HOUSE BILL REPORT

SSB 5127

BYSenate Committee on Governmental Operations (originally sponsored by Senator McCaslin)

Eliminating boundary review boards.

House Committe on Local Government

Majority Report:  Do pass with amendments.  (13)

      Signed by Representatives Haugen, Chair; Ferguson, Ranking Republican Member; Horn, Nealey, Nelson, Nutley, Phillips, Raiter, Rayburn, Todd, Wolfe, Wood and Zellinsky.

House Staff:Steve Lundin (786-7127)

AS PASSED HOUSE APRIL 5, 1989

BACKGROUND:

State law creates a boundary review board in every class AA (King) and A (Pierce, Spokane, and Snohomish) county, and permits a boundary review board to be created in all other counties.  In these counties, boundary review boards may be created by either resolution of the county legislative authority or by a petition method (no boundary review boards have been formed by the petition method).  A boundary review board has been created by resolution of the county legislative authority in each of the 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 special purpose districts (sewer, water, fire protection, drainage and diking improvement, flood control zone, irrigation, metropolitan park, drainage, or public utility district engaged in water distribution.)

SUMMARY:

A boundary review board could not disapprove a proposed incorporation or disincorporation of a city or town. A boundary review board could not modify a proposed incorporation of a city by adding or removing territory that constitutes 10 percent or more of the total area included within the proposal.

The procedure is altered by which appointments are made for persons to sit on boundary review boards.  Instead of having all appointments being made by the governor, a mix of gubernatorial and local appointments is provided.

The terms of office of boundary review board members are reduced from six to four years.  No person may serve on a board for more than eight consecutive years.  Whenever an appointment or appointments have not been made timely, the size of the board is considered to be reduced by one for each position that remains vacant or unappointed.

Other changes are made to boundary review board laws that include:  (1) providing that an approval of a proposed annexation by a boundary review board shall authorize the annexation as it was approved; and (2) referencing the potential of boundary review board review in the statutes of cities, and special districts involving boundary changes that are subject to potential review by a boundary review board.

A new city boundary could not be located within a right-of-way, except where the boundary runs from one edge of the right-of-way to the other edge of the right-of-way.

The governing bodies of a county and a city may agree to the revision of that portion of the city's boundaries located on the edge or any portion of a right-of-way to include or exclude fully that portion of the right-of-way from the city's boundaries. Such a revision is not subject to potential review by a boundary review board.

A process is provided for two cities to agree upon an adjustment of their boundaries, if the two cities are separated by only all or part of a right-of-way.  The adjustment would place all of the portion of the right-of-way inside one of the cities.  A mandatory process is provided for the adjustment of similar boundaries between two cities that would arise from a new annexation or incorporation.  Such revisions are not subject to potential review by a boundary review board.

The boundaries of a city may be adjusted to include or exclude that portion of a parcel of land that is partially located inside of a city and partially outside of the city upon the petition of the parcel owner and acceptance by the city.  Such a boundary adjustment shall not be subject to potential review by a boundary review board if the boundary adjustment places the parcel entirely inside or outside of the city and the adjustment is approved by the county legislative authority, where the portion of the parcel that is outside of the city is located in the unincorporated area, or if the boundary adjustment places the parcel entirely inside either of the cities and the adjustment is approved by the council of the other city, where the portion of the parcel that is outside of the city is located in this other city.

A single ballot proposition could combine authorization for an annexation and acceptance of a portion of the city's indebtedness.  The ballot proposition must be by a 60 percent / 40 percent margin.  However, if the ballot proposition were approved by only a simple majority vote, the city is authorized to permit the annexation without the assumption of indebtedness.

Fiscal Note:      Not Requested.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Rick Jenness, Citizens to Incorporate Highland Bay; Kent Swisher, Association of Washington Cities.

House Committee - Testified Against:      None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:    Boundary review boards have extended the hearings on the proposed incorporation of Highland Bay, north of Edmonds.  A board could reduce a proposed city down to an area with only 3,000 residents.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      None Presented.