SENATE BILL REPORT

SSB 5127

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

Eliminating boundary review boards.

Senate Committee on Governmental Operations

Senate Hearing Date(s):January 24, 1989; January 31, 1989

Majority Report:  That Substitute Senate Bill No. 5127 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass.

      Signed by Senators McCaslin, Chairman; Thorsness, Vice Chairman; Pullen.

Senate Staff:Eugene Green (786-7405); Sam Thompson (786-7754)

                  April 6, 1989

AS PASSED SENATE, MARCH 15, 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).

The factors to be considered by a boundary review board and the objectives of a boundary review board are stated in statute.

Many representatives of local government feel that these boards are insensitive to the needs of local government and should not be second-guessing elected local officials.

SUMMARY:

The power of a boundary review board to deny a vote by the people on an incorporation petition or a disincorporation petition is eliminated.

Appropriation:    none

Revenue:    none

Fiscal Note:      none requested

Senate Committee - Testified: Kent Swisher, Association of Washington Cities (pro); Bob Roegner, Mayor of Auburn (pro); Jean Worthen, State Association of Boundary Review Boards; Randy Scott, Washington State Association of Counties (con)

HOUSE AMENDMENT:

Sections 1 and 2 of the striking amendment are SSB 5127, which changes the law so that boundary review boards (if the petitions were sufficient) must allow proposed incorporations and disincorporations to go to a vote of the people.  The remainder of the striking amendment consists of ESHB 1078, which passed the House but was not heard by the Senate committee.  The major change made by the striking amendment is that the procedure is altered by which appointments are made for persons to sit on boundary review boards.  Instead of having the Governor make all appointments, the cities, county, and special districts are allowed to appoint their own representatives.  The terms of office of boundary review board members are reduced from six to four years; no person may serve on a boundary review board for more than eight consecutive years.  Whenever an appointment(s) has not been made in a timely manner, the size of the boundary review board is considered to be reduced by one for each position that remains vacant or unappointed.

Other less significant changes made to boundary review laws 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 of boundary changes in the statutes of cities and special districts 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, or the two cities share a common boundary within 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.