the board.
(8) Subsection (7) of this section does not apply to loans made
under RCW 43.155.065, 43.155.068, and subsection (9) of this section.
(9) Loans made for the purpose of capital facilities plans are
exempted from subsection (7) of this section.
(10) To qualify for loans or pledges for solid waste or recycling
facilities under this chapter, a city or county must demonstrate that
the solid waste or recycling facility is consistent with and necessary
to implement the comprehensive solid waste management plan adopted by
the city or county under chapter 70.95 RCW.
(11) After January 1, 2010, any project designed to address the
effects of storm water or wastewater on Puget Sound may be funded under
this section only if the project is not in conflict with the action
agenda developed by the Puget Sound partnership under RCW 90.71.310.
Sec. 10 RCW 70.146.070 and 2008 c 299 s 26 are each amended to
read as follows:
(1) When making grants or loans for water pollution control
facilities, the department shall consider the following:
(a) The protection of water quality and public health;
(b) The cost to residential ratepayers if they had to finance water
pollution control facilities without state assistance;
(c) Actions required under federal and state permits and compliance
orders;
(d) The level of local fiscal effort by residential ratepayers
since 1972 in financing water pollution control facilities;
(e) Except as otherwise conditioned by RCW 70.146.110, whether the
entity receiving assistance is a Puget Sound partner, as defined in RCW
90.71.010;
(f) Whether the project is referenced in the action agenda
developed by the Puget Sound partnership under RCW 90.71.310;
(g) Except as otherwise provided in RCW 70.146.120, and effective
one calendar year following the development and statewide availability
of model evergreen community management plans and ordinances under RCW
35.105.050, whether the project is sponsored by an entity that has been
recognized, and what gradation of recognition was received, in the
evergreen community recognition program created in RCW 35.105.030;
(h) The extent to which the applicant county or city, or if the
applicant is another public body, the extent to which the county or
city in which the applicant public body is located, has established
programs to mitigate nonpoint pollution of the surface or subterranean
water sought to be protected by the water pollution control facility
named in the application for state assistance; and
(i) The recommendations of the Puget Sound partnership, created in
RCW 90.71.210, and any other board, council, commission, or group
established by the legislature or a state agency to study water
pollution control issues in the state.
(2) Except where necessary to address a public health need or
substantial environmental degradation, a county, city, or town planning
under RCW 36.70A.040 may not receive a grant or loan for water
pollution control facilities unless it has adopted a comprehensive
plan, including a capital facilities plan element, and development
regulations as required by RCW 36.70A.040. A county, city, or town
that has adopted a comprehensive plan and development regulations as
required in RCW 36.70A.040 may request a grant or loan for water
pollution control facilities. This subsection does not require any
county, city, or town planning under RCW 36.70A.040 to adopt a
comprehensive plan or development regulations before requesting ((or
receiving)) a grant or loan under this chapter if such request is made
before the expiration of the time periods specified in RCW 36.70A.040.
A county, city, or town planning under RCW 36.70A.040 ((which)) that
has not adopted a comprehensive plan and development regulations within
the time periods specified in RCW 36.70A.040 is not prohibited from
receiving a grant or loan under this chapter if the comprehensive plan
and development regulations are adopted as required by RCW 36.70A.040
before ((submitting a request for a)) the department disburses funds
for the grant or loan, or if the county, city, or town can show that it
is working toward compliance with adopting comprehensive plan and
development regulations as required in RCW 36.70A.040.
(3) Whenever the department is considering awarding grants or loans
for public facilities to special districts requesting funding for a
proposed facility located in a county, city, or town planning under RCW
36.70A.040, it shall consider whether the county, city, or town
planning under RCW 36.70A.040 in whose planning jurisdiction the
proposed facility is located has adopted a comprehensive plan and
development regulations as required by RCW 36.70A.040.
(4) After January 1, 2010, any project designed to address the
effects of water pollution on Puget Sound may be funded under this
chapter only if the project is not in conflict with the action agenda
developed by the Puget Sound partnership under RCW 90.71.310.
Sec. 11 RCW 82.02.050 and 1994 c 257 s 24 are each amended to
read as follows:
(1) It is the intent of the legislature:
(a) To ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new
growth and development;
(b) To promote orderly growth and development by establishing
standards by which counties, cities, and towns may require, by
ordinance, that new growth and development pay a proportionate share of
the cost of new facilities needed to serve new growth and development;
and
(c) To ensure that impact fees are imposed through established
procedures and criteria so that specific developments do not pay
arbitrary fees or duplicative fees for the same impact.
(2) Counties, cities, and towns that are required or choose to plan
under RCW 36.70A.040 are authorized to impose impact fees on
development activity as part of the financing for public facilities,
provided that the financing for system improvements to serve new
development must provide for a balance between impact fees and other
sources of public funds and cannot rely solely on impact fees.
(3) The impact fees:
(a) Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are
reasonably related to the new development;
(b) Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system
improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; and
(c) Shall be used for system improvements that will reasonably
benefit the new development.
(4) Impact fees may be collected and spent only for the public
facilities defined in RCW 82.02.090 which are addressed by a capital
facilities plan element of a comprehensive land use plan adopted
pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.70A.070 or the provisions for
comprehensive plan adoption contained in chapter 36.70, 35.63, or
35A.63 RCW. After the date a county, city, or town is required to
adopt its development regulations under chapter 36.70A RCW, continued
authorization to collect and expend impact fees shall be contingent on
the county, city, or town adopting or revising a comprehensive plan in
compliance or with a showing of working toward compliance with RCW
36.70A.070, and on the capital facilities plan identifying:
(a) Deficiencies in public facilities serving existing development
and the means by which existing deficiencies will be eliminated within
a reasonable period of time;
(b) Additional demands placed on existing public facilities by new
development; and
(c) Additional public facility improvements required to serve new
development.
If the capital facilities plan of the county, city, or town is
complete other than for the inclusion of those elements which are the
responsibility of a special district, the county, city, or town may
impose impact fees to address those public facility needs for which the
county, city, or town is responsible.