Passed by the House April 22, 2011 Yeas 90   FRANK CHOPP ________________________________________ Speaker of the House of Representatives Passed by the Senate April 22, 2011 Yeas 33   BRAD OWEN ________________________________________ President of the Senate | I, Barbara Baker, Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives of the State of Washington, do hereby certify that the attached is ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1478 as passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate on the dates hereon set forth. BARBARA BAKER ________________________________________ Chief Clerk | |
Approved May 16, 2011, 2:25 p.m. CHRISTINE GREGOIRE ________________________________________ Governor of the State of Washington | May 17, 2011 Secretary of State State of Washington |
State of Washington | 62nd Legislature | 2011 Regular Session |
READ FIRST TIME 02/15/11.
AN ACT Relating to fiscal relief for cities and counties during periods of economic downturn by delaying or modifying certain regulatory and statutory requirements; amending RCW 36.70A.215, 43.19.648, 43.325.080, 43.185C.210, 46.68.113, 82.02.070, 82.02.080, 82.14.415, 90.46.015, 90.48.260, 90.58.080, and 90.58.090; reenacting and amending RCW 36.70A.130; and creating a new section.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1 It is the legislature's intent to provide
local governments with more time to meet certain statutory
requirements. Many cities and counties in Washington are facing
revenue shortfalls, higher expenses, and more difficulty with borrowing
money as a result of the economic downturn. The effects of the
economic downturn on the budgets of local governments will be felt most
deeply from 2010 to 2012. Local governments are facing the combined
impact of decreased tax revenues, a falloff in state and federal aid,
and increased demand for social services. With the loss of tax revenue
and state and federal aid, local governments are being forced to make
significant cuts that will eliminate jobs, curtail essential services,
and increase the number of people in need. Additionally, local
governments are struggling to comply with certain statutory
requirements. Local governments want to comply with these statutory
requirements, but with budget constraints, they need more time to do
so. The legislature does not intend to remove any existing statutory
requirement, but rather modify the time under which a local government
must meet certain statutory requirements.
Sec. 2 RCW 36.70A.130 and 2010 c 216 s 1 and 2010 c 211 s 2 are
each reenacted and 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 may be
combined with the review required by subsection (3) of this section.))
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. "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, ((at least every ten years)) 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 subsection (6) 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 ((December 1, 2014)) June 30, 2015, and every
((seven)) eight years thereafter, for ((Clallam, Clark, Jefferson,))
King, ((Kitsap,)) Pierce, and Snohomish((, Thurston, and Whatcom))
counties and the cities within those counties;
(b) On or before ((December 1, 2015)) June 30, 2016, and every
((seven)) eight years thereafter, for ((Cowlitz,)) Clallam, Clark,
Island, ((Lewis)) Jefferson, Kitsap, Mason, San Juan, Skagit, Thurston,
and ((Skamania)) Whatcom counties and the cities within those counties;
(c) On or before ((December 1, 2016)) June 30, 2017, and every
((seven)) eight years thereafter, for Benton, Chelan, Cowlitz, Douglas,
((Grant,)) Kittitas, Lewis, Skamania, Spokane, and Yakima counties and
the cities within those counties; and
(d) On or before ((December 1, 2017)) June 30, 2018, and every
((seven)) 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 subsection (6)(b) or (c) of this section 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 subsection
(6)(b) or (c) of this section.
(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 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 with
the schedules in this section may receive preference for grants or
loans subject to the provisions of RCW 43.17.250.
Sec. 3 RCW 36.70A.215 and 1997 c 429 s 25 are each amended to
read as follows:
(1) Subject to the limitations in subsection (7) of this section,
a county shall adopt, in consultation with its cities, countywide
planning policies to establish a review and evaluation program. This
program shall be in addition to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.110,
36.70A.130, and 36.70A.210. In developing and implementing the review
and evaluation program required by this section, the county and its
cities shall consider information from other appropriate jurisdictions
and sources. The purpose of the review and evaluation program shall be
to:
(a) Determine whether a county and its cities are achieving urban
densities within urban growth areas by comparing growth and development
assumptions, targets, and objectives contained in the countywide
planning policies and the county and city comprehensive plans with
actual growth and development that has occurred in the county and its
cities; and
(b) Identify reasonable measures, other than adjusting urban growth
areas, that will be taken to comply with the requirements of this
chapter.
(2) The review and evaluation program shall:
(a) Encompass land uses and activities both within and outside of
urban growth areas and provide for annual collection of data on urban
and rural land uses, development, critical areas, and capital
facilities to the extent necessary to determine the quantity and type
of land suitable for development, both for residential and employment-based activities;
(b) Provide for evaluation of the data collected under (a) of this
subsection ((every five years)) as provided in subsection (3) of this
section. ((The first evaluation shall be completed not later than
September 1, 2002.)) The evaluation shall be completed no later than
one year prior to the deadline for review and, if necessary, update of
comprehensive plans and development regulations as required by RCW
36.70A.130. The county and its cities may establish in the countywide
planning policies indicators, benchmarks, and other similar criteria to
use in conducting the evaluation;
(c) Provide for methods to resolve disputes among jurisdictions
relating to the countywide planning policies required by this section
and procedures to resolve inconsistencies in collection and analysis of
data; and
(d) Provide for the amendment of the countywide policies and county
and city comprehensive plans as needed to remedy an inconsistency
identified through the evaluation required by this section, or to bring
these policies into compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
(3) At a minimum, the evaluation component of the program required
by subsection (1) of this section shall:
(a) Determine whether there is sufficient suitable land to
accommodate the countywide population projection established for the
county pursuant to RCW 43.62.035 and the subsequent population
allocations within the county and between the county and its cities and
the requirements of RCW 36.70A.110;
(b) Determine the actual density of housing that has been
constructed and the actual amount of land developed for commercial and
industrial uses within the urban growth area since the adoption of a
comprehensive plan under this chapter or since the last periodic
evaluation as required by subsection (1) of this section; and
(c) Based on the actual density of development as determined under
(b) of this subsection, review commercial, industrial, and housing
needs by type and density range to determine the amount of land needed
for commercial, industrial, and housing for the remaining portion of
the twenty-year planning period used in the most recently adopted
comprehensive plan.
(4) If the evaluation required by subsection (3) of this section
demonstrates an inconsistency between what has occurred since the
adoption of the countywide planning policies and the county and city
comprehensive plans and development regulations and what was envisioned
in those policies and plans and the planning goals and the requirements
of this chapter, as the inconsistency relates to the evaluation factors
specified in subsection (3) of this section, the county and its cities
shall adopt and implement measures that are reasonably likely to
increase consistency during the subsequent five-year period. If
necessary, a county, in consultation with its cities as required by RCW
36.70A.210, shall adopt amendments to countywide planning policies to
increase consistency. The county and its cities shall annually monitor
the measures adopted under this subsection to determine their effect
and may revise or rescind them as appropriate.
(5)(a) Not later than July 1, 1998, the department shall prepare a
list of methods used by counties and cities in carrying out the types
of activities required by this section. The department shall provide
this information and appropriate technical assistance to counties and
cities required to or choosing to comply with the provisions of this
section.
(b) By December 31, 2007, the department shall submit to the
appropriate committees of the legislature a report analyzing the
effectiveness of the activities described in this section in achieving
the goals envisioned by the countywide planning policies and the
comprehensive plans and development regulations of the counties and
cities.
(6) From funds appropriated by the legislature for this purpose,
the department shall provide grants to counties, cities, and regional
planning organizations required under subsection (7) of this section to
conduct the review and perform the evaluation required by this section.
(7) The provisions of this section shall apply to counties, and the
cities within those counties, that were greater than one hundred fifty
thousand in population in 1995 as determined by office of financial
management population estimates and that are located west of the crest
of the Cascade mountain range. Any other county planning under RCW
36.70A.040 may carry out the review, evaluation, and amendment programs
and procedures as provided in this section.
Sec. 4 RCW 43.19.648 and 2009 c 459 s 7 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) Effective June 1, 2015, all state agencies ((and local
government subdivisions of the state)), to the extent determined
practicable by the rules adopted by the department of ((community,
trade, and economic development)) commerce pursuant to RCW 43.325.080,
are required to satisfy one hundred percent of their fuel usage for
operating publicly owned vessels, vehicles, and construction equipment
from electricity or biofuel.
(2) Effective June 1, 2018, all local government subdivisions of
the state, to the extent determined practicable by the rules adopted by
the department of commerce pursuant to RCW 43.325.080, are required to
satisfy one hundred percent of their fuel usage for operating publicly
owned vessels, vehicles, and construction equipment from electricity or
biofuel.
(3) In order to phase in this transition for the state, all state
agencies, to the extent determined practicable by the department of
((community, trade, and economic development)) commerce by rules
adopted pursuant to RCW 43.325.080, are required to achieve forty
percent fuel usage for operating publicly owned vessels, vehicles, and
construction equipment from electricity or biofuel by June 1, 2013.
The department of general administration, in consultation with the
department of ((community, trade, and economic development)) commerce,
shall report to the governor and the legislature by December 1, 2013,
on what percentage of the state's fuel usage is from electricity or
biofuel.
(((3))) (4) Except for cars owned or operated by the Washington
state patrol, when tires on vehicles in the state's motor vehicle fleet
are replaced, they must be replaced with tires that have the same or
better rolling resistance as the original tires.
(((4))) (5) By December 31, 2015, the state must, to the extent
practicable, install electrical outlets capable of charging electric
vehicles in each of the state's fleet parking and maintenance
facilities.
(((5))) (6) The department of transportation's obligations under
subsection (((2))) (3) of this section are subject to the availability
of amounts appropriated for the specific purpose identified in
subsection (((2))) (3) of this section.
(((6))) (7) The department of transportation's obligations under
subsection (((4))) (5) of this section are subject to the availability
of amounts appropriated for the specific purpose identified in
subsection (((4))) (5) of this section unless the department receives
federal or private funds for the specific purpose identified in
subsection (((4))) (5) of this section.
(((7))) (8) The definitions in this subsection apply throughout
this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
(a) "Battery charging station" means an electrical component
assembly or cluster of component assemblies designed specifically to
charge batteries within electric vehicles, which meet or exceed any
standards, codes, and regulations set forth by chapter 19.28 RCW and
consistent with rules adopted under RCW 19.27.540.
(b) "Battery exchange station" means a fully automated facility
that will enable an electric vehicle with a swappable battery to enter
a drive lane and exchange the depleted battery with a fully charged
battery through a fully automated process, which meets or exceeds any
standards, codes, and regulations set forth by chapter 19.28 RCW and
consistent with rules adopted under RCW 19.27.540.
Sec. 5 RCW 43.325.080 and 2007 c 348 s 204 are each amended to
read as follows:
(1) By June 1, 2010, the department shall adopt rules to define
practicability and clarify how state agencies ((and local government
subdivisions)) will be evaluated in determining whether they have met
the goals set out in RCW 43.19.648(1). At a minimum, the rules must
address:
(((1))) (a) Criteria for determining how the goal in RCW
43.19.648(1) will be met by June 1, 2015;
(((2))) (b) Factors considered to determine compliance with the
goal in RCW 43.19.648(1), including but not limited to: The regional
availability of fuels; vehicle costs; differences between types of
vehicles, vessels, or equipment; the cost of program implementation;
and cost differentials in different parts of the state; and
(((3))) (c) A schedule for phased-in progress towards meeting the
goal in RCW 43.19.648(1) that may include different schedules for
different fuel applications or different quantities of biofuels.
(2) By June 1, 2015, the department shall adopt rules to define
practicability and clarify how local government subdivisions of the
state will be evaluated in determining whether they have met the goals
set out in RCW 43.19.648(2). At a minimum, the rules must address:
(a) Criteria for determining how the goal in RCW 43.19.648(2) will
be met by June 1, 2018;
(b) Factors considered to determine compliance with the goal in RCW
43.19.648(2), including but not limited to: The regional availability
of fuels; vehicle costs; differences between types of vehicles,
vessels, or equipment; the cost of program implementation; and cost
differentials in different parts of the state; and
(c) A schedule for phased-in progress towards meeting the goal in
RCW 43.19.648(2) that may include different schedules for different
fuel applications or different quantities of biofuels.
Sec. 6 RCW 43.185C.210 and 2008 c 256 s 1 are each amended to
read as follows:
(1) The transitional housing operating and rent program is created
in the department to assist individuals and families who are homeless
or who are at risk of becoming homeless to secure and retain safe,
decent, and affordable housing. The department shall provide grants to
eligible organizations, as described in RCW 43.185.060, to provide
assistance to program participants. The eligible organizations must
use grant moneys for:
(a) Rental assistance, which includes security or utility deposits,
first and last month's rent assistance, and eligible moving expenses to
be determined by the department;
(b) Case management services designed to assist program
participants to secure and retain immediate housing and to transition
into permanent housing and greater levels of self-sufficiency;
(c) Operating expenses of transitional housing facilities that
serve homeless families with children; and
(d) Administrative costs of the eligible organization, which must
not exceed limits prescribed by the department.
(2) Eligible to receive assistance through the transitional housing
operating and rent program are:
(a) Families with children who are homeless or who are at risk of
becoming homeless and who have household incomes at or below fifty
percent of the median household income for their county;
(b) Families with children who are homeless or who are at risk of
becoming homeless and who are receiving services under chapter 13.34
RCW;
(c) Individuals or families without children who are homeless or at
risk of becoming homeless and who have household incomes at or below
thirty percent of the median household income for their county;
(d) Individuals or families who are homeless or who are at risk of
becoming homeless and who have a household with an adult member who has
a mental health or chemical dependency disorder; and
(e) Individuals or families who are homeless or who are at risk of
becoming homeless and who have a household with an adult member who is
an offender released from confinement within the past eighteen months.
(3) All program participants must be willing to create and actively
participate in a housing stability plan for achieving permanent housing
and greater levels of self-sufficiency.
(4) Data on all program participants must be entered into and
tracked through the Washington homeless client management information
system as described in RCW 43.185C.180. For eligible organizations
serving victims of domestic violence or sexual assault, compliance with
this subsection must be accomplished in accordance with 42 U.S.C. Sec.
11383(a)(8).
(5)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, beginning in
2011, each eligible organization receiving over five hundred thousand
dollars during the previous calendar year from the transitional housing
operating and rent program and from sources including: (((a))) (i)
State housing-related funding sources; (((b))) (ii) the affordable
housing for all surcharge in RCW 36.22.178; (((c))) (iii) the home
security fund surcharges in RCW 36.22.179 and 36.22.1791; and (((d)))
(iv) any other surcharge imposed under chapter 36.22 or 43.185C RCW to
fund homelessness programs or other housing programs, shall apply to
the Washington state quality award program for an independent
assessment of its quality management, accountability, and performance
system, once every three years.
(b) Cities and counties are exempt from the provisions of (a) of
this subsection until 2018.
(6) The department may develop rules, requirements, procedures, and
guidelines as necessary to implement and operate the transitional
housing operating and rent program.
(7) The department shall produce an annual transitional housing
operating and rent program report that must be included in the
department's homeless housing strategic plan as described in RCW
43.185C.040. The report must include performance measures to be
determined by the department that address, at a minimum, the following
issue areas:
(a) The success of the program in helping program participants
transition into permanent affordable housing and achieve self-sufficiency or increase their levels of self-sufficiency, which shall
be defined by the department based upon the costs of living, including
housing costs, needed to support: (i) One adult individual; and (ii)
two adult individuals and one preschool-aged child and one school-aged
child;
(b) The financial performance of the program related to efficient
program administration by the department and program operation by
selected eligible organizations, including an analysis of the costs per
program participant served;
(c) The quality, completeness, and timeliness of the information on
program participants provided to the Washington homeless client
management information system database; and
(d) The satisfaction of program participants in the assistance
provided through the program.
Sec. 7 RCW 46.68.113 and 2006 c 334 s 21 are each amended to read
as follows:
During the ((2003-2005)) 2013-2015 biennium, cities and towns shall
provide to the transportation commission, or its successor entity,
preservation rating information on at least seventy percent of the
total city and town arterial network. Thereafter, the preservation
rating information requirement shall increase in five percent
increments in subsequent biennia, but in no case shall it exceed eighty
percent. The rating system used by cities and towns must be based upon
the Washington state pavement rating method or an equivalent standard
approved by the department of transportation. Beginning January 1,
2007, the preservation rating information shall be submitted to the
department.
Sec. 8 RCW 82.02.070 and 2009 c 263 s 1 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and
retained in special interest-bearing accounts. Separate accounts shall
be established for each type of public facility for which impact fees
are collected. All interest shall be retained in the account and
expended for the purpose or purposes for which the impact fees were
imposed. Annually, each county, city, or town imposing impact fees
shall provide a report on each impact fee account showing the source
and amount of all moneys collected, earned, or received and system
improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees.
(2) Impact fees for system improvements shall be expended only in
conformance with the capital facilities plan element of the
comprehensive plan.
(3)(a) Except as provided otherwise by (b) of this subsection,
impact fees shall be expended or encumbered for a permissible use
within ((six)) ten years of receipt, unless there exists an
extraordinary and compelling reason for fees to be held longer than
((six)) ten years. Such extraordinary or compelling reasons shall be
identified in written findings by the governing body of the county,
city, or town.
(b) School impact fees must be expended or encumbered for a
permissible use within ten years of receipt, unless there exists an
extraordinary and compelling reason for fees to be held longer than ten
years. Such extraordinary or compelling reasons shall be identified in
written findings by the governing body of the county, city, or town.
(4) Impact fees may be paid under protest in order to obtain a
permit or other approval of development activity.
(5) Each county, city, or town that imposes impact fees shall
provide for an administrative appeals process for the appeal of an
impact fee; the process may follow the appeal process for the
underlying development approval or the county, city, or town may
establish a separate appeals process. The impact fee may be modified
upon a determination that it is proper to do so based on principles of
fairness. The county, city, or town may provide for the resolution of
disputes regarding impact fees by arbitration.
Sec. 9 RCW 82.02.080 and 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 s 47 are each
amended to read as follows:
(1) The current owner of property on which an impact fee has been
paid may receive a refund of such fees if the county, city, or town
fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within ((six)) ten years of
when the fees were paid or other such period of time established
pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(3) on public facilities intended to benefit
the development activity for which the impact fees were paid. In
determining whether impact fees have been encumbered, impact fees shall
be considered encumbered on a first in, first out basis. The county,
city, or town shall notify potential claimants by first-class mail
deposited with the United States postal service at the last known
address of claimants.
The request for a refund must be submitted to the county, city, or
town governing body in writing within one year of the date the right to
claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever is
later. Any impact fees that are not expended within these time
limitations, and for which no application for a refund has been made
within this one-year period, shall be retained and expended on the
indicated capital facilities. Refunds of impact fees under this
subsection shall include interest earned on the impact fees.
(2) When a county, city, or town seeks to terminate any or all
impact fee requirements, all unexpended or unencumbered funds,
including interest earned, shall be refunded pursuant to this section.
Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated,
the county, city, or town shall place notice of such termination and
the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at
least two times and shall notify all potential claimants by first-class
mail to the last known address of claimants. All funds available for
refund shall be retained for a period of one year. At the end of one
year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the local government,
but must be expended for the indicated public facilities. This notice
requirement shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered
balances within an account or accounts being terminated.
(3) A developer may request and shall receive a refund, including
interest earned on the impact fees, when the developer does not proceed
with the development activity and no impact has resulted.
Sec. 10 RCW 82.14.415 and 2009 c 550 s 1 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) The legislative authority of any city that is located in a
county with a population greater than six hundred thousand that annexes
an area consistent with its comprehensive plan required by chapter
36.70A RCW((,)) may impose a sales and use tax in accordance with the
terms of this chapter. The tax is in addition to other taxes
authorized by law and ((shall be)) is collected from those persons who
are taxable by the state under chapters 82.08 and 82.12 RCW upon the
occurrence of any taxable event within the city. The tax may only be
imposed by a city if:
(a) The city has commenced annexation of an area having a
population of at least ten thousand people, or four thousand in the
case of a city described under subsection (3)(a)(i) of this section,
prior to January 1, 2015; and
(b) The city legislative authority determines by resolution or
ordinance that the projected cost to provide municipal services to the
annexation area exceeds the projected general revenue that the city
would otherwise receive from the annexation area on an annual basis.
(2) The tax authorized under this section is a credit against the
state tax under chapter 82.08 or 82.12 RCW. The department of revenue
((shall)) must perform the collection of such taxes on behalf of the
city at no cost to the city and ((shall)) must remit the tax to the
city as provided in RCW 82.14.060.
(3)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, the maximum
rate of tax any city may impose under this section is:
(i) 0.1 percent for each annexed area in which the population is
greater than ten thousand and less than twenty thousand. The ten
thousand population threshold in this subsection (3)(a)(i) is four
thousand for a city with a population between one hundred fifteen
thousand and one hundred forty thousand and located within a county
with a population over one million five hundred thousand; and
(ii) 0.2 percent for an annexed area in which the population is
greater than twenty thousand.
(b) Beginning July 1, 2011, the maximum rate of tax imposed under
this section is 0.85 percent for an annexed area in which the
population is greater than ((eighteen)) sixteen thousand if the annexed
area was, prior to November 1, 2008, officially designated as a
potential annexation area by more than one city, one of which has a
population greater than four hundred thousand.
(4)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, the maximum
cumulative rate of tax a city may impose under subsection (3)(a) of
this section is 0.2 percent for the total number of annexed areas the
city may annex.
(b) The maximum cumulative rate of tax a city may impose under
subsection (3)(a) of this section is 0.3 percent, beginning July 1,
2011, if the city commenced annexation of an area, prior to January 1,
2010, that would have otherwise allowed the city to increase the rate
of tax imposed under this section absent the rate limit imposed in (a)
of this subsection.
(c) The maximum cumulative rate of tax a city may impose under
subsection (3)(b) of this section is 0.85 percent for the single
annexed area the city may annex and the amount of tax distributed to a
city under subsection (3)(b) of this section ((shall)) may not exceed
five million dollars per fiscal year.
(5) The tax imposed by this section ((shall)) may only be imposed
at the beginning of a fiscal year and ((shall)) may continue for no
more than ten years from the date that each increment of the tax is
first imposed. Tax rate increases due to additional annexed areas
((shall be)) are effective on July 1st of the fiscal year following the
fiscal year in which the annexation occurred, provided that notice is
given to the department as set forth in subsection (9) of this section.
(6) All revenue collected under this section ((shall)) may be used
solely to provide, maintain, and operate municipal services for the
annexation area.
(7) The revenues from the tax authorized in this section may not
exceed that which the city deems necessary to generate revenue equal to
the difference between the city's cost to provide, maintain, and
operate municipal services for the annexation area and the general
revenues that the cities would otherwise expect to receive from the
annexation during a year. If the revenues from the tax authorized in
this section and the revenues from the annexation area exceed the costs
to the city to provide, maintain, and operate municipal services for
the annexation area during a given year, the city ((shall)) must notify
the department and the tax distributions authorized in this section
((shall)) must be suspended for the remainder of the year.
(8) No tax may be imposed under this section before July 1, 2007.
Before imposing a tax under this section, the legislative authority of
a city ((shall)) must adopt an ordinance that includes the following:
(a) A certification that the amount needed to provide municipal
services to the annexed area reflects the city's true and actual costs;
(b) The rate of tax under this section that ((shall be)) is imposed
within the city; and
(c) The threshold amount for the first fiscal year following the
annexation and passage of the ordinance.
(9) The tax ((shall)) must cease to be distributed to the city for
the remainder of the fiscal year once the threshold amount has been
reached. No later than March 1st of each year, the city ((shall)) must
provide the department with a certification of the city's true and
actual costs to provide municipal services to the annexed area, a new
threshold amount for the next fiscal year, and notice of any applicable
tax rate changes. Distributions of tax under this section ((shall))
must begin again on July 1st of the next fiscal year and continue until
the new threshold amount has been reached or June 30th, whichever is
sooner. Any revenue generated by the tax in excess of the threshold
amount ((shall)) belongs to the state of Washington. Any amount
resulting from the threshold amount less the total fiscal year
distributions, as of June 30th, ((shall)) may not be carried forward to
the next fiscal year.
(10) The tax ((shall)) must cease to be distributed to a city
imposing the tax under subsection (3)(b) of this section for the
remainder of the fiscal year, if the total distributions to the city
imposing the tax exceed five million dollars for the fiscal year.
(11) The resident population of the annexation area must be
determined in accordance with chapter 35.13 or 35A.14 RCW.
(12) The following definitions apply throughout this section unless
the context clearly requires otherwise:
(a) "Annexation area" means an area that has been annexed to a city
under chapter 35.13 or 35A.14 RCW. "Annexation area" includes all
territory described in the city resolution.
(b) "Commenced annexation" means the initiation of annexation
proceedings has taken place under the direct petition method or the
election method under chapter 35.13 or 35A.14 RCW.
(c) "Department" means the department of revenue.
(d) "Municipal services" means those services customarily provided
to the public by city government.
(e) "Fiscal year" means the year beginning July 1st and ending the
following June 30th.
(f) "Potential annexation area" means one or more geographic areas
that a city has officially designated for potential future annexation,
as part of its comprehensive plan adoption process under the state
growth management act, chapter 36.70A RCW.
(g) "Threshold amount" means the maximum amount of tax
distributions as determined by the city in accordance with subsection
(7) of this section that the department ((shall)) must distribute to
the city generated from the tax imposed under this section in a fiscal
year.
Sec. 11 RCW 90.46.015 and 2009 c 456 s 2 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) The department of ecology shall, in coordination with the
department of health, adopt rules for reclaimed water use consistent
with this chapter. The rules must address all aspects of reclaimed
water use, including commercial and industrial uses, land applications,
direct groundwater recharge, wetland discharge, surface percolation,
constructed wetlands, and streamflow or surface water augmentation.
The department of health shall, in coordination with the department of
ecology, adopt rules for greywater reuse. The rules must also
designate whether the department of ecology or the department of health
will be the lead agency responsible for a particular aspect of
reclaimed water use. In developing the rules, the departments of
health and ecology shall amend or rescind any existing rules on
reclaimed water in conflict with the new rules.
(2) All rules required to be adopted pursuant to this section must
be completed no later than December 31, 2010, ((although the department
of ecology is encouraged to adopt the final rules as soon as possible))
except that the department of ecology shall adopt rules for reclaimed
water use no earlier than June 30, 2013.
(3) The department of ecology must consult with the advisory
committee created under RCW 90.46.050 in all aspects of rule
development required under this section.
Sec. 12 RCW 90.48.260 and 2007 c 341 s 55 are each amended to
read as follows:
(1) The department of ecology is hereby designated as the state
water pollution control agency for all purposes of the federal clean
water act as it exists on February 4, 1987, and is hereby authorized to
participate fully in the programs of the act as well as to take all
action necessary to secure to the state the benefits and to meet the
requirements of that act. With regard to the national estuary program
established by section 320 of that act, the department shall exercise
its responsibility jointly with the Puget Sound partnership, created in
RCW 90.71.210. The department of ecology may delegate its authority
under this chapter, including its national pollutant discharge
elimination permit system authority and duties regarding animal feeding
operations and concentrated animal feeding operations, to the
department of agriculture through a memorandum of understanding. Until
any such delegation receives federal approval, the department of
agriculture's adoption or issuance of animal feeding operation and
concentrated animal feeding operation rules, permits, programs, and
directives pertaining to water quality shall be accomplished after
reaching agreement with the director of the department of ecology.
Adoption or issuance and implementation shall be accomplished so that
compliance with such animal feeding operation and concentrated animal
feeding operation rules, permits, programs, and directives will achieve
compliance with all federal and state water pollution control laws.
The powers granted herein include, among others, and notwithstanding
any other provisions of chapter 90.48 RCW or otherwise, the following:
(((1))) (a) Complete authority to establish and administer a
comprehensive state point source waste discharge or pollution discharge
elimination permit program which will enable the department to qualify
for full participation in any national waste discharge or pollution
discharge elimination permit system and will allow the department to be
the sole agency issuing permits required by such national system
operating in the state of Washington subject to the provisions of RCW
90.48.262(2). Program elements authorized herein may include, but are
not limited to: (((a))) (i) Effluent treatment and limitation
requirements together with timing requirements related thereto; (((b)))
(ii) applicable receiving water quality standards requirements; (((c)))
(iii) requirements of standards of performance for new sources; (((d)))
(iv) pretreatment requirements; (((e))) (v) termination and
modification of permits for cause; (((f))) (vi) requirements for public
notices and opportunities for public hearings; (((g))) (vii)
appropriate relationships with the secretary of the army in the
administration of his responsibilities which relate to anchorage and
navigation, with the administrator of the environmental protection
agency in the performance of his duties, and with other governmental
officials under the federal clean water act; (((h))) (viii)
requirements for inspection, monitoring, entry, and reporting; (((i)))
(ix) enforcement of the program through penalties, emergency powers,
and criminal sanctions; (((j))) (x) a continuing planning process; and
(((k))) (xi) user charges.
(((2))) (b) The power to establish and administer state programs in
a manner which will insure the procurement of moneys, whether in the
form of grants, loans, or otherwise; to assist in the construction,
operation, and maintenance of various water pollution control
facilities and works; and the administering of various state water
pollution control management, regulatory, and enforcement programs.
(((3))) (c) The power to develop and implement appropriate programs
pertaining to continuing planning processes, area-wide waste treatment
management plans, and basin planning.
The governor shall have authority to perform those actions required
of him or her by the federal clean water act.
(2) By July 31, 2012, the department shall:
(a) Reissue without modification and for a term of one year any
national pollutant discharge elimination system municipal storm water
general permit first issued on January 17, 2007; and
(b) Issue an updated national pollutant discharge elimination
system municipal storm water general permit for any permit first issued
on January 17, 2007. An updated permit issued under this subsection
shall become effective beginning August 1, 2013.
Sec. 13 RCW 90.58.080 and 2007 c 170 s 1 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) Local governments shall develop or amend a master program for
regulation of uses of the shorelines of the state consistent with the
required elements of the guidelines adopted by the department in
accordance with the schedule established by this section.
(2)(a) Subject to the provisions of subsections (5) and (6) of this
section, each local government subject to this chapter shall develop or
amend its master program for the regulation of uses of shorelines
within its jurisdiction according to the following schedule:
(i) On or before December 1, 2005, for the city of Port Townsend,
the city of Bellingham, the city of Everett, Snohomish county, and
Whatcom county;
(ii) On or before December 1, 2009, for King county and the cities
within King county greater in population than ten thousand;
(iii) Except as provided by (a)(i) and (ii) of this subsection, on
or before December 1, 2011, for Clallam, Clark, Jefferson, King,
Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston, and Whatcom counties and the
cities within those counties;
(iv) On or before December 1, 2012, for Cowlitz, Island, Lewis,
Mason, San Juan, Skagit, and Skamania counties and the cities within
those counties;
(v) On or before December 1, 2013, for Benton, Chelan, Douglas,
Grant, Kittitas, Spokane, and Yakima counties and the cities within
those counties; and
(vi) On or before December 1, 2014, 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.
(b) Nothing in this subsection (2) shall preclude a local
government from developing or amending its master program prior to the
dates established by this subsection (2).
(3)(a) Following approval by the department of a new or amended
master program, local governments required to develop or amend master
programs on or before December 1, 2009, as provided by subsection
(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of this section, shall be deemed to have complied
with the schedule established by subsection (2)(a)(iii) of this section
and shall not be required to complete master program amendments until
((seven years after)) the applicable dates established by subsection
(((2)(a)(iii))) (4)(b) of this section. Any jurisdiction listed in
subsection (2)(a)(i) of this section that has a new or amended master
program approved by the department on or after March 1, 2002, but
before July 27, 2003, shall not be required to complete master program
amendments until ((seven years after)) the applicable date provided by
subsection (((2)(a)(iii))) (4)(b) of this section.
(b) Following approval by the department of a new or amended master
program, local governments choosing to develop or amend master programs
on or before December 1, 2009, shall be deemed to have complied with
the schedule established by subsection (2)(a)(iii) through (vi) of this
section and shall not be required to complete master program amendments
until ((seven years after)) the applicable dates established by
subsection (((2)(a)(iii) through (vi))) (4)(b) of this section.
(4)(a) Following the updates required by subsection (2) of this
section, local governments shall conduct a review of their master
programs at least once every ((seven)) eight years ((after the
applicable dates established by subsection (2)(a)(iii) through (vi) of
this section)) as required by (b) of this subsection. Following the
review required by this subsection (4), local governments shall, if
necessary, revise their master programs. The purpose of the review is:
(((a))) (i) To assure that the master program complies with
applicable law and guidelines in effect at the time of the review; and
(((b))) (ii) To assure consistency of the master program with the
local government's comprehensive plan and development regulations
adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, if applicable, and other local
requirements.
(b) Counties and cities shall take action to review and, if
necessary, revise their master programs as required by (a) of this
subsection as follows:
(i) On or before June 30, 2019, and every eight years thereafter,
for King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties and the cities within those
counties;
(ii) On or before June 30, 2020, 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;
(iii) On or before June 30, 2021, and every eight years thereafter,
for Benton, Chelan, Cowlitz, Douglas, Grant, Kittitas, Lewis, Skamania,
Spokane, and Yakima counties and the cities within those counties; and
(iv) On or before June 30, 2022, 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.
(5) In meeting the update requirements of subsection (2) of this
section, local governments are encouraged to begin the process of
developing or amending their master programs early and are eligible for
grants from the department as provided by RCW 90.58.250, subject to
available funding. Except for those local governments listed in
subsection (2)(a)(i) and (ii) of this section, the deadline for
completion of the new or amended master programs shall be two years
after the date the grant is approved by the department. Subsequent
master program review dates shall not be altered by the provisions of
this subsection.
(6) In meeting the update requirements of subsection (2) of this
section, the following shall apply:
(a) Grants to local governments for developing and amending master
programs pursuant to the schedule established by this section shall be
provided at least two years before the adoption dates specified in
subsection (2) of this section. To the extent possible, the department
shall allocate grants within the amount appropriated for such purposes
to provide reasonable and adequate funding to local governments that
have indicated their intent to develop or amend master programs during
the biennium according to the schedule established by subsection (2) of
this section. Any local government that applies for but does not
receive funding to comply with the provisions of subsection (2) of this
section may delay the development or amendment of its master program
until the following biennium.
(b) Local governments with delayed compliance dates as provided in
(a) of this subsection shall be the first priority for funding in
subsequent biennia, and the development or amendment compliance
deadline for those local governments shall be two years after the date
of grant approval.
(c) Failure of the local government to apply in a timely manner for
a master program development or amendment grant in accordance with the
requirements of the department shall not be considered a delay
resulting from the provisions of (a) of this subsection.
(7) ((Notwithstanding the provisions)) In meeting the update
requirements of subsection (2) of this section, all local governments
subject to the requirements of this chapter that have not developed or
amended master programs on or after March 1, 2002, shall, no later than
December 1, 2014, develop or amend their master programs to comply with
guidelines adopted by the department after January 1, 2003.
(8) In meeting the update requirements of subsection (2) of this
section, local governments may be provided an additional year beyond
the deadlines in this section to complete their master program or
amendment. The department shall grant the request if it determines
that the local government is likely to adopt or amend its master
program within the additional year.
Sec. 14 RCW 90.58.090 and 2003 c 321 s 3 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) A master program, segment of a master program, or an amendment
to a master program shall become effective when approved by the
department. Within the time period provided in RCW 90.58.080, each
local government shall have submitted a master program, either totally
or by segments, for all shorelines of the state within its jurisdiction
to the department for review and approval.
The department shall strive to achieve final action on a submitted
master program within one hundred eighty days of receipt and shall post
an annual assessment related to this performance benchmark on the
agency web site.
(2) Upon receipt of a proposed master program or amendment, the
department shall:
(a) Provide notice to and opportunity for written comment by all
interested parties of record as a part of the local government review
process for the proposal and to all persons, groups, and agencies that
have requested in writing notice of proposed master programs or
amendments generally or for a specific area, subject matter, or issue.
The comment period shall be at least thirty days, unless the department
determines that the level of complexity or controversy involved
supports a shorter period;
(b) In the department's discretion, conduct a public hearing during
the thirty-day comment period in the jurisdiction proposing the master
program or amendment;
(c) Within fifteen days after the close of public comment, request
the local government to review the issues identified by the public,
interested parties, groups, and agencies and provide a written response
as to how the proposal addresses the identified issues;
(d) Within thirty days after receipt of the local government
response pursuant to (c) of this subsection, make written findings and
conclusions regarding the consistency of the proposal with the policy
of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines, provide a response to
the issues identified in (c) of this subsection, and either approve the
proposal as submitted, recommend specific changes necessary to make the
proposal approvable, or deny approval of the proposal in those
instances where no alteration of the proposal appears likely to be
consistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable
guidelines. The written findings and conclusions shall be provided to
the local government, all interested persons, parties, groups, and
agencies of record on the proposal;
(e) If the department recommends changes to the proposed master
program or amendment, within thirty days after the department mails the
written findings and conclusions to the local government, the local
government may:
(i) Agree to the proposed changes. The receipt by the department
of the written notice of agreement constitutes final action by the
department approving the amendment; or
(ii) Submit an alternative proposal. If, in the opinion of the
department, the alternative is consistent with the purpose and intent
of the changes originally submitted by the department and with this
chapter it shall approve the changes and provide written notice to all
recipients of the written findings and conclusions. If the department
determines the proposal is not consistent with the purpose and intent
of the changes proposed by the department, the department may resubmit
the proposal for public and agency review pursuant to this section or
reject the proposal.
(3) The department shall approve the segment of a master program
relating to shorelines unless it determines that the submitted segments
are not consistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable
guidelines.
(4) The department shall approve the segment of a master program
relating to critical areas as defined by RCW 36.70A.030(5) provided the
master program segment is consistent with RCW 90.58.020 and applicable
shoreline guidelines, and if the segment provides a level of protection
of critical areas at least equal to that provided by the local
government's critical areas ordinances adopted and thereafter amended
pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060(2).
(5) The department shall approve those segments of the master
program relating to shorelines of statewide significance only after
determining the program provides the optimum implementation of the
policy of this chapter to satisfy the statewide interest. If the
department does not approve a segment of a local government master
program relating to a shoreline of statewide significance, the
department may develop and by rule adopt an alternative to the local
government's proposal.
(6) In the event a local government has not complied with the
requirements of RCW 90.58.070 it may thereafter upon written notice to
the department elect to adopt a master program for the shorelines
within its jurisdiction, in which event it shall comply with the
provisions established by this chapter for the adoption of a master
program for such shorelines.
Upon approval of such master program by the department it shall
supersede such master program as may have been adopted by the
department for such shorelines.
(7) A master program or amendment to a master program takes effect
when and in such form as approved or adopted by the department.
Shoreline master programs that were adopted by the department prior to
July 22, 1995, in accordance with the provisions of this section then
in effect, shall be deemed approved by the department in accordance
with the provisions of this section that became effective on that date.
The department shall maintain a record of each master program, the
action taken on any proposal for adoption or amendment of the master
program, and any appeal of the department's action. The department's
approved document of record constitutes the official master program.