HOUSE BILL REPORT

2SHB 1174

BYHouse Committee on Appropriations (originally sponsored by Representatives Phillips, Wood, Haugen, Ferguson, Rayburn, Horn, Raiter, Wolfe, Cooper, Nutley, Todd, Doty, Hine, Winsley, Jones, Nelson, Sayan and Ebersole;by request of Governor Gardner)

Creating a procedure for local government service agreements.

House Committe on Local Government

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (14)

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

House Staff:Steve Lundin (786-7127)

Rereferred House Committee on Appropriations

Majority Report:  The second substitute bill be substituted therefor and the second substitute bill do pass.  (28)

      Signed by Representatives Locke, Chair; Grant, Vice Chair; H. Sommers, Vice Chair; Silver, Ranking Republican Member; Youngsman, Assistant Ranking Republican Member; Appelwick, Belcher, Bowman, Braddock, Brekke, Dorn, Doty, Ebersole, Ferguson, Hine, Holland, May, McLean, Nealey, Padden, Peery, Rust, Sayan, Spanel, Sprenkle, Valle, Wang and Wineberry.

House Staff:      Susan Nakagawa (786-7136)

AS PASSED HOUSE JANUARY 12, 1990

BACKGROUND:

The Local Governance Study Commission was established in 1986 to study local government in the state and make recommendations to the Legislature for changes in laws that were felt to be necessary.  This commission had twenty-one members, and three ex- officio, nonvoting, members.  The twenty-one members included four Senators, four Representatives, four city-elected officials, four county-elected officials, and five persons representing special districts.  The ex-officio, nonvoting, members were the director of the Department of Community Affairs, who chaired the meetings, and the executive directors of the Associations of Washington Cities and the Washington State Association of Counties.

This legislation implements a portion of the recommendations from this commission.

Statutes provide procedures by which cities, towns, and approximately 65 different types of special districts can be created.  Thirty-nine counties exist in the state.  Two hundred sixty-six cities and towns exist in the state, and hundreds of different special districts exist in the state.

The Interlocal Agreement Act authorizes local governments to enter into relationships as follows:  (1) two or more local governments that each have the authority to provide the same service or facility can enter into a contract by which one government provides the service or facility for the other local government or governments; and (2) two or more local governments that each have the authority to provide the same service or facility can enter into agreements to jointly provide the service or facility.  Every party to an interlocal agreement or interlocal contract must approve the agreement or contract.

SUMMARY:

This legislation implements a portion of the constitutional amendment recommended by the Local Governance Study Commission by establishing a process for local governments to enter into binding local government service agreements for the provision of local governmental services and the development of local policies, that could include the transfer of services and revenues between existing local governments.

A local government service agreement concerning one or more local governmental services may be established.  An agreement becomes binding on local governments within a geographic area defined in the agreement if approved by:

(1)  The county legislative authority of each county that has territory included within the defined area;

(2)  The governing bodies of at least a simple majority of the total number of cities that include territory located within the defined area, which cities include at least 75 percent of the total population of all the cities that include territory located within the defined area; and

(3)  For each governmental service addressed in an agreement, the governing bodies of at least a single majority of the special districts that include territory within the defined area and which provide that governmental service.

Such an agreement may cover an area that includes territory located in more than a single county.

A local government service agreement may address any local governmental service, but may not address the generation, conservation or distribution of electrical energy, nor maritime shipping activities.  A school district may not be a party to, nor be affected by, a local government service agreement.  Revenues may not be transferred from a port district, or transferred to a port district, unless the local government from which the revenues are transferred approves the agreement.

A local government service agreement must describe: (1) the local governmental service or services addressed by the agreement; (2) the geographic area covered by the agreement; (3) which government or governments are to provide the local governmental service or services within the geographic area; and (4) the term of the agreement, which may not exceed ten years.

A variety of matters may be included in an agreement, such as: (1) how joint land-use controls and common development standards are established and enforced; (2) how capital improvement plans are coordinated; (3) transferring revenues between local governments; (4) urban area definitions to indicate areas that eventually should be located within a city or cities; and (5) designating area-wide governmental services to be provided by the county.

The county legislative authority of each county with a population of 100,000 or more must convene a meeting on or before March 1, 1990, to consider establishing such an agreement.  Invitations must be sent to the governing bodies of all local governments within the county.  On or before January 1, 1992, at least one agreement must be in effect in each county with a population of 100,000 or more, or the county legislative authority must submit an explanation to the Department of Community Development detailing why such an agreement was not made.  However, if no funds are appropriated to the Department of Community Development to be used as grants for local governments, this mandate is removed.

A boundary review board shall be abolished within a county if the director of community development certifies that such an agreement has been established in the county that includes a dispute resolution arrangement adequate to resolve disputes over matters within the purview of a boundary review board, and resolutions providing for the dissolution have been adopted by the county legislative authority and the governing bodies of the cities that constitute at least 50 percent of the population of the county residing in cities.

The Department of Community Development is authorized to: (1) make grants to local governments to assist in developing such agreements from moneys appropriated for such purposes; (2) design a financial methodology to assist local governments in assessing the need for financial adjustments between local governments arising from implementation of such agreements; (3) provide mediation services to resolve disputes arising over matters addressed in such agreements; and (4) undertake one or more demonstration projects with local governments to develop such agreements.

This act does not become effective unless the constitutional amendment authorizing the local government service agreement process is approved by the voters.

Fiscal Note:      Available.

Effective Date:At the next General Election, if a constitutional amendment authorizing this process is approved by the voters.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    (Local Government) Chuck Clarke, Director, Department of Community Development; Larry Sundquist, Building Industry of Washington; Don White, Washington Public Ports Association; Roger Ferris, Washington Fire Commissioners Association; Jim Metcalf, Washington State Association of Counties; Mark Allen, Washington Library Association; Kent Swisher, Association of Washington Cities.

(Appropriations) Chuck Clarke, Director, Department of Community Development; Kent Swisher, Association of Washington Cities; Dave Rogers, Washington Public Ports Association.

House Committee - Testified Against:      (Local Government) Jim Boldt, Public Utility Districts.

(Appropriations) None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:    (Local Government) This will allow local officials to establish agreements to provide governmental services in the most appropriate manner to fit local circumstances.  At the centennial celebration of this state it is most appropriate that a process be provided for local officials to possess this authority.

(Appropriations) This legislation encourages efficient local government. Department of Community Development can do the non-grant provision without additional appropriations.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      (Local Government) Public utility districts should be exempted.

(Appropriations) None Presented.

VOTE ON FINAL PASSAGE:

      Yeas 98