Land Use & Housing

Annexation Reform

Three AWC priority bills addressing annexation reform are scheduled for hearing at 8 am on Thursday, February 15, before the House Local Government Committee. AWC appreciates all of these bills being scheduled together.

AWC Priority
Harmonizing Petition-Method Annexation Requirements between Code and Non-Code Cities (HB 2005)

For reasons no longer remembered in Olympia, older non-code charter cities must obtain the agreement of owners of no less than seventy-five percent of a potential annexation area’s assessed value in order to use the petition-method of annexation, while in all code cities (most cities in the state), the requirement is sixty percent. HB 2005 provides for a consistent sixty percent requirement.

AWC Priority
Authorizing an Optional Interlocal Agreement Method of Annexation (HB 2006)

This bill authorizes, but does not require, a new method of annexation. This new method would allow a city and its county to enter into an interlocal agreement outlining annexation steps that would occur over time inside the unincorporated parts of GMA-designated urban growth area boundaries. The city and county determine the contents of the interlocal agreement, which could include revenue sharing, timing of annexations, services transition agreements, and other provisions. Public hearings must be held prior to adoption of any such agreement.

AWC Priority
Expediting Transfer of Property Tax Receipts Upon Annexation (HB 2031)

When cities annex areas that include territory either in a fire or library district, the responsibility of providing fire or library services transfers immediately to the annexing city. The city can contract back with either district for service continuance or, if the city has its own or a different service provider, the services will be provided by that entity. Under current law, the distribution of property tax revenues for fire and library districts does not transfer immediately upon annexation and can take up to two years to transfer. This bill would expedite those transfers while protecting the interests of the districts.

AWC Priority
Growth Management Act (GMA) Urban Growth Area Boundary Issues (HB 2045)

Under current law, the twenty-nine GMA-planning counties each establish and are responsible for modifying urban growth area boundaries, within which most growth occurs. Each city is automatically in an urban growth area and the counties must consult with cities on the size and shape of the urban growth area boundaries beyond the city limits.

HB 2045 changes this relationship by requiring that the city agree to future changes before they happen. This bill also establishes that counties can not create, near cities, urban growth areas that do not include any cities, without first obtaining agreement from the nearby city or any cities within one mile. Finally, the bill requires counties to establish, by a certain time, development regulations in the unincorporated portion of an urban growth area that are consistent with those of the city. This bill is also scheduled for Hearing in the House Local Government Committee at 8 am on Thursday, February 15.

AWC Priority
Best Available Science (HB 2046, HB 1781)

One of the contentious issues that surfaced before and during the recent debate and election on the so-called "property fairness" initiative was the appropriate role of "best available science" when local governments identify and protect environmentally-sensitive areas from development.

HB 2046 attempts to address the difficulty of finding and applying this science by removing the reference to "best available science" in statute and replacing it with a scientific method embedded in the Shoreline Management Act. This method has been in use for over thirty years and stipulates a process to follow for finding and applying science when protecting environmentally sensitive lands.

HB 2046 also incorporates an idea found in another AWC supported bill, HB 1781, that would allow one city to use another city’s environmental protection ordinances for the same types of lands without having to look for or create their own scientific materials. The intent is to save time and money and protect the sensitive areas. HB 2046 is scheduled for Hearing in the House Local Government Committee at 8 am on Thursday, February 15.

Bills Scheduled for Hearings Next Week that are of Concern to Cities

Lands Suitable for Development in Cities/Urban Areas (HB 1918)

HB 1918 is sponsored by the Association of Washington Business. It provides that, after January 1, 2006, if a fully-planning GMA county or city amends its comprehensive plan or development regulations in such a way as to preclude development on any piece of land, that county or city must determine how much land can not be built upon and replace it with land suitable for development somewhere else. The bill does not appear to allow credit for transferring development potential from one part of a parcel to another, something frequently done by cities.

Siting Industrial Development Outside GMA Cities and Urban Growth Areas (HB 1925, HB 1965)

Since the mid-1990’s, there have been statutory provisions agreed to by AWC that would allow industrial development outside urban growth areas, but only under circumstances where it can be proven that there is not sufficient or available lands for such development inside a nearby city or urban growth area. To date, no such "reserves" for industrial development have resulted in actual development.

HB 1925 seeks to remove a time limit by which such designations can be made in certain counties and HB 1965 seeks changes in what had been carefully-negotiated conditions concerning where and how these areas can be designated. Both of these bills are scheduled for a hearing in the House Local Government Committee at 1:30 pm on Tuesday, February 13.

AWC is reviewing these bills carefully and welcomes input from interested cities. Please contact Dave Williams, davew@awcnet.org, or Tim Gugerty, timg@awcnet.org, prior to the hearing.

Eminent Domain "Buy Back" Provisions for Unused Lands (HB 2016)

When a city, county or other authorized entity obtains lands through the eminent domain process, there may be instances where not all of the land, or portions of the land, are not used for the project – such as strips of land adjacent to a road project.

HB 2016 dictates that left-over or unused lands which are subsequently put up for sale must first be offered to the person from whom they were first acquired. AWC supports this approach if it can be done in such a way as not to conflict with the prohibition on providing a gift of public funds (i.e., selling something back at less than fair market value). We are seeking input from experts in this field and will provide comments during the public hearing before the House Judiciary Committee at 8:00 am on Friday, February 16.

[ previous article ] [ return to top ] [ next article ]